Well, it's at least as likely as the government's claims:
quote:Many American youngsters participating in federally funded, abstinence-only programs have been taught in the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teen-agers in the United States have tested positive for the HIV virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Niiiice of the government to teach such "facts" in schools.
quote: Among the misconceptions Waxman's investigators cited:
>A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
>HIV, the virus that precedes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
>Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
Can you say Right-Wing Agenda?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Arafat has AIDS because he was gay and he died of AIDS and gayness. Apparently.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
The conservatives are so na�ve to think that eliminating the opportunity (abstaining) will eliminate the problems. Fucking ostrich-method.
"Bill Smith /.../ said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support."
They are ignorant! They want to relive the 1950's, where kiddies followed curfew hours and masturbation caused spinal diseases.
Suddenly I get the urge to send huge amounts of money to feminist organisations.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:masturbation caused spinal diseases.
Could be true, of course it would depend on how you masturbate.
What American needs is a constitutional ammendment which bars pre-marital sex. That would solve the problem. A ban on gay marriages is going to make gays go away, right?
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Spinal injury maybe, for those who hang from chandoliers and powerfap, but diseases? Only if you whack off in a glove full of rusty needles.
Speaking of fap, I was just going to say that I discovered what my future pornstar name will be (Harry Palms) but a quick search showed that it was taken. GRRR. Apparently he starred in "XXX Trek - The Final Orgasm".
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Was that with Jen Lic Prickhard?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Based on my steadily slipping level of sanity, I'd say that abstinance causes *something*... don't know about stupidity.
My question is, can't abstinance be taught without resorting to lies, misinformation, fear and generally all kinds of crap that makes these people look they they think they're wrong to begin with?
I was taught abstinence... it's called having parents who care about what I do with my life. Why is this being taught in schools anyway? And please tell me those kids in that study didn't get paid not to have sex. If they did, the government owes me some cash.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The revelation that Alan has forsworn playing Hide The Sausage shakes me to the core.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Morality disguised as facts.
I saw the movie "Kinsey" this past weekend. It's about the life and work of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who basically pioneered studies of sexual behaviors and made sex "normal". It is amazing how far we've come in terms of sexual openness and depressing how some things stay the same.
Here is a review of it by Roger Ebert with a synopsis: Kinsey review Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"My question is, can't abstinance be taught without resorting to lies, misinformation, fear..."
Well, no, not so much. I mean, which do you think will get more results? "Don't have sex because YOU WILL DIE HORRIBLY!!!" or "Don't have sex because it makes baby Jesus cry"?
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
Hello? Purtanism. Sex is bad, donchaknow.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Of course abstenence can be taught without resorting to misinformation and fear. Example: "Condoms. Made like this, work like this, protect against some diseases, have q% failure rate at preventing pregnancy. Birth control pills. Made like this, work like this, protect against NO diseases, minimal failure rate if used correctly, but you damn well better use 'em correctly. X, Y, and Z side effects. Abstinence. Prevents all sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, always." Manipulating people to get them to act how you want is always going to backfire when applied on a large scale. The best you can do is give them accurate information with which to make their own decision.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Actually, to the Puritans, sex was bad only if you weren't married.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Prevents all sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, always."
The fact that people need to be said that not having sex will prevent them from causing pregnencies is perhaps the scariest thing.
"Hey kids, if you don't want to get fat, why don't you solder your lips together so that no food can enter them? You'll be dropping pounds in no time."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim': ... and masturbation caused spinal diseases.
Actually, regarding masturbation... Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote: OTTAWA - Canada will raise a small flag of independence during George W. Bush's visit this week, when it announces a major funding increase for a United Nations program boycotted by the Bush administration.
While Bush is still in Canada, International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll will unveil an almost 40 per cent increase in annual contributions to the U.N. Population Fund. The U.S. has refused to support the fund for the past three years because it contends that the program encourages forced abortions in China. ... According to the program's own estimates, the money the U.S. has withdrawn since 2002 could have helped prevent more than 6 million unwanted pregnancies, 2.4 million abortions, more than 14,000 maternal deaths and more than 200,000 child deaths.
Moreover, the Bush administration has failed to prove any of the allegations against the U.N. Population Fund. A fact-finding mission by its own state department earlier this year actually concluded that the claims about support for abortion in China were groundless.
The state department report of May stated: "Based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the (People's Republic of China). Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices."
Note that the US only contributed $34 million per year in the first place while the domestic program that was linked to in the first place cost $900 million over five years.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
We had the kitten killing public service announcement pics posted on the ship during WestPac. Eight months in the Persian Gulf with only one liberty port per month. Needless to say the crew of the good ship Fitzgerald killed many kittens.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Of course abstenence can be taught without resorting to misinformation and fear. Example: 'Condoms. Made like this, work like this, protect against some diseases, have q% failure rate at preventing pregnancy. Birth control pills. Made like this, work like this, protect against NO diseases, minimal failure rate if used correctly, but you damn well better use 'em correctly. X, Y, and Z side effects. Abstinence. Prevents all sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, always.'"
I think you missed the whole problem. That is how they should be teaching it. Except Bush and Friends think it's evil to even hint that condoms, birth control pills, etc. do anything at all.
See, you explained how to teach abstinence and birth control. Which is in direct contradiction to the administration's insistence upon teaching abstinence and not birth control.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
*gets run over by out of control italics*
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That explains why he never answers my calls.
Watching CNN tonight they were covering this story and had asked a group of kids (all under 15) how they felt about the program. One of the boys declared that the program "taught him how to be a good man".
That's what's really scary: if this kid's being taught that abstenence equals "being a good man" then what does it say about those with STD's? Gays? Unwed mothers?
Good to know that MY tax dollars are going to this idiocy.
If Bush wants to "privatize" Social Security nad the school system so someone can determine what their retirment money is invested in and where their kids will be educated with tax money, can I PLEASE make sure my money is not supporting some CHristian propoganda for a whole new generation of Neo-Cons?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: The revelation that Alan has forsworn playing Hide The Sausage shakes me to the core.
Only until I get married, pally.
But that's my point. I was taught abstinance until marriage without threats, without misleading facts, without fear tactics of dying a horrible death or being consigned to eternal flame. My parents taught me by example. Yes, it's tied up with my religious beliefs and moral standards, but there's no threatening involved.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"My parents taught me by example."
So, they told you they were virgins until their wedding night, and you believed them?
"*gets run over by out of control italics*"
I italicized five words. You have just as many in your signature. And you didn't even use them correctly.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's a "correct way" to use italics now? ...looks like Aban's not the only one that needs to get laid badly. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I think you missed the whole problem. That is how they should be teaching it.
Oh, I got that point, I was more responding to the question of whether abstenence could be taught well, which it can. I definitely agree that it's not.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, of course. Teaching it well and teaching it to the administration's standards are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Waiting until you get married to have sex is only ideal if you get married when you are 18....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What about pre-arranged marriages? Does that mean that you can have sex but it's considered adultery?
Really, having had sex with a couple of partners not only gives you the experience to know what the heck you're doing, but allows you to know that person you're intimate with is someone special- and not just a lifetime's worth of repression influencing your decisions.
Sex is much better when you're in love (though you need a basis for comparison to notice).
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's an interesting cultural thing, to be sure. While most of my friends were taught to be careful, use protection, not be slags etc, none of them were told to "save themselves" until they were married. The idea just seems...quaint. I can follow people doing it (or rather, not doing it) for religious reasons, but abstaining from sex due to some sort of "moral belief"? I just can't see how it has anything to do with morality at all.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, that's a little like saying that sex itself has nothing to do with morality. Or, rather, that sex doesn't have any privileged moral ground one way or the other. This may be an enlightened point of view, but considering the vast amount of effort people in nearly every society expend on making up and then enforcing proper sexual conduct, I don't quite see how we can say that the existence of such concerns comes as a surprise.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
True. But that applies to many other things as well, and they don't get given the same aura that sex does.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
One easy way to abstain from sex for like - ever is to get fat - then no bitch will go near you.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: LMAO.
We had the kitten killing public service announcement pics posted on the ship during WestPac. Eight months in the Persian Gulf with only one liberty port per month. Needless to say the crew of the good ship Fitzgerald killed many kittens.
Errr - I know it would go on, but everyone knows what everyone else is doing!?!
Any privacy!?! I mean!?!
Puts a new spin on "Captain's Mess" Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
AND TEH CAPTAIN'S LOG! HAHAHAA!
Now stop.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: One easy way to abstain from sex for like - ever is to get fat - then no bitch will go near you.
Have you ever been to America?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: AND TEH CAPTAIN'S LOG! HAHAHAA!
Now stop.
Quiet you.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: One easy way to abstain from sex for like - ever is to get fat - then no bitch will go near you.
Money talks. You would not believe the amazing women I see hooked up with the ugliest (but wealthy) guys. I guess they convince themselves they're with them out of love... something.
That whole "love is blind" thing is total bullshit- there's no love without physical attraction- thus sex, like it or not, plays a huge role in who we choose as a partner.
So "waiting till marriage" really is quaint: a big part of the reason you're with them in the first place is based on the desire to mate and who will be a suitable partner.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You're seeing sex as a reason for marriage. If you see marriage as a reason for sex, everything takes on a completely different tone.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Sex is not a reason for anything except procreation. Procreation is not a reason for anything except survival of the species, and thus for sex. How else you see it really doesn't matter.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
...so basically, "I'm right, and if you disagree, your opinion isn't even worthy of consideration?" Like so many things, sex and procreation have what significance we give them.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Omega:
quote:You're seeing sex as a reason for marriage. If you see marriage as a reason for sex, everything takes on a completely different tone.
Both those choices are crap. I see love as the reason for marriage. Sex is natural behavior between two mates that accept and desire eachother, whatever the phase of the relationship. That's why I like "Cocoon". When I'm 75, I'll be doing all the pumps and pills n' shit for me lady, also surphing mature porn when she's out of town.
I reckon I would want to have a relationship with a woman for at least two years before marrying her, having met all the relatives and tried all the holidays, gone on a few trips together. It goes without saying that it must say click between us from the start.
If I were to go two or three years with this woman without as much as a french kiss (which is foreplay at the very least), just hugs and cheek kisses, what am I going to be doing for those years, be her chaperon?
The girls I've been with haven't had sex just to please me, or just to have some fun, it's about confirmation and appreciation (wanting it and giving it at the same time), very vital stough to any relationship.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yes, but significance is not a reason. I didn't say your opinion was less worthy of consideration than mine, just that it's rather foolish to pretend that sex, or any other biological drive, is or should be a reason for anything except its natural evolutionary purpose.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Now that's not true. Humans did not invent the "intercourse sans fertilization"-concept. Many types of animals (monkeys, dolphins, cats) make love just for gratification or as a social gesture to someone in the flock/pack. Even they know the value in making someone feel good now and then.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If I were to go two or three years with this woman without as much as a french kiss (which is foreplay at the very least), just hugs and cheek kisses, what am I going to be doing for those years, be her chaperon?
Her friend. That's the important part, regardless of the level of physical affection.
I didn't say your opinion was less worthy of consideration than mine, just that it's rather foolish to pretend that sex, or any other biological drive, is or should be a reason for anything except its natural evolutionary purpose.
And if I disagree with your basic premise, what then of my opinion?
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Ommey, seriously mate you sound like the SNAGS poster boy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: You're seeing sex as a reason for marriage. If you see marriage as a reason for sex, everything takes on a completely different tone.
I'm seeing love as being partially based on sexual attraction.
Male/Felame couples bond in part based on who they think will be a suitable mate. Subconsious or not, that's how it is.
Not having any sexual experience kinda makes me wonder at the suitability of their choice: are they setteling for some imagined ideal only to be disapointed? I wonder what percentage of marriages last when one or both partners are virgins before the wedding?
So, Super Milk Chan is on and I may well go insane trying to watch it without the use of recreational chemicals.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: If I were to go two or three years with this woman without as much as a french kiss (which is foreplay at the very least), just hugs and cheek kisses, what am I going to be doing for those years, be her chaperon?
Her friend. That's the important part, regardless of the level of physical affection.
What you'd be is A LOSER: dont be suprised when her "feelings for you change" and she loves someone else- physically.
Physical intimacy is a very (possibly the most) imporntant part of the bonding process between partners: it's something of yourself you only share with them.
A relationship that includes physical intimacy is always stronger than one without it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I wonder what percentage of marriages last when one or both partners are virgins before the wedding?"
A very high percentage, I expect. Think about it: the people who do that are the same sort of people who think they'll burn in hell for eternity if they get a divorce.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think a lasting marraige can spring from the fear of supernatural reprisal.
I suppose it explains why catholics can be unfaithful to their partner and somehow be forgiven through confession. If you no longer love someone, staying together from apathy (or worse- religion!) is only hurting both people involved.
The extreme religous couple is kinda the outside example here: I refer more to the moral romantic that thinks "there's one person for me and by waiting it'll be so special blah blah blah love blah".
I wonder how many virgins wait till the wedding night and then kick themselves for not having sex -for years- prior.
Or how many are so freaked out by their first (often akward) sexual experience that it spoils things just a little: talk about pressure to perform! It's your wedding, the biggest, most stressful day of your life and it's also the first time you see your wife naked, and you're supposd to relax, be intimate and not stress out about doing a good job of it?
Man, that's rough. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I can forsee most viring wedding nights lasting either a long time, or roughly 24 seconds.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well, I look at it this way: If I'm someone with no sexual experience marrying someone with no sexual experience, I'd much rather have that experience for the first time knowing that we've already made a committment to each other based on love and respect and friendship. Knowing that we're both committed to making our sexual relationship a wonderful thing just as we're committed to making our friendship and our partnership a wonderful thing.
I'm not afraid of burning in Hell if I have sex before marriage. I don't even believe in Hell. I do think that abstaining from sex before marriage is more likely to lead to a stronger marriage int he long run though, *if* the two people are both looking at it in the same way. *If* the two are both looking to actually get to know each other and become assured of mutual interest and friendship and support. If you're just getting married so you can finally have sex, welcome to the rest of your miserable life.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: If you're just getting married so you can finally have sex, welcome to the rest of your miserable life.
But that wouldn't even be an issue without the belief certain religions have that a person shouldn't have sex before they get married. Granted, you may not believe in hell, but I'll bet that the "non-religios people waiting until they're married before they get it on" group has a very low membership.
I suppose it depends on how much credit you want to give to sex. Sure, it's great and all, but so are lots of other things. Would you refrain from going on holiday ever until you get married? Would you refrain from accepting a pair of tickets to the World Cup Final/Superbowl until you're married and have someone to share it with? Would you not touch the co-op option on Halo 2 until you and your partner have those wedding rings on?
(It also might just be me, but only people who are waiting tend to describe sex as a "wonderful, touching expression of the bond two people have for each other". People who've actually done it tend to describe it as "really quite fun". Or just "wahay".)
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I'm pretty sure that sex can be both a touching expression of affection AND a boatload of jiggly, bouncy fun.
Of course waiting has to do with religious beliefs, most of the time. Although, my dad isn't that religious and as I said, my parents were virgins when they married (yes, I believe them). But because the idea is based on a set of religious beliefs, does that necessarily mean that it's bad? Even those who think religion is alot of hooha would have to agree that if people waited until they were married to have sex, and excersized a touch of common sense when choosing their marriage partners, cases of unwanted pregnancy, teen motherhood, single-parent familes, etc. wouldn't be an issue. Not that I think teen mothers or single parents are being "punished for their sin" or any nonsense like that... But I think the membership for the group that would choose to be in those situations is also pretty low.
I agree that sex is a great thing, but it can also cause a crap load of problems.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Even those who think religion is alot of hooha would have to agree that if people waited until they were married to have sex, and excersized a touch of common sense when choosing their marriage partners, cases of unwanted pregnancy, teen motherhood, single-parent familes, etc. wouldn't be an issue.
I hate that argument. Sure, abstaining from pre-martital sex would stop single-parent families, unwanted pregnancies, and so on. So would not leaving the house. If you want to stop people using sex in such an "irresponsible" manner, then teach them how to have sex properly. Teach them about contraception. Teach them about the financial and emotional burden being a young single parent can be. And if they choose not to have sex then, then fine. But the current approach is like telling people that the best way to avoid car crashes is to never drive anywhere.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: [QUOTE]. People who've actually done it tend to describe it as "really quite fun". Or just "wahay".)
I call it "Shnu Shnu".
The best way to avoid the pitfalls of pre-marital sex is through education and open communication. Not through religion-driven fear of what might happen.
Yeah, thousands of people have their lives changed by STD's or an unexpected pregnantcy. Millions more have sex, enjoy sex smartly and go on to -eventually- find that special someone after some trial and error.
Sex is a lot like swimming- akward at first, but it gets more confortable and more enjoyable each time you do it.
Jump in the pool, Aban: the water's fine. Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Haven't I been saying all along that I disagree with the methods used to "enforce" celebacy? I don't think fear should be used, and I don't think it should be treated as an immoral act. All that does is lead to people looking at sex as dirty, which it isn't.
I'll all for young people being treated about how to use contraception, but I also think they need to be made awre of the risks involved in becomming sexually active. And I don't think it should be done in schools. This is a job for parents who *should* have the benefit of experience and be able to provide a balanced view of the matter.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dirty sex is great! Particularly when the woman talks real dirty....
Though your point is not lost on me, I'm just sayin: Dirty= sexy!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You mean "Sex != Dirty", don't you?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If I'm someone with no sexual experience marrying someone with no sexual experience..."
That's a big "if". Unless you really intend to strictly limit yourself to such a small percentage of the women out there. Are you really going to find the perfect woman for you, but then refuse to marry her because she's had sex before?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
No. I've dated women who have been married before. I was perfectly comfortable with that. But for me, my point stands... As someone with no sexual experience there's no way I would be satisfying to a woman who knows what she's doing the first few times out. I'd like to have the security and peace of mind of knowing that she's devoted to me and willing to help me learn. That we already have a strong, commited relationship that will only get better as the sexual relationship is added.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
I have had about ten "serious" relationships in my life - and by serious I mean "lasting longer than one year". And sex was not always necessary for the relationship to be fulfilling.
That's not to say that I don't enjoy dirty sex... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er....you've had TEN relationships last for more than a year each?!?
I've been dating about as long but have never had anything last more that three or four months...
Cant be my fault though. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Ten serious relationships...each lasting longer than a year...that makes Austin...at least 54 years old! Ahhh!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)