Abstinence

[michel555555]

Teenagers and abstinence?? What part of that just doesn't seem to fit together?

 

 

 

Unfortunatly my own sex-ed was well crap. I think i may have actually fell asleep for half of it and they showed nothing of how to properly use a condom or other forms of birthcontrol and only actually showed what each part does and at 15 i had a pretty good idea already of what went where. I cant even remember if they showed pictures of std's to show just how bad they were. Just seems to me that parents are just to afraid of what children might see and try that they prevent them from actually learning anything that might actually protect them.

[warren211]

I'm Catholic so if I had my way every school would be strictly abstinence only and the media would stop pressuring kids to have early love and focus on having a good life. For everyone who is saying "it will happen eventually, kids need to be prepared" the problem is that society is forcing these kids to react to sexual advances just because it is deemed ok by their friends, TV, and everything else out there. Nearly everything Catholicism preaches goes against the encouragement of indulgences in this world, and as such everyone thinks we're bat[cabbage] insane. I don't like conforming to society's ideals just because everyone is constantly moving to contradicting beliefs of age-old doctrines.

 

 

 

That being said, our views would probably never be satisfied in this world because all of society hates Catholicism. So of course, simply switching all of sudden to "abstinance-only" wouldn't do anything in a society where it's already been well established that sex is good and will happen eventually. The only way I'd get our view to be supported by the world is if somehow all of society decided that sex should be left strictly within marriage and EVERYONE believed that abstinence was the best way of birth control. Unfortunatly few people outside of any religion believe so and thus would never move to educate their children that way. As for me, I'm going to wait till marriage if I ever get married and if I had kids, I would also make sure they were convinced that abstinence was the only way. I and whatever family I might have in the future are NOT going to conform to a constantly shifting society where the only way for a child to live a non-controversial life is to follow the mainstream. For the most part, that's how my religion has always been.

[Wisp]

Personally, I don't like the idea of sex being strictly within marriage. At all. Marriage is a wonderful thing and all, I hope to get married eventually if I find the right person, but I don't think love is any different inside or outside of marriage, and to say it is a sin to be with someone you truly love, even if you're not married just seems wrong to me.

 

In fact, saying sex with anyone out of sin, regardless of love, is a sin seems wrong as well.

 

I don't like being told how to live my life.

[Kiriyama]

Warren, no, just no.

 

 

 

The media does not pressurise kids into having early love. Sure, love is a big part in modern media, but it's a plot element that works.

 

 

 

I don't believe the kids feel pressurised into having sex, it's not something they'll just go out and do because they feel forced, it's something they'll want to do, and well, teenagers will be teenagers.

 

 

 

Sex, well, it is a good thing. Much like alcohol, it can produce a good feeling, so really, if they want to do it, why stop them? If they know of the dangers, and protection, is there any real harm? I am personally against abstinence, and it being taught in schools, because really now, are they going to listen? If you love someone, is sex such a sin? Is marriage really the ultimate testament to the love between people? (And if it is, why is it wrong for two men/women to be wed? Assumption there, but religions are against that.)

 

 

 

Sure, not doing it is the best way of birth control, but what of the loss of the experience?

 

 

 

I hate people who believe abstinence is the only way. In the way society evolves, sex is not such a taboo subject, they are going to learn about it, and methods of protection, education is the best way, rather than saying "Blah blah blah... Sex before marriage is a sin, blah blah blah..."

 

 

 

As time progresses, society evolves, sure, it's good you hold onto your ideals, though you sound like a "non-conformist for the sake of non-conformity". Religions are becoming outdated. Society evolves, why can't religion?

 

 

 

And yeah, people think you are bat[cabbage] insane if you think like that. Evolve with society rather than be stuck in the past. A life worth living is one rich in experience and enjoyment. The way you put it as "preaching against the encouragement of indulgences" seems to be to be against enjoying life.

 

 

 

Rather, you should enjoy the indulgences, as you put it, in moderation.

[obfuscator]

Warren, no, just no.

 

 

 

The media does not pressurise kids into having early love. Sure, love is a big part in modern media, but it's a plot element that works.

 

 

 

I don't believe the kids feel pressurised into having sex, it's not something they'll just go out and do because they feel forced, it's something they'll want to do, and well, teenagers will be teenagers.

 

 

 

Sex, well, it is a good thing. Much like alcohol, it can produce a good feeling, so really, if they want to do it, why stop them? If they know of the dangers, and protection, is there any real harm? I am personally against abstinence, and it being taught in schools, because really now, are they going to listen? If you love someone, is sex such a sin? Is marriage really the ultimate testament to the love between people? (And if it is, why is it wrong for two men/women to be wed? Assumption there, but religions are against that.)

 

 

 

Sure, not doing it is the best way of birth control, but what of the loss of the experience?

 

 

 

I hate people who believe abstinence is the only way. In the way society evolves, sex is not such a taboo subject, they are going to learn about it, and methods of protection, education is the best way, rather than saying "Blah blah blah... Sex before marriage is a sin, blah blah blah..."

 

 

 

As time progresses, society evolves, sure, it's good you hold onto your ideals, though you sound like a "non-conformist for the sake of non-conformity". Religions are becoming outdated. Society evolves, why can't religion?

 

 

 

And yeah, people think you are [cabbage] insane if you think like that. Evolve with society rather than be stuck in the past. A life worth living is one rich in experience and enjoyment. The way you put it as "preaching against the encouragement of indulgences" seems to be to be against enjoying life.

 

 

 

Rather, you should enjoy the indulgences, as you put it, in moderation.

 

 

 

If religion evolved with society, people would just say it was selling out.

 

 

 

People seem to think that religion (Catholicism at least) just says: "sex is bad". It's really not the case, and there are reasons that you have to admit make sense, despite whether you agree with them or not.

 

 

 

I've found that all Catholic dogma is based around a few key facts, and that everything else logically follows afterwards.

 

 

 

As to media pressuring kids, I disagree. Kids can't make informed decisions when they see carefree sex on tv, with no consequences. It takes someone a lot more mature to fully realize that television isn't reality.

[Laura]

For everyone who is saying "it will happen eventually, kids need to be prepared" the problem is that society is forcing these kids to react to sexual advances just because it is deemed ok by their friends, TV, and everything else out there.

For all instinctual qualities, you should be having sex around the time you're fifteen, perhaps a little older for some. It is only recently that our society has become developed enough to restrict births.

[Lionheart_0]

Am I the only one here that thinks both? My school taught sex ed, but abstinence was taught as a method of birth control. You wanna go with 0% chance of pregnancy? Go with abstinence.

 

 

 

My teachers just said do that as long as you can, but if it doesn't work out, well here are the other options to be safe.

[Orpheus]

Warren, on the topic of sex and marriage, let's put it this way:

 

 

 

"You wouldn't buy a car before trying it, would you?"

[MirageOfDeath]

Warren, on the topic of sex and marriage, let's put it this way:

 

 

 

"You wouldn't buy a car before trying it, would you?"

 

"Who's going to buy the cow if you're handing out the milk for free?" :P

 

 

 

OT: IMO school should just teach biological facts about sex and protection. Abstinence should only be mentioned as a way of preventing STDs/pregnancy. It shouldn't be the sole information presented. Isn't the whole point of school to learn?

[Orpheus]

Warren, on the topic of sex and marriage, let's put it this way:

 

 

 

"You wouldn't buy a car before trying it, would you?"

 

"Who's going to buy the cow if you're handing out the milk for free?" :P

 

 

 

OT: IMO school should just teach biological facts about sex and protection. Abstinence should only be mentioned as a way of preventing STDs/pregnancy. It shouldn't be the sole information presented. Isn't the whole point of school to learn?

 

 

 

I was comparing sex and marriage, but nice analogy nonetheless. Well played.

[obfuscator]

Warren, on the topic of sex and marriage, let's put it this way:

 

 

 

"You wouldn't buy a car before trying it, would you?"

 

It's an interesting analogy, but oversimplifies the situation. If marriage was as simple as buying an object with no thoughts or feelings I would agree. However, since this is a person you are talking about, sometimes you have to trust someone before you see the rewards.

[ThurinEthir]

Am I the only one here that thinks both? My school taught sex ed, but abstinence was taught as a method of birth control. You wanna go with 0% chance of pregnancy? Go with abstinence.

 

 

 

My teachers just said do that as long as you can, but if it doesn't work out, well here are the other options to be safe.

 

You're not alone, that's basically what I think.

 

Good quality sex ed would be laying down the options (including abstinence), teaching the options well (statistics, how to use them properly), but not really encouraging any particular option. And of course, making it clear that STDs are bad (they are, right? :? ), and teenage pregnancies can be a lot of trouble.

[ElkNight]

You wanna go with 0% chance of pregnancy? Go with abstinence.

 

 

Unless you're Christian.

[Giordano]

Warren, on the topic of sex and marriage, let's put it this way:

 

 

 

"You wouldn't buy a car before trying it, would you?"

 

"Who's going to buy the cow if you're handing out the milk for free?" :P

 

Haha, awesome analogy. And it fits well:

 

 

 

 

The media does not pressurise kids into having early love. Sure, love is a big part in modern media, but it's a plot element that works.

 

Where as they're not "pressuring" per-say, the way media explains love is through physical lust. Two people love each other, lets have them have sex. Easiest way to explain, those lazy dim-witted directors/writers think. And when you make it society assume sex is related to love, teenagers are being misguided.

 

 

 

At this day and age, it seems like sex is one of the primary goals of life. And its not true. I'm not pushing for the no-sex-till-marriage type deal, but we have to make sex some sort of dignified activity. As Dave Chappelle said once "If [kitty] was a stock, it'll be plummeting right now. You're flooding the market with it. You're giving it away to easily." And its true. Sex is going around too fast and too easily.

 

Which at the same time, we still put a great value on sex. When we see or hear two people having sex we assume they love each other. But then why, are boyfriends and girlfriends brake up about sex? Why does it bring drama issues and negative gossip? Makes people jealous and other emotions rage?

 

 

 

Because we still value sex but our hormones disagree. Which is why we need some bloody self control in today's society. Have sex with somebody you loved for a long time. Somebody you wouldn't mind being with for a very long time. Not the chick you just hooked up last week.

 

 

 

We need some sort of morality code to make more value onto sex. Morality, not in the church's way of thinking, but in the universal scale. You wouldn't kill somebody you recently met. You wouldn't tell your deep secrets to a friend you just made. But, you would let somebody [bleep] you or you [bleep] somebody else, that you recently met. We need to put some value into sex, we still think that. But with the media showing sex so easily, because they're horrible at explaining love in their stories, it ripples through society. Teenagers and adults alike are feeling sex will give you something. Either pleasure that your hormones want or you soul mate. Both, very very short-term, both a step in the wrong direction. You don't need sex very early in your relationship. The couple need to work for it. Because that shows that they care; deeply and truly.

[Shinjula]

Since it was asked earlier...yes, condoms are 98% effective if used correctly, my citation comes from the NHS choices site, so should be pretty reliable - whilst searching I also found that figure in a lot of other places, but the NHS link is probably one most people should feel comfy relying on (NHS is the National Health Service of the UK)

 

 

 

If used correctly, male condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. Female condoms are thought to be around 95% effective.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Condoms-(male-and-female)/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

[deathdrow]

Since it was asked earlier...yes, condoms are 98% effective if used correctly, my citation comes from the NHS choices site, so should be pretty reliable - whilst searching I also found that figure in a lot of other places, but the NHS link is probably one most people should feel comfy relying on (NHS is the National Health Service of the UK)

 

 

 

If used correctly, male condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. Female condoms are thought to be around 95% effective.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Condoms-(male-and-female)/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

 

thanks for finding a source!

 

 

 

Friend of mine found this site, made me laugh.

 

http://www.ironhymen.com/index.asp

[Lenin64]

Friend of mine found this site, made me laugh.

 

http://www.ironhymen.com/index.asp

 

Up until the moment in your wedding when he says "I do," a boy's privates sport a treacherous spine of jagged scales, which may or may not secrete acid and weapons-grade anthrax

 

Dude. I. [bleep]ing. wish. That would be something.

[Laura]

Since it was asked earlier...yes, condoms are 98% effective if used correctly, my citation comes from the NHS choices site, so should be pretty reliable - whilst searching I also found that figure in a lot of other places, but the NHS link is probably one most people should feel comfy relying on (NHS is the National Health Service of the UK)

 

 

 

If used correctly, male condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. Female condoms are thought to be around 95% effective.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Condoms-(male-and-female)/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

A large percentage of men and women do not use condoms correctly. Typical use of condoms puts condoms at 84% effective against pregnancies. 98% is really just the advertised statistic.

[Da_Latios]

Once again, this kind of stuff must be optional.

 

You wanna go with 0% chance of pregnancy? Go with abstinence.

 

Rape is a very real, very serious threat.

[deathdrow]

Once again, this kind of stuff must be optional.

 

You wanna go with 0% chance of pregnancy? Go with abstinence.

 

Rape is a very real, very serious threat.

 

That's what abortions are for. And "accidents" involving staircases, and baseball bats.

[Alg]

Once again, this kind of stuff must be optional.

 

You wanna go with 0% chance of pregnancy? Go with abstinence.

 

Rape is a very real, very serious threat.

 

Though it's really not the same as choosing not to have sex. Not to get into another debate about it, but it's a threat whether you abstain or not. Really one of those things that's perfect ideally, though fails because people cheat.

[unkn0wnwarrior]

Am I the only one here that thinks both? My school taught sex ed, but abstinence was taught as a method of birth control. You wanna go with 0% chance of pregnancy? Go with abstinence.

 

 

 

My teachers just said do that as long as you can, but if it doesn't work out, well here are the other options to be safe.

 

That's how we were taught it in my classes. "If you decide to have it, use one of these! But remember you don't have to have it at all!"

[dfmolly]

Well, I go to a Catholic all girls school. \ So I've been taught that abstinence is the best choice (well it is a CATHOLIC school), but if you do decide to have sex then use a form of birth control (if you don't want to be pregnant or have STDs of course ;) )even though abstinence is the best form. When to have sex is a personal choice and there is no right or wrong time in my opinion. I have chosen to stay abstinent, and yes, the media and friends and peers do put pressure on teens. I'd know :thumbsup:

[Shinjula]

Since it was asked earlier...yes, condoms are 98% effective if used correctly, my citation comes from the NHS choices site, so should be pretty reliable - whilst searching I also found that figure in a lot of other places, but the NHS link is probably one most people should feel comfy relying on (NHS is the National Health Service of the UK)

 

 

 

If used correctly, male condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. Female condoms are thought to be around 95% effective.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Condoms-(male-and-female)/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

A large percentage of men and women do not use condoms correctly. Typical use of condoms puts condoms at 84% effective against pregnancies. 98% is really just the advertised statistic.

 

Citation needed :)

[l0l0lpur34]

Sex ed, free condoms and free advice on sexual health is the best option.