|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2008 : 14:43:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
The really interesting thing (that should be obvious) is this:
Christians who get abstinence-only sex education are at higher risk of getting pregnant, contracting STD etc. than Christians who get "real" sex-ed. |
Nope. The real interesting thing is that Christian, and non-Christian, teens who actually practice abstinence-only have an infinity lower chance of getting pregnant or contracting STD's etc... then the Christian or non-Christian teen who does not.
|
Except Dr. Mabuse said "get abstinence-only sex education", not if they practice it. You can't say "nope". The point is that the education makes a difference. Abstinence-only education does not work. Period.
Edit: added stupid emphasis tags because I'm afeared my point would be missed.
|
But that is my point. It must be practiced before it will work. Same with "safe"sex. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 14:45:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
It's logic my friend. In a typical HS 10% at most claim to be Christian. |
How does "logic" get you to that 10% figure? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 14:54:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So you sit around with male acquaintances and discuss anal sex, without even any beer being involved? Interesting. That might explain some of your positions. |
What the hell is "interesting" about that (and what could you possible be trying to imply)? We're having a sober discussion about anal sex right now, bill. Or have you been drunk this entire time? It would go a long way toward explaining your incoherent arguments and general lack of comprehension.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 15:04:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
The really interesting thing (that should be obvious) is this:
Christians who get abstinence-only sex education are at higher risk of getting pregnant, contracting STD etc. than Christians who get "real" sex-ed. |
Nope. The real interesting thing is that Christian, and non-Christian, teens who actually practice abstinence-only have an infinity lower chance of getting pregnant or contracting STD's etc... then the Christian or non-Christian teen who does not.
|
Except Dr. Mabuse said "get abstinence-only sex education", not if they practice it. You can't say "nope". The point is that the education makes a difference. Abstinence-only education does not work. Period.
Edit: added stupid emphasis tags because I'm afeared my point would be missed.
|
But that is my point. It must be practiced before it will work. Same with "safe"sex.
|
But the safe sex education yields much greater results. Abstinence-only education does not account for the reality of being a teenager (you know, hormones, instinct, etc.) and does not work.
We judge by results. Abstinence-only fails miserably. If, as you just said, all things being equal, abstinence-only programs should be terminated immediately and their supporters relegated to the trash-bin of history. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 15:35:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Bill scott
So you sit around with male acquaintances and discuss anal sex, without even any beer being involved? Interesting. That might explain some of your positions. |
What the hell is "interesting" about that (and what could you possible be trying to imply)? We're having a sober discussion about anal sex right now, bill. Or have you been drunk this entire time? It would go a long way toward explaining your incoherent arguments and general lack of comprehension. |
 Well, bill, your leap from "straight male friends and acquaintences, none of whom have ever expressed disgust" to "you sit around with male acquaintances and discuss anal sex" is, of course, wildly off base and used clearly to be insulting. That HH brilliantly turned it around on you is classic.
But more seriously, it seems quite normal and healthy for people to talk about sex and ask questions. Unless you're sexually repressed. My guess is that for most fundamentalist Christians, there isn't much to say beyond "missionary." At least, not until that sex scandal comes up... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 15:50:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
My guess is that for most fundamentalist Christians, there isn't much to say beyond "missionary." At least, not until that sex scandal comes up... |
Oh, please. That's pretty damn tame for a sex scandal.
Remember, folks: don't kink yourself to death. It stops you from being able to kink anymore. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 16:50:03 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: And never mind the fact that ripping, tearing, and bleeding are all associated with forced anal sex penetration and have nothing to do at all with freedom (French) kissing.
…
But forced penetration is required in all anal sex encounters. |
You are using the word "forced" in a manner outside of common understanding. Any kind of "forced sex" means one person forcing an unwilling party to engage in sexual activities.
If what you really mean is that the person is putting a penis where supposedly it is unnatural for it to go, and somehow this is "force", then it would also be "force" to have oral sex and to kiss putting your tongue in someone else's mouth.
Or maybe what you mean is that there is the potential for physical damage to the anus if engaged in anal sex. This is a possibility. Infectious diseases can be easily spread, especially to a receiver, through anal sex. However, they are the same diseases which women are more likely to contract through regular sex, and for the same reasons: women are also on the receiving end. Then there is physical damage, such as the ripping, tearing, and bleeding you spoke of earlier. This sort of thing is typically minor and heals, and, more importantly, it is also easily avoided through good communication, good technique (Again, rather like vaginal intercourse!). Again, if you actually looked into this topic, you'd know all this in detail. But instead you pride yourself on your ignorance.
| I don't find that number huge. That means 1 of every 10 people who are sexually active engage in anal sex. That's 90% who do not! Now that's a huge number. |
So something which 10% of the population engage in regularly and which has been practiced at least since civilization began can be regarded as unnatural for you? With such low standards, plenty of normal activities could be labeled unnatural. Then again, I'm not sure what you mean by "unnatural" anyway. If it happens on a regular basis in nature, it is natural.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 17:00:42 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, maybe I also find your arguments against anal sex because it is potentially painful and might cause some minor and quickly healed physical damage laughable because I'm a woman. Have you thought about what childbirth does to a woman's lower extremities? There are plenty of times where human beings inflict minor physical harm or pain on themselves and it serves a positive purpose. Working out for a sports competition, for instance, can get really ugly. Anyone who has had sex knows that sex with another person isn't merely about procreation and it isn't merely about selfish, sexual gratification. In addition to those things, when one engages in sexual activities with another person, even if it is a more casual encounter, they are communicating with a another person without words. Such exchanges are part of social behavior, and humans are a social animal. Doing any seemingly pointless act, such as dancing and foreplay, is normal for us. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 20:18:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by emsby |
| But the majority of kids who engage in risky sexual behavior, including vaginal intercourse, for any reason other then virginity pledges are non-Christians. |
What?? Where the hell did you pull that from? Your ass? I suppose you've got so much bullshit shoved up there, you couldn't have anal sex even if you wanted to. Show me a citation for this. |
It's logic my friend. In a typical HS 10% at most claim to be Christian. And of those that are sexually active they are not involved in Vaginal intercourse.(because of the whole pledge thing) So that only leaves non-Christian kids left who are having risky sex, including vaginal intercourse, for other reasons then a virginity pledge.
|
Logic, my friend would indicate that you must be quoting from some suspect source when you throw around absurd numbers like 10% claim to be Christian in a HS. Since 85% of the population claims to be christian, logic says that they would tend to pass that tradition down to their children in greater percentages than that. Ergo, the "non-Christians are the ones having risky sex" assertation is likely bullshit. Unless you're setting up for a no true Scottsman falacy.......
| I am sure that is what he told you. |
Look, asshole... I've never even had anal sex. I do, however, have straight male friends and acquaintences, none of whom have ever expressed disgust when the topic of anal sex with a woman is brought up. |
So you sit around with male acquaintances and discuss anal sex, without even any beer being involved? Interesting. That might explain some of your positions.
|
I actually did research because I wanted to find out if the claims I was hearing had any validity to them at all. plus, I also had a girlfriend at the time that was into it. (long story)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 07:32:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The really interesting thing (that should be obvious) is this:
Christians who get abstinence-only sex education are at higher risk of getting pregnant, contracting STD etc. than Christians who get "real" sex-ed. |
Nope. The real interesting thing is that Christian, and non-Christian, teens who actually practice abstinence-only have an infinity lower chance of getting pregnant or contracting STD's etc... then the Christian or non-Christian teen who does not. |
You are right, teens who actually practice absitinence-only are relatively safe.
But far from everyone who make the pledge actually keeps it.
From a Harward study:
| The analysis also found that 52 percent of adolescent virginity pledgers in the 1995 survey disavowed the virginity pledge at the next survey a year later. |
also:
| Most worrisome, said Rosenbaum, is that teens who do not acknowledge their sexually active past may perceive their new history as correct and will underestimate the sexually transmitted disease (STD) risk stemming from their prepledge sexual behavior. On average the retractors had more than two sexual partners. |
So, Bill... Will you deny the reality that teens have serious itches regardless of religion, and that hormones and rampant emotions make them than likely to act on it, regardless of pledges or not?
Making a pledge is one thing. Keeping it is a whole different ball-game.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 08:55:36 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
| You are right, teens who actually practice absitinence-only are relatively safe. |
And those who actually practice "safer" sex are going to be safer then those who do not. Abstinence-only is the only true path to completely avoid the pitfalls of teen sex. Whither the hearer of such message chooses abstinence or not has nothing to do with the fact that abstinence is the only true "safe" answer to teen sex.
Now yes, "safer" sex is going to be, well, safer then completely unprotected sex but it is still not even close to abstinence. And just like abstinence "safer sex" must actually be applied and applied correctly before it is safer then unprotected sex.
As to which one provides the best results is a moot point at this time. Obviously, the "safer sex" message has not produced the desired results or the government would not be looking into abstinence only programs for the schools. Yet the piece we all read shows that abstinence only does not produced that desired results either.
So the facts are we can give the kids the information for either program but it must be acted upon to achieve results. So I would just give the kids the stone cold facts knowing that they are going to weigh the facts and then the ball is in their court.
First Fact: Abstinence is the only truly 100% way to avoid all the pitfalls (unwanted children, STD's, abortions etc...) that come with teen sex. If your a Christian here is where you can explain to your child that abstinence until marriage is what is expected/desired from God.
Second Fact: While abstinence is the only 100% guarantee to avoid the teen sex pitfalls "safer sex" is going to keep you, well, "safer" over unprotected sex. Here is where you explain the different methods of birth control on todays market and the pros and cons of each one.
That's about all you can do. Give them the true facts and hope they make wise decisions when it comes time for them to make those decisions. It's not like you can lock them up until they turn 18 or 21. Again, as a parent or a school teacher we can give them the facts and then hope (and pray) that they make intelligent decisions
Abstinence- Only virtually 100% way of avoiding the teen sex pitfalls.
Safer Sex- While not as safe as abstinence it is safer then unprotected sex.
Unprotected Sex- Ok now your just playing with fire boys and girls.
| So, Bill... Will you deny the reality that teens have serious itches regardless of religion, and that hormones and rampant emotions make them than likely to act on it, regardless of pledges or not? |
Nope. I wont deny it.
| Making a pledge is one thing. Keeping it is a whole different ball-game. |
I could not agree with you on this point any more then I already do. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 10:05:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Abstinence-only is the only true path to completely avoid the pitfalls of teen sex. |
Except for rape.| As to which one provides the best results is a moot point at this time. Obviously, the "safer sex" message has not produced the desired results or the government would not be looking into abstinence only programs for the schools. |
Specious reasoning. The "safer sex" message has only not produced the results that unrealistic religious prudes desire. Abstinence-only was instituted with the ludicrous and totally unrealistic idea that if you tell teenagers to not have sex, they won't have sex. The government's continued and expanded funding of abstinence-only education in light of the fact of its failure means that the "desired results" are something other than a reduction in teen pregnancy and STDs.First Fact: Abstinence is the only truly 100% way to avoid all the pitfalls (unwanted children, STD's, abortions etc...)...
...
Second Fact: While abstinence is the only 100% guarantee to avoid the teen sex pitfalls...
...
Abstinence- Only virtually 100% way of avoiding the teen sex pitfalls. |
My bolding. Glad you finally came around to reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 10:31:05 [Permalink]
|
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 12:40:21 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Abstinence-only is the only true path to completely avoid the pitfalls of teen sex. |
Except for rape. |
I am not sure If I follow. Are you saying no pitfalls for the rapist? Although I would say that getting caught by the athorites would be a pitfall.
| Specious reasoning. The "safer sex" message has only not produced the results that unrealistic religious prudes desire. |
So you don't have a concern with 16.6% of the SIXTH and SEVENTH graders studied reporting back to having sexual intercourse, after going through a safer sex program and knowing that many are not putting the safer education into practice? Safer Sex education or not I am alarmed by that number. I was 11 years old in the sixth grade.
And the same study showed that those who went through abstinence education reported a 20% sexually active rate in the sixth and seventh grades.
| Abstinence-only was instituted with the ludicrous and totally unrealistic idea that if you tell teenagers to not have sex, they won't have sex. |
In todays society I am afraid you are correct. I mean the mixed messages the kids get today is enough to cause ones head to spin. Maybe Mom & Dad or teacher gave little Johnny the "don't do it until marriage" speech but in todays world of single parents and remarriages and all that goes on in-between many kids do not see even their own parents practice what they preach. Not to even mention the message that Hollywood delivers to the kids 100's and 100's of times a day through teen drama shows, network tv programing such as 2 1/2 men, and of course all the Hollywood socialites. With Brittney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton etc... being the poster child for cool and hip to millions of teen girls and parents who drop their kids off to see concerts of these "hero's" rather then explain to the kids that these girls are not normal it's no wonder the kids brush off the abstinence message. Their Hollywood Hero's don't live by this code and in many case neither do their own parents, so why should they? So I suppose the abstinence message never really had a chance when you have a society and heavy media influences that bombard the kids with the exact opposite message day after day after day. I guess in that context a 20% sexually active rate among 6th and 7th grade kids is just the logical conclusion of what kids are being programed to do. I would guess the spread to be 99 to 1 as far as how much time a typical teen may receive an abstinence message over the time they are being bombarded by sexual imaginary and activity on the net, tv, magazines, peers etc... and other media outlets. I mean they may get one or two speeches form boring mom and dad or a lame teacher about abstinence and the rest of their life they are being saturated with sex on the net, tv, music, movies etc....
| The government's continued and expanded funding of abstinence-only education in light of the fact of its failure means that the "desired results" are something other than a reduction in teen pregnancy and STDs. |
After examining the numbers, yes, safer sex might be getting some better results then abstinence, for the reasons I mentioned above, but neither is producing numbers that are worth bragging about. That is why I mentioned that I would be in favor of the abstinence plus education method. Teach the kids the facts and risk factor that come with abstinence and encourage this route with mouth and deed. But also realize that between 25-50% of todays kids will not follow through with the abstinence in their teen years so after the abstinence campaign is given teach them the facts and risk factor for safer sex as well as the facts and risk factor for unprotected sex. As parents, in the end all we can do is provide our kids with the facts, model the behavior you promote rather then just preach it, and then hope (and pray) that your kid makes smart choices.
In todays society I don't think the answer is as black and white as simply teaching one method and completely ruling out the other. No matter what side of the fence you fall on.
| My bolding. Glad you finally came around to reality. |
Which reality are you referring to? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 14:29:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Abstinence-only is the only true path to completely avoid the pitfalls of teen sex. |
Except for rape. |
I am not sure If I follow. Are you saying no pitfalls for the rapist? Although I would say that getting caught by the athorites would be a pitfall. |
No, I'm saying that rape means that abstinence isn't 100% effective in preventing pregnancy or STDs.| Specious reasoning. The "safer sex" message has only not produced the results that unrealistic religious prudes desire. |
So you don't have a concern with 16.6% of the SIXTH and SEVENTH graders studied reporting back to having sexual intercourse, after going through a safer sex program and knowing that many are not putting the safer education into practice? Safer Sex education or not I am alarmed by that number. I was 11 years old in the sixth grade. |
What the hell, Bill? "Don't have a concern?" Of course I do. But my concerns are irrelevant when my point was the crappy logic you were using.| And the same study showed that those who went through abstinence education reported a 20% sexually active rate in the sixth and seventh grades. |
Thus supporting my other point, which you agreed with thusly:| After examining the numbers, yes, safer sex might be getting some better results then abstinence, for the reasons I mentioned above, but neither is producing numbers that are worth bragging about. |
The only way to really determine whether the numbers are good or bad is to look at rates of sexual activity, pregnancy and STDs in teenagers who have had no sex-ed at all. And such a study would now be considered highly unethical. So we're left with knowing that abstinence-only is worse than regular sex-ed, but we'll never really know how much better either one is compared to no sex-ed.| That is why I mentioned that I would be in favor of the abstinence plus education method. Teach the kids the facts and risk factor that come with abstinence and encourage this route with mouth and deed. |
When I was in sixth and seventh grade (almost 30 years ago), our sex-ed was just that. "Here are the risks, here is what contraception can and can't do, but the safest method is simply to not have sex." If the school districts where abstinence-only has been implemented were anything like mine, then the kids have been robbed of actual education.| In todays society I don't think the answer is as black and white as simply teaching one method and completely ruling out the other. No matter what side of the fence you fall on. |
Never said it was.| My bolding. Glad you finally came around to reality. |
Which reality are you referring to? |
The reality in which a teenager who vehemently tries to maintain abstinence is not 100% safe, through no fault of their own. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The secrets of men: unbalanced homophobia
