Teenage 'virginity pledges' are ineffective

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Syzygys, Dec 29, 2008.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    I have no problem with people who wish to remain virgins. Good on them. The issue here is whether it is entirely their choice. Do you think a 4 year old girl (as one example) understands what she is signing when she signs the pledge? What about a 10 year old? 13? 14? That is the problem. Remaining a virgin should be up to the individual and not up to her father or mother who has her take a pledge when she is too young to understand what she is pledging to and what she is promising. There is something seedy about signing away one's virginity to one's parent. I have two boys and there is no way in hell I would ever conceive of a day when I would expect them or ask them to pledge their virginity to me (their mother) or to their father. Their virginity is theirs and theirs alone. I would prefer they wait until they are older before they have sex.. much older.. when they are mature enough to understand what it entails, and the dangers that can be associated with sex.. But I could never make them promise to never ever have sex until they are married and then refuse to allow them to learn about safe sex, contraception and sex in general. It would be irresponsible of me to do so.

    Life expectancy is higher for one thing. Girls are supposed to now have a choice.. Some are going backwards though, as this thread shows quite clearly.

    Yes. Much better to keep kids completely ignorant of the facts of life and pray about it. Much better to never teach them about safe sex, about contraception, about sex and what constitutes sexual acts. Much better to have our kids sign virginity prayers, pray about it and then be shocked and horrified by the influence of the "pagan world" when your kids get STD's for having oral or anal sex.. because they don't know that oral and anal sex is sex and thus, should have used protection. So much better to keep them completely in the dark about what sex is. So much better than educating a child about sex and abstinence and bringing them up to know and be confident enough in and of themselves to make the right decision for themselves.

    Yes.. lets get our 4 year olds to sign virginity pledges and keep them completely in the dark. Lets do it your way. Oh wait.. that's right.. your way isn't working.. But hey.. we can pray about it, right?

    Sex education and safe sex education is "pushing promiscuous sex"?

    Condoms existed much longer than the pill existed. Even in the golden ages where kids married when they were kids so they didn't have sex outside of marriage and divorce was uncommon and a scandal. What does that tell you about the use of condoms and divorce rates during that time?

    Divorce rates are high because people, especially very young people, have an overly romantic view of marriage.. or more to the point, 'the wedding', without fully understanding what a marriage actually is. I have a cousin who married when she was 22. Her mother and father are like you.. marry young so that you don't have sex outside of marriage. She is filing for divorce less than 2 years later because her husband left her due to the simple fact that he was not ready to marry so young and so he left her..

    That's because most people, unbeknown to you, use some form of birth control.. rhythm method is very popular for women who refuse to use artificial birth control methods because of their religious beliefs. Half the time, their husbands or partners don't even know. Do you know why? Because they don't want to spend the majority of their adult lives pregnant and popping out babies.

    But hey, lets all be like the Duggars and then relegate the upbringing of the middle and younger children to the older children while mummy and daddy bring yet another baby home to care for. That's responsible parenting. We'll just call it 'helping out'.

    The famine in Africa is caused not just by war, but by extensive drought periods where people were unable to grow any form of sustainable crops or maintain any cattle.

    I am not calling people who wish to remain virgins backwards or hillbillies. I am calling people who force their small children into signing pledges to remain virgins until marriage and have them go through a whole ceremony which is sexual in nature.. a ceremony that literally celebrates sex and sexuality.. to promise to remain virgins and put demands on children who are too young to understand what they are signing to and what they are promising.. children too young to even understand what sex is.. people who make their children do that.. yes.. they are backwards..

    Virginity is something that is personal and it should be up to each individual to decide for themselves. No child should be forced or coerced into signing a contract or taking a pledge to remain a virgin or to hand her virginity over to her father until marriage. My very Catholic father would probably have a stroke if I had told him that he could have my virginity until I married.

    What you aren't seeming to understand is that studies have shown that girls and boys who take the pledge are more likely to have sex within a very short period of time of having taken it and they will lie or hide it from their parents. As a parent, I would prefer that my children don't have sex until they are older. But if they ever do decide to have sex earlier or even when they are older, we would prefer that they talk about it with us or another adult they trust so they can be advised of safe sex and also about sex itself and the responsibilities that should and could accompany it. To not explain anything to a child and then pray that they don't have sex is stupid, because they will have sex. I'd rather they know in advance the dangers involved and the responsibility involved so that they enter into the act fully aware and prepared than have no clue and put their own and the lives of others at risk. Responsible parenting involves preparing a child for the big world, as well as ensuring they are protected from the dangers that inhabit said world. You can't simply protect and not prepare them for anything at all. That to me is irresponsible.

    I could enjoy a life where I got to slay gnomes and night elves on a daily basis.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Why not teach them both? Is it such a bad thing to ensure your daughter is aware of the dangers and risks and is prepared to deal with it if and when she chooses whatever it is she chooses to do?

    Yes. Lets advocate a keep them dumb and breeding ideology.

    I don't know about you, but when I did home economics, it was teaching about nutrition and cooking. We were also taught about safe sex, sex and abstinence being the best policy.

    You'd be surprised and afraid. Read some of the research out there who show that teenagers who are taught only abstinence and taught nothing at all about sex or safe sex don't even consider oral or anal sex to be sex.

    It really is quite frightening. Any parent would desire that their kids wait to have sex. But a responsible parent would want to make sure their kids were aware.

    Teenagers are still children.. mentally and emotionally. While some might be ready to be married and start having children, the greater majority are in no way near mature enough to even contemplate such a huge step and move in their lives. And while you can't seem to grasp that some 13 year old's are sexually active, the very simple fact of the matter is that some are and some fall pregnant. Irresponsible parenting, lack of education and stupidity on the parts of the parent and the child are to blame..

    And you seem to forget that the world's resources can't extend to a massive population growth.

    What would you call 13 or 14 year old's having children when they themselves are still children? Do you honestly think a teenager is able to understand what it takes to make a marriage work? You think a 15 year old is able to understand that and make it work? As well as raising children, going to school, working to feed the family.. You think teenagers are able to take on that kind of responsibility... And if they fail? What then? What of the children of the marriage? Single parenthood for a teenager? Or simply find her another man to marry?

    Within reason. As a responsible parent, my job and role is to ensure my children are able to face the adult world and be able to cope with it.. responsibly.. People shouldn't marry until they are able to comprehend what a marriage actually is and if a parent allows or forces their children to marry to fulfill some archaic religious belief that sex outside of marriage is of the 'pagan world', then those parents are irresponsible individuals.

    I am guessing what I said was a bit beyond you.

    I wasn't talking about chaperon's.

    And that is, or was, you. Look around you. You have commented yourself that you couldn't believe all the people who acted irresponsibly when you were that age. You saw them for yourself. Now, how many other kids your age at that time did you meet or know who were exactly like you or responsible like yourself? Now count them and then look around you and see if the number of responsible and mature teenagers are equal to or more than the irresponsible one's you used to see everywhere when you were of the same age as them. That should give you a good indication of what it is I am trying to get across to you.


    Don't be naive. Even in your sarcasm, you are naive. Look at the mortality rates on the roads and I am positive you will find that the highest bracket includes the young people you are claiming are so mature. Yes, they have a license, but they also tend to survive or pay for their expenses via allowances or funds from their parents. How many work and actually pay for all of their expenses as well as go to school? And you wish to add the responsibility of caring for a spouse and children onto that? Heh!

    You have said so yourself that when you were younger and working delivering pizza, you couldn't believe how many people the same age as you were out drinking and driving. And now you're accusing me of underestimating them?

    Girls who give birth naturally or manage to do so without having to resort to a c-section or dying in child birth or losing the child or miscarrying often have to have corrective surgery because the baby can damage them so that they do leak urine constantly. It is very common in countries like Africa where young girls are raped and fall pregnant and then are rejected by their communities and unable to marry or have a future because they are literally leaking urine until they are able to have surgery to repair the damage of childbirth on her young body. Teenage pregnancies are dangerous, both for the mother and the baby. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure (which can in turn lead to pre-eclampsia.. a very dangerous condition during pregnancy which can result in the death of both the mother and child) during pregnancy, much more so than older women. They also tend to suffer more from anemia than older women during pregnancy. Not to mention the fact that as teenagers, their bodies are still growing and adapting to the hormonal changes they are naturally going through and pregnancy makes that worse, which can in turn lead to permanent damage later on.

    You mean it's wrong to tell teenagers and older women of the risk involved in pregnancy at their respective ages? 45 and want to have a child? Hey no problem at all.. nooo.. no danger at all.. we'll just keep the simple fact that they are more at risk of having a down syndrome child to ourselves.. The reason why doctors advise women of not having babies when too young or two old and not that close together, etc, is not because they don't want women to have children. They do it to ensure the safety and well being of the mother and the child. Maybe that is not important to you at all.. Maybe you do have the belief and attitude that a woman is only good for popping out the kids whenever she can and that's you. But some people do actually care for and wish for the physical and mental well being of the mother and the child. Strange, I know, but try and go with it.

    Hey, you can stick your bible wherever you so choose. What you choose to do with it is your own business.

    But yeah, lets go back to the good old days where the husband had to buy his wife with cattle and the father pays a dowry. Hell, lets go back to the days when women were property! Forget individuality and choice. Lets take away her choice! Sell her to the highest bidder of the guy with the most cows.

    I would suggest you visit some poverty stricken areas of the world and see starving children because their parents have too many mouths to feed. I've seen it with my own eyes. I'd suggest you speak to women in such countries who beg to have their tubes tied or to go on the pill or be given some form of contraception, only to have religious nut bags refuse them because of their beliefs in their God, who then have to sit there and watch their many children go hungry because they don't have the food or water to keep them alive.

    The irony of your whole argument against elitists while you are typing typing this on your computer, in the comfort of your own home where you are well fed, have access to the internet.. well.. I have a feeling that it has escaped you somewhat.

    I am well aware of the inherent horrors of the world and of the simple fact that food is a precious commodity for many. I am also well aware of the fact that having a lot of children when you are barely able to feed one is irresponsible and cruel to the children who will ultimately starve as a result.

    Sounds like the people people who voted for Bush and funnily enough, support exactly what you have been touting here in this thread.. abstinence only education, etc. Kind of amusing in a way.

    What exactly does that have to do with this topic? You can take your spiels about God and why God is needed to the religion forum.

    Yes. Of course! What were we thinking in trying to prevent the spread of STD's and unwanted pregnancies.. How utterly irresponsible of the world. Yes. Lets go back to sitting around a campfire and singing Kumbaya and ignoring the simple fact that the world is moving ahead of us and that planning children and being able to financially and emotionally care for children is vital for the future. Lets home school our children and teach them that evolution is a myth, but that God created the earth and man and woman and that we all stem from that relationship. Lets start selling our daughters to the highest bidders and make sure we keep the virginity contract in a safe place to make sure the husband to be is not receiving damaged goods.. And if all goes belly up and our numerous children start starving to death if the food supply dwindles or the fuel we use to power our homes, cars, etc, runs out.. we'll just sit back around that campfire and sing Kumbaya again and pray for the best.

    Forget about safe sex and STD's. *Puts fingers in ears*.. lalal lalalaaaa..

    Yes, that sounds so much better.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    bells it goes further than that, one of the REASONS teenages arnt ready to get married and have children themselves is because they haven't yet gone through that sexual development which is what adolessants is all about. Yes sure, there are other reasons like the fact that they haven't finished their education and they want\need a job before procreating but the biggest reason is still that they are LEARNING about sex and sexuality. These "pleges" retard this and you get situations like princess diana who havent got the sexual experiance when they get married, not to mention that they dont even know the sexual preferences of there partner or there own.

    Basically this is no better than throwing your name in the lottery and being locked in a room for the rest of your life with whoevers name gets pulled out. You cant MAKE an informed choice
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member


    Yes. Lower child mortality, fewer abandoned children, fewer women dead in childbirth, longer and healthier lives, among other improvements.

    The natural, God-given approach to controlling human reproduction is by killing the children and mothers, through disease, trauma, malnutritution, and war. The human way is through birth control technology and social mores. The social mores have to be pretty severely imposed.

    If virginity pledges actually protected virginity, the only worry would be the sociological and psychiatric side effects of those cringe-inducing rituals. No telling what they are, but we'll be hearing about them in a few years no doubt. It almost sounds like Protestant nun-envy.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Most women that get abortions just simply shed the lining of their uterus, similar to her menstrual period. No harm done.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Notes on a notion

    That the abstinence advocates seem unable to separate the communication of information and the imposition of morals does not mean that such a feat is impossible. Besides, think about people for a moment. How often, when, say, two options out of many are identified, do people reduce reality to include only those two options?

    Any proper abstinence education ought to include the effects of abstinence, as well. Not only does it offer an extra layer of protection against disease, and a fairly solid barrier against pregnancy, it also drives people insane.

    Don't let the narrow-minded define the terms, sir. There is much more to abstinence than the evangelicals, for instance, would recognize.
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    I said that someone told me this, a female. She is in her 30s and told me she cant have children and to be honest i dont remember if she said three or four abortions. She knew this because it effected her. I do remember her being clear that this is normally what happens. And it was not like having a menstrual period.
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2009
  10. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    So many people, so few virgins anymore, supposedly. What to do, what to do?

    So what are parents good for anyway? Just for paying the bills? We sure have seen that the state can't be trusted to raise the children. The governor of the corrupt state of Illinois doesn't even have the good sense to resign, after being caught red-handed trying to sell Obama's senate seat, claims he is innocent. He looks more like a college frat boy than a professional government official.

    It is reasonable for parents to expect, demand virginity of their children until they marry, or are parents not allowed to set any rules at all anymore? Sure, play video games all night, forget about doing homework, maybe you will just magically get a suitable job someday, maybe government will just hand out jobs no matter who is most qualified for them?

    Children are not fully qualified to make moral decisions, and refusing to provide proper moral guidance for them, is child abuse. What is with the liberal retarded U.N. position that treats children as if they were small adults. No, there's a reason that children are regarded as minors, and not allowed to sign valid contracts until they are 18. For one, their lack of money doesn't help much. But parents can vouch for that that cellphone bill will be paid. Well until they get the bill and find some huge surcharge for 1000s of texts, and then cancel or alter the plan?

    A choice to do what? Remain virgins a bit younger? Not have to marry young, if they choose not to? I didn't say that everybody should marry younger, but that people should have that option.

    With the number of human penises and vaginas in the world, steadily growing larger and more densely populating together, I don't consider it reasonable to keep too many people virgins for too long. I agree somewhat with liberals who think that the numbers of people sexual active should be growing, as supposedly "everybody does it." But it is reasonable to expect virginity until marriage. If some people have to marry younger to remain virgins that long, that would seem to obviously be a valid choice.

    I didn't say to pray only, wasn't I mocking your use of the word "hope?" We aren't supposed to merely "hope" that our children make the right choices, we as parents should be always available, willing to discuss their "difficult" questions with them, and always offer moral guidance. Children from strong families are far less likely to get into trouble. Children these days won't listen to parents? Usually, that's because parents have been AWOL (Absent WithOut Leave—a military term) for some time, too busy with life and job, that communications have broken down long before. Quite many people do not believe in using "protection" regarding sexual relations, because it is contrary to nature, and seeking to prevent possible human life. Either abstinence, or do sex right, the way our Creator God meant for humans to copulate, with a suitable, committed-to-in-marriage mate. I do not believe in using "protection," for one, it's false security, and then also I believe in the natural flow of human life, that human birthrates should not be regulated. Even the old demographic terms speak to people's belief concerning the natural flow of human life. Natural increase is quite natural with humans, and to-be-expected. It speaks against any attempt to interfere with population "control." And people had "issue" of children, as if God was "issuing" or handing out the babies to most every ready family that might be able to take in a few more children to take care of. We didn't have all this promiscuity going on, until we had all these "protection" options. Sex is supposed to be natural, penis in vagina, semen flowing naturally to where babies are made, not some sort of simulated perverted sexual activity. It's supposed to be intimate, of spiritual bonding, of sharing bodies. Of course, maybe that idea is just too simple for a pagan "educated" world to understand?

    So you believe in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" Just because of one example, asking things of 4-year-olds that they don't understand, you just swiftly declare the whole abstinence-only movement to be a failure, and take no interest in how or where people are having greater success with it? One example is all we need, to discredit all the Christians and moralists, because we didn't really want to try self-control, that often actually works actually, anyway?

    Even if we say, for the sake of argument, that virginity often doesn't work, according to some liberal "expert" somewhere, the world doesn't have any virgins left anyhow, well except for a few 4 or 5-year-olds, what options remain for somebody that has lost their virginity. There's such a thing they call "secondary virginity," in which the former virgin repents of their improper sexual activity, and refrains from sexual activity until marriage. Secondary virginity can still be simpler than carrying on sexual relations when one isn't really ready for all the accompanying emotional baggage, one doesn't really want to hang around that boyfriend anymore that gets her in trouble or only thinks of himself, and at least one was lucky to not apparently have gotten a nasty STD this time. There's also the option, with a child growing in the womb, of getting married to the child's father/mother, and making the relationship moral and official, and thus answering otherwise complicated questions about getting to see one's child and child support payments. And then of course, virginity is the simpler option, refraining from sex, until one is older and at least more able to make such complicated "adult" decisions. Whatever happened to the claim I heard some time ago, that a major reason abortions have declined in the U.S., is because more children are indeed waiting longer for sex, if not until marriage, at least until college age or so.

    Quite often it is. See the other thread around here somewhere, about Sex Education. Somebody had a really brilliant post in it, telling much the truth about what is wrong with much of the Sex Ed out there. Just do a search on my screenname, and the thread should pop up, now that I have posted in that thread many times now. The poster said that Sex Ed actually urges children to "indulge in sex." It could be a rather simple thing, to recommend that children wait until they are more mature, older, or married to engage in sex, but what a "controversial" notion any semblance of responsibility turns out to be. Liberals come out of the woodwork, claiming "abstinence doesn't work," or that's "pushing religion." By telling children, behind the backs of parents, often without their stated approval of "safer" ways to engage in sex, how are we not telling them to go engage in sex? Especially in liberal schools handing out the condoms as well? Oh, those condoms aren't going to be used? All those kids will be more responsible like me, and upon finding some condom somebody left upon my desk, probably due to having in-class hard-ons days prior, give it to the teacher or throw it away? Not like I had any use for a condom, as I was not married.

    Condoms existing, and being widely available and promoted, are two different things. A family that is friends of my Dad's, she tells me that she is one of 8 children. "They didn't have much for (contraceptive) options back then." Of course they have a wonderful family, and I have met some of their siblings, hanging around these friends for certain holiday and special occasions. Grandparents obviously can tell similar stories. Families were often large, as contraception was rarely, if at all used. Consider the Waltons, didn't they have 8 children? But that was just the norm back when. Even then, world population was growing completely "out of control," but few people were concerned because we didn't have such an astonishing number of billions of people inhabiting the planet as we have now, and the world wasn't so secular as it is now. People trusted that God had the world under his control.

    Divorce rates are high, primarily because of lax morals. And in your example, it sounds like she perhaps was ready to marry young, but unfortunately the guy she married, wasn't quite so ready. I don't think that's the case with everybody, and in the past, that was a reason so many people married young, not just because human lifespan seemed to be shorter, but to help prevent things like babies outside of wedlock. Which BTW, used to be considered almost scandelous to occur, but now is almost like no big deal, our social mores have so degenerated, because of people's waning respect for the ways of God, in turn, harming ourselves.

    Obviously, not all people who use rhythm, strictly adhere to it. Haven't you heard the world's joke, poking fun at rhythm-practicing Catholics? Joke: What do you call people who use rhythm? Answer: Parents. The implication is that those people who rely on only rhythm, do rather tend to have rather large families.

    I do think that a woman's husband usually knows if she is on birth control. If they are doing the rhythm thing, then he definately knows when he's not getting any, as rhythm and pulling out early, require very much will-power. But why so much disrespect for the supposed prospect of constantly "popping out babies?" Since more and more people would be glad to live, shouldn't we just let babies happen as they happen? What ever happened to letting God set our family sizes for us? Why must humans be so much "in control" of everything?

    Why not everybody be more like the Duggars? They are almost like a wonderful model of efficiency, and they certainly don't appear to be poor. But then, the Duggars set such a good example, that may be a bit too lofty for some of us. I think I could be far more into children help push all the shopping carts, than that part about making our own laundry detergent. Hey, just another reason for that shoppers club place membership, to buy the really big megasizes of products. I've got no objections to buying groceries for a large family, as if I was shopping to run a family "restaurant." I already buy my mayonaise in the gallon size. Who has time for little pidly-sized packages that are nearly half empty moments after being opened? The thing that most impresses me about the Duggars, is not so much what carnival TV sensation freaks they may or may not supposed be, but even after 17 or 18 children, their birthrate is still "unregulated." I think that says loads, about how much they value children, children being said to be our future. I don't believe human birthrates should be regulated, but as the numbers of women of childbearing age naturally rises around the world, I believe babies should be welcome to enter the world faster and faster, regardless of how large or dense populations seem to be becoming. The body (or God) already seems to know when to get pregnant, without our shoddy meddling or awful contraceptives. Whatever happened to respecting the natural rhythms of the body's reproductive system, and counting children as a wondrous blessing from God? As each and every human life is sacred, and more and more people would be glad to live, and the world's quite a big place, certainly it could find or make place for lots more people.

    But much of Africa is still fairly sparsely populated. Why are people still so dependent upon rain anyway? Because radical environmentalists won't let them build dams to hold back some water for lack of rainy days? And yet we in the West U.S. routinely rely upon water irrigation for our farms? So much of the world's growing population lives close to the coast, and already there are working water desalination plants in some places. You would think that the use of all that ocean water, might be a more explored option, that is, if the meddling eco-freaks would allow cheap enough energy to desalinate ocean water?

    Also, Africa now is about the fastest population growth region in the world, so somebody had be making some sensible plans, for how African nations will prosper, when their populations have become much vaster and denser. That means more of the development I have for so long been stressing. Seems like they haven't been so convinced just yet, of the supposed value in depriving themselves of the blessings of children, and to become experimental guinea pigs for Big Pharma's shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons. Africa currently has grown to nearly a billion people, and within decades, it could reach a 2nd billion. Populations are large and youthful, and tomorrow's breeders often come from large families themselves. I do hope that more people become more pronatalist, and that globally, human birthrates do become more "unregulated," surging forth naturally so that all the more valuable human beings can experience life, and families and children and life may be properly celebrated.

    I think that many liberals, don't care about the facts, and want for virginity to be ineffective, because "moralistic" arguments seem to bother them. As if they want to shake their fists up at God, and yell, "Who is this God who dares tell us what we shall do?" Now maybe this move for virginity, is ill-conceived, too little, too late. But since when is such a movement, all monolithic? All the same, no matter where you look? If some girls are being asked to commit to virginity at age 4, when they don't even know what sex is, then some are probably being asked to at age 12 or 14, while they are yet virgins. Virginity makes sense to many young people, as they really didn't want all the emotional baggage of a too-much hot-and-heavy relationship that they aren't ready for, anyway. No doubt, somewhere, it's working far better, than it's working elsewhere. But since when does good news sell all that much? Bad news sells, even if they have to make some up, on a slow news day. Like the old song claims, "People love dirty laundry."

    Ever hear of "statuatory rape?" Isn't that the same as "sex with a minor?" It is deemed legally to be "rape," if it's between an adult and a minor, as minors are assumed not to be legally able, to give "consent" to such activity, as if the minor is likely being taken advantage of, by a older and shrewder individual. Perhaps one of the few protections of children remaining. Even the law still shows some remaining residual respect for the authority of parents over their children, to make moral decisions for their children. Now presumably, younger marriage would seem to trump "statuatory rape" implications, especially with just normal marital relations, and not allegations of rape. The law is not saying that minors are not to engage in sex, but rather, that they aren't old enough to necessarily give "consent" to sex. Of course if a minor and a minor have sex, apparently, that's considered less likely to be an unequal or predatory sort of relationship, perhaps more of a teenager "raging hormones" scenario, still with "child support" sort of implications.

    You say no child should be forced or coerced into committing to be a virgin. Upon what basis do you claim that? What about forcing or coercing children to not watch so much TV, or not play video games all day, rather than doing homework? What level of persuation would be appropriate, towards getting children to do their assigned chores? Face it, minors do not have the same legal rights as mature adults. Minors also have a few special benefits, such as not having to pay much if any taxes, presumably because of their lack of a steady flow of income. Minors probably have to get a parent to sign, to purchase a car or a cellphone contract. This is not to punish minors, but to allow them legal time to mature into responsible adults, and for parents to make major decisions for them.

    I just don't agree with your assertion. I think parents would seem to have the right, to demand virginity of their children. Especially while their children live under the roof of the parents.

    Now I think it's very commendable that some parents have allowed their children to marry, not necessarily move out right away, and enjoy normal marital copulation and procreation, within their own bedroom or living suite, adding further to the numbers of people who live in the parent's house. At my old home Church, we meet in somebody's home, this guy had 8 children, and I recall that one of his daughters got married, not very young BTW, and they lived in a bedroom of the house, for around a year before moving into the house next door. Why not, as it was a custom-built house for a large family anyway, with 5 bathrooms I think. Yeah, I suspect Dad had something to do with that as well, kind of nice to have family living right next door. I think they had a baby almost like right away, and no, I don't think it was one of those supposedly so typical initial 7-month gestational periods. No, also, some people manage to get pregnant almost as soon as their wedding night.

    I would likely do similar, and not necessarily boot my children out upon getting married. What with how high housing costs can be, I hardly think that a newlywed couple must always have their own home to start a family. There is also the obvious option, at least on a temporary basis to get one's finances more under control, of populating denser, or allowing people's homes to grow "crowded" with people. Obviously, a newly-wed family, not having yet accumulated much stuff, can live 3 people in a bedroom. Father, mother, baby, 2nd baby? Like I said, like quite many conservatives and perhaps liberals, I do not believe in population "control" of humans. I believe it's okay for people to keep on letting babies naturally push out, even in cramped housing conditions, which most likely are quite possibly "temporary" BTW.

    I would expect virginity of my children, but only for a reasonable amount of time. I know most all humans will ultimately become sexually active, and they should, when the time is right. There comes a time for adulthood, parenthood, and babymaking, which generally is about the time that a child has grown up and become mature enough to commit to a stable marriage. I do not at all believe in any effort to "stabilize" the growing population size of the world, as with strong stable families, that's already plenty of stabilization to insure the reliable sustainable rate of natural population growth. We can't so safely insure the welfare of a burgeoning world of people, in societies that are chaotic that have no moral compass.

    And no doubt, these "studies" are funded by Planned Parenthood, or by their usual research arm, or by abortion-promoting leftists?

    And again with the assumption that it is a monolithic movement, which I seriously doubt.

    Don't tell children to never have sex, but to plan properly for that special time, and to give one's virginity to their chosen special mate, on the wedding night, not before. Virginity can only be given away once, so it's not just a treasure to regard lightly. One of the big risks, of premature sex, is that the guy will flee the coup, leaving her alone, with child. A guy like that, isn't worth losing one's virginity to. If he's not willing to put a ring upon a daughter's finger and make it official, tell her he's not worth much more than to tell the time of day to. If people are to be their own sovereigns, and not have Big Brother government constantly breathing down their backs, telling them how many children they may have, and endless other abuses, then they need to take more personal responsibility themselves. Which means, making sure they are married first, before engaging in sex. Also balancing a checkbook. Etc.

    And where you could get to keep your earning without having to file tax after tax upon them. Well except video games aren't so "fair" either. We just don't get so upset about that, because it's inconsequential. I'm think of that scene in Half-Life, for PS2, in which I go through some doorway, marked "to the surface" or something or other. (Seems a bit "too good to be true," doesn't it.) Well of course, it isn't what it says it is, the lights go out, I'm whacked over the head, and as I come to, I find that they are carrying me off and dumped me into the garbage disposal. The game shows the 1st-person image fade in as if I am being carried horizontally, unable to move. Where's all my fancy weapons I had accumulated? Gone! And what's worse, the huge trash compactor has started up, and crushing everything inside. I have seconds to climb the crates before they collapse, and get to the top. Upon finding I have indeed survived, I'm still trapped inside, the only way out, is through a grating cover, that won't open without a little mechanical tool persuation. If only I had a tool or weapons. Oh, but handily, the video game authors did leave a crowbar nearby. And then I get to later start again, accumulating a stash of cool and sometimes experimental, weapons. At least that game was a whole lot more cool, that slaying gnomes and elves. More about some mad scientists trying to develop some new energy source, or open a dimension into new worlds, which of course, turns out somewhat disasterous.

    If I was to teach my children about countraceptives, it would be about why we don't believe in using them, and about the terrible side-effects, and about the virtues of letting families grow potentially large naturally.

    It's the Left that is trying to keep people dumb, lest they risk losing power themselves.

    They taught all that in Home Economics? Gee, I kind of wish I took some Home Economics course. I think I could benefit from knowing a bit more about cooking. Hopefully, my wife to be, will be a good cook, and no doubt then she would teach me a few things, as I sometimes would likely be expected to help, not to mention changing the occasional diaper. I know my brother-in-law changed plenty of diapers, although I'm pretty sure my sister changed more than he did, with their 2 children. Of course considering that he also has 5 children via a previous marriage, 7 children total for him, he may have her beat.

    Planned Parenthood propaganda again?

    "Aware" is sounding is sounding awfully ambiguous in that context. "Awareness" seems almost a liberal radical codeword, for the early stages of meddling "environmental" activism. Doesn't it too often start with promoting "awareness," which usually means propaganda for some controversial viewpoint?

    I would want my children "aware" of many things as well. I consider that part of having a good preparation-for-life education. Since I don't trust the liberal version of "awareness," I am really open to the prospect and encouragement of home-schooling. I thought I might want to try home-schooling up to 6th grade or so.

    And like who doesn't already know this? I am trying to counter, what I consider to be an unhealthy trend, towards people procrastinating marriage until age 35, 45, or never, which has been cited as a distinctly contributing factor as to why it's so hard to wait, wait, wait, until marriage for sex. I'm not saying necessarily that any given person should marry younger, but that the American population on average, should be marrying still a lot younger. Europeans and others too, probably, especially where birthrates have dipped perilously low.

    Nonsense! More liberal anti-development propaganda. If India can indeed survive and continue to grow in people, to I estimate now, some 3 people per 2 acres of land, then the entire planet should be able to become a lot more heavily populated. Already, half the world's people, as of 2008, live in cities. We are already becoming a populous urban world, and the number of megacities has risen drastically since 1950. Just because many people may happen to live in crowded big cities, doesn't at all mean they can't still enjoy having "traditionally very large" families. Suburbs upon suburbs can be added. More cities and towns and villages can be built, in between the various growing cities. BTW, India is becoming more modern, and has a lot of computer programmers, and English-speaking U.S call center workers. Isn't it nice to get somebody who can almost speak English, when you call for customer support?

    Why wouldn't I call them possibly "adults?" Bible scholars think that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably about 14, when she was betrothed to Joseph. She seemed mature enough, didn't she?

    In a populous world of 6.7 billion people, with 13 and 14 years olds having children, I would call that also, natural population expansion. Many people in many countries still marry that young, and I'm fine with that, and that would seem to be their right. They say the world now has a billion teenagers in it, and at least another billion children behind them, soon to be having babies themselves. Many of them come from large families themselves, and may have no intention at all of taking any "precautions" to "regulate" their birthrates. They shouldn't have to. I believe human beings have reproductive systems for a reason, and that they ought to be used. I see the process by which human beings convert relatively cheap food into additional human bodies, as completely natural and to-be-expected. I generally don't care to whine about "children having children" like some anti-population libtards too often do. I know and accept that it's only a matter of time, before all these children become sexually active, and I wish the best for them too. My concern is whether they be married, and if not and they are having sex, why are they being so irresponsible? Either make it right and marry, or wait until a more suitable time for sex. That's not too much to ask.

    Yes, many can. And such was common not all that long ago, so apparently, something we are doing in modern times, just isn't working. I think the government monopoly schools are part of the problem. They increasingly teach secular values, and hedonism, and are retarding the normal social and moral responsibility development of their students. Surely it's not hardly "news" anymore, that U.S. schools are trailing far behind most developed countries in their statistical performance, a result of throwing ever more money into liberal-controlled boondoggles. What our schools desperately need, is not more money, but more competition. When faced with the prospect of a huge student population decline, and a sudden loss of jobs or teacher/administrator job searches, I think they would once again discover that they need to cater to parents better, and strive for excellence, rather than manipulating the decaying mores of society and all the stupid pet liberal causes. Less about fuzzy-mushy "environmental" propaganda and "safer sex," and more of the traditional 3 Rs, which seem to have almost been pushed by the wayside, of Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic.

    No doubt there are couples who married so young, who did make it work. And if humans now are so horny, what with "raging hormones" and all, that they just can't seem to wait for sex, why not go ahead and get married, and let the babies just start coming?

    What if older couples marrying fail? Many of them aren't even so well prepared these days. Almost nobody budgets like they should anymore, towards supporting a growing family.

    What is all this fear of failure? Doesn't anybody know anymore how conservatism and free societies work? To have opportunity to succeed, you must also have opportunity to fail. Far better to fail upon one's own, than to have universal failure imposed by government. Economies and free markets are risky. What guarantee is there, that enough of the right kind of people, will be involved in all the right sorts of industries and businesses? Government can't guarantee success. But government can make success more likely, by getting out of people's way, and stop burdening everything that appears to be working, with onerous taxes.

    A person becomes probably even more reliant upon their own moral compass, in a world more wicked and immoral. People around us, perhaps are less reliable a guide, in a more wayward world.

    People shouldn't marry until? Huh? So marriage is for saints, who have already worked out most of their problems? But sex is for most anybody with "raging hormones?" Something just doesn't compute. Why are you imposing promiscuity, in your views of marriage? The world is growing more and more populous. A populous world of rampant "unchecked" promicuity, could be frighteningly unstable. But strong families are the glue or building blocks that holds society together. Society can much more readily deal with a naturally-burgeoning population size, filling more and more of the planet, if the building blocks within are strong and stable. I even go so far as to say, large families help condition children better, to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. Children aren't likely to be alarmed at what "a crowd" the globe could seem to be becoming, if they grew up in their own family crowd. They would be well used to it, and quite comfortable around so many people. Why do people speak so negatively about older children helping with the younger children. That teaches responsibility, and I think was a big part of why so many people were easily able to marry younger in the past. They were likely so used to being around and caring for babies, that their first baby wasn't really much of a "shock" to their way of life.

    People simply do not marry, under the most ideal of circumstances. That's just not reality, nor realistic. I went on a trip some years ago, with some old Church friends, and I hear this guy say to somebody else, that he thinks he married the wrong person. They had met in a bar, neither one of the Christians at the time. (Not only did they become Christians but) God made them right for each other.


    Oh, there were many calm and responsible peers that I seemed to have growing up. And people hardly need to be perfect, to be somewhat reasonable prepared for becoming a parent. Many of my peers were likely from families with more money than we had. Of course in my example, in that crowd of midnight drinkers hanging around outside, what I can't see, is all the people inside, working on their studies, or all the people inside asleep, or who went home to be their families over the weekend. Once again, I didn't say ALL people should marry younger, but that MORE people should. It's a responsible option that may work well for SOME people. Also, I happen to agree with liberals, that more of the vast world population, should be sexually active, or at least be welcomed to enjoy that option, but in the responsible moral way. I do believe the flow of human life should be more natural, more babies being welcome to keep pushing out of even more birth canals, no effort being made to curb the naturally-rising size of the world population. I do not believe in imposing population "control" nor "birth control" upon humans.

    So where are these young people getting the idea, that driving a car, is a flippant task much like driving in a video game? I never thought that, even when I was young. I was always a by-the-book, careful, patient, defensive driver. Another failing of government monopoly education?

    Maybe we aren't educating very efficiently either. Education drags on longer and longer, and gets us less and less. When everybody and their brother has a college degree, and we are so overtaxed and so overregulated, that we aren't creating enough good jobs to match, a college degree isn't really worth so much in trying to get a job anymore, now is it? Why is it anyway, that children can start families young in other countries, but we with all our supposed advantages, seem to think that is so impossible? Our economy is so "up to our eyeballs in debt," I have been wondering if I should leave the country, before the big economic meltdown. Rampant government, business, personal debt. So many people have nearly maxxed out credit cards. No wonder people are "panicked" right now, and drastically cutting back their spending. And I don't even think my country is all that child- or family-friendly anymore. Maybe I would feel more comfortable raising a large family in Israel, where large families are just more "common" and to-be-expected. And I wouldn't be surprised, if the job market was looking a lot better, in some countries, especially those with lower taxation rates, and less burdensome regulations.

    You speak as if I was piling the "burdens" of childrearing upon people. How? In what way? It's not I, that makes people to have so many children, but nature, or God. What gets me so upset about it, is why do we have more and more burdens, interfering with our ability to marry and raise families? Don't tell me, that it's the increased population size of the world, or supposedly limited resources. That's not it at all. Most anybody with a decent job, has lots more options than people typically had in the past. Electricity, modern house appliances, hospitals, etc. Why does education drag on longer and longer, and get us less and less? I tell you what it is. It's world in rebellion against God. It's a world that chooses to be unproductive. It's a world that chooses to hastle people needlessly. It's a wicked world that chooses to tax the successful, and reward the unproductive. It's fiat paper currencies, and socialism, and other failed isms, and people forgetting the ways of God!

    The ways of the past may not have always been better, but did at least seem to have the appearance of being slower, and more simple. You didn't have to have a license, nor Driver's Ed, to operate a camel. Of course future technology may address a few problems. I would really love to see the "self-drive" cars from the movie iRobot. Humans are such awful impatient moron drivers. Once computers show they can safely drive cars, I think computers would put most human drivers to shame. Computers should have far better reaction time, systematically avoid mistakes, "religiously" obey all the traffic rules and use turn signals, drive faster, and far safer. I imagine the transition would be somewhat gradual, meaning roads would not be designed so much for computer drivers, but for humans still, and the computers, as usual, would have to learn to navigate the world of humans. That means computers would "see" with cameras as we see with our eyes, recognize objects, etc. But one advantage towards early marriage should be obvious. A young guy could go to work at his job, without actually being capable of safely driving a car, since his car could, some decades into the future, be a self-drive car. Instead of an obnoxious talking GPS gadget, the car itself would ask "Where to?" and simply drive you wherever you want to go, estimating arrival time and all that. I say technically, a "law" allowing people in some states to marry as young as 13, trumps child-labor laws. If you are married, you are technically no longer a "child," no longer subject to child labor law limits. A father has an obligation to provide for his children, something that old-fashioned child labor laws may have neglected to consider, as indeed puberty is coming younger these days. Of course, full-time might yet be reduced to 35 hours or so, like maybe they have done in some European countries?

    I said they were drinking. I don't think standing out in some apartment building parking lot, constitutes driving. I don't believe in smoking nor drinking.

    Whether you or I claim to like it or not, quite many young people tend to, for various reasons, become pregnant. I don't seek to reduce that numbers, because procreation is a basic primal right of human beings. What I care about is the moral aspect, are they properly married. Some may try to claim that world population growth is "beyond control." I don't advocate population "control" for humans. Humans are meant to intelligently adapt, not to "control" their numbers. The world's quite a big place, with plenty of room to drastically increase human population sizes. But aren't you conveniently forgetting that quite many mothers may start off having babies young, and do just fine? A young human body heals easier. And with puberty coming earlier, probably due to better nutrition, human bodies are growing up faster as well. Even in the Titanic movie, they had to be build the grand staircase bigger, because actors are bigger, than the people would have been back then. People are taller and wider and heavier. Which suggests to me, that teenage bodies indeed preparing to grow babies inside, not just in ovulation, but growing the wider hips and all sooner, than they probably used to. Liberals may have objections to "children having children," but isn't it a reality already, that somehow must be dealt with, hopefully in some more productive fashion, than in disparaging the value of the children that get to live as a result? Remember, quite many people simply do not believe in population "control," so if there's getting to be more people of childbearing years, if it's getting easier for people to start younger and have more babies faster, I'm for relaxing and letting the human population grow and grow naturally.

    If teenagers need any special prenatal care or baby-delivery care, who's suggesting that they shouldn't get it? There was a discussion thread on some pro-life forum, in favor of more teenage pregnancies. Much the same emphasis as mine, that people could conceivable, choose to marry younger. And I think most people, would probably be talking late teens. 17, 18, 19, maybe 16, at which most teenagers are about as adult-developed, as they are going to get. I really don't think the "wait" until marriage, always has to be so long. Somebody on the Philippians Pro-Life Forum that I frequent, thought that more people should be enjoying having their children, while they still have those "raging hormones" of youth, having big families, not waiting until they are so old as to almost be losing interest in sex.

    Downs Syndrome? More pathetic excuses, designed to trap people, and even if they have went all their life, and just let the babies come as they come, one last chance to snare them into "talking precautions" with the shoddy Big Pharma experimental contraceptive potions and poisons. What does anybody think that menopause is for? Maybe there comes a time when the body says, "I'm too old now, that probably was the last baby." Maybe people ought not to have any babies at all, for irrational fear that any child, no matter how healthy, might turn out to be mean bully, or a juvenile delinquent, of course that's probably far less likely, for parents who actually spend some quality time with their children. One of those many children may actually take in their ailing elderly parent, and keep them from an awful "forgotten and neglected in some nursing home" fate.

    Yeah, just what I need in my city back yard. Some cattle. But then again, maybe cattle would be some good eating, when our economy mired in socialist-tax-and-spending debt, goes belly up. Maybe I can sell some of my cows, and get some of that new funny money they issue, after the dollar crashes. Or maybe I should be trading in some of those nearly worthless Federal Reserve Notes, for some cows?

    Maybe we could do good going back to some of those "good old days," when doctors would actually come to your home, and not charge you an arm-and-a-leg for their services. See? Some of our "progress" has been somewhat hollow or illusionary, propped up increasingly upon bad economic fundamentals and debt, as we keep electing officials who make increasingly foolish decisions. Back in "the good ol days," before all the child labor laws, we didn't have so many abortions. Hmmm. Could there be a connection between a society devaluing human life, and more abortions? Hmmm, could be. Not that I'm against child labor laws, but I think they could make a few more exceptions, say like for some responsible children who really do want to work, or start businesses young while they still have that youthful energy and drive and enthusism. Child labor laws should be more a restriction upon employers, not employees, to not force people to work more than they want to, especially when they still have schoolwork to do. Some lady at work, handled over some task she was working on, to me, to finish for her, citing "child labor laws," so she has to go home. Nice for her. I wonder what handy excuse I could find, to defend a 25-workweek for me? How many hours are children allowed to work anyway?

    Having many children is not what makes people poor. And that's not how it is with many of those more pronatalist countries. Quite often, most of the people really don't want contraception, but in comes Western contraceptive imperilists trying to tell them that being robbed of their children, is part of the process of modernizing, so they try those awful contraceptives, but where's the rest of the modernization? People object and still associate contraceptives with "dirty sex," like what prostitutes do. And fear it will bring promiscuity upon them and destroy their families, like it has done for the West. And people have every right, to keep on pushing their babies out, just as fast as their bodies want to make them. What all those lands need, as they keep growing denser and denser with people, is proper development and modernization.

    Why are children not even born yet, blamed for a country's problems? They have the resources, but corrupt people play games, rather than develop accessable resources. And it's not just "over yonder" anymore. Finally we get Congress to do away with their moratorium against offshore drilling for oil, and now we have a new crowd coming into power, that wants to put it back on again, right after the election. And Obama wants to tax coal out of existence, when half our electricity comes from coal. Just what an increasingly populous country as the U.S. needs? Jobs being destroyed, brownouts and blackouts, unrealiable overloaded electricity grids, skyhigh home heating oil and gasoline costs! That ought to help put food on the family table? And so that we had too many children, would the handy scapegoat, even though it has little to do with the actual cause of the problem?

    And what does that have to do with anything? So because I am "comfortable," I must be a trendy hypocrite, just like all the other elitists? Somehow, the logic of that escapes me. Perhaps if I lived in a swamp in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut, with my 10 or 15 children, I might have more credibility with you? But then no electricity to power up my computer?

    What I said, is that it seems that quite a lot of this global whining, about how bad it supposedly is, is coming from some very "comfortable" people, and not the actual people who are supposedly suffering. Now that does seem a bit questionable to me. I don't understand why I must sit in the dark without electricity, or with electricity I can barely afford anymore, after all the scam ripoff "cap and trade" nonsense of sequestering carbon dioxide underground, because a few rich elitists, want to impose their "guilt" at being apparently financially successful, upon the entire world. And no doubt, rather than accepting blame for the mess they make with their stupid ideas rushed into public policy before hardly anybody had a clue, they will drone on, something about it being "too many" people using electricity?

    And let's talk about just how "comfortable" I am, in my home, as a Christian. If that really has any relevance to anything? Well-fed? Well sort of. Yes, my refrigerator, especially my freezer is full of food. But I don't eat as much as I used to, as my body tells me it really doesn't need it so much, since I don't have time for a lot of exercise. So I am certainly not pigging out, nor fat. Actually, I tend to almost forget to eat sometimes, having spent too much time on the internet. When I do eat, it's usually only twice a day, as that seems to be sufficient. Sometimes I stay up too late upon the internet, but usually I am not too sleep-deprived. And since I am at home, I must be warm, right? Well not quite. Seems the one bedroom in my old home, with a telephone jack near an electrical outlet, is in a bedroom that I usually don't heat. So when I decide to "get onto the internet," via somewhat slow dial-up, I go into a cold bedroom. Yeah, it does warm up some, but my gas logs aren't really the best, at pushing the heat to the extremities, through every open door. (At least my fancy cordless phone system handily circumvents that cold bedroom problem for phone and answering machine access. Everything's available from all 4 handsets, and the main base is nothing but a data relay.) Oh, and lastly, access to the internet. Yeah, about the slowest, most out-of-date sort of access, dial-up. So I must really be one of those "comfortable" elitists, eh? As a street preacher on the internet, I too feel a lot of sorrow of people's problems, and read far more than most people would be prepared to deal with. And I know so much more about the issues than my peers. But does anybody listen? A few people do, as can be expected. But the vast majority of people listen more to the lies of the world, trumpeted by their big money corporate mainstream misledia franchises. And so much of the world seems more interested in hedonistic enertainment and fluff about celebrities, than about real news or truth.

    BTW, I do plan to work upon my "comfort level" a bit, when I find time, after I solve a few of the world's problems, which should put me on track for a few home improvements or so, say like in another decade or so? Or when I get around to it.

    So if I agree to have fewer children, the world will kindly agree to stop using food shortage as a weapon, and improve its food distribution systems? Ha! Didn't think so. So I might as well enjoy "all the children God gives me" then, and shun the awful Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, right? Seems to me that the number of mouths to feed, is going to increase, whether or not I have many children or not. So why can't I enjoy having my children as well. Besides, how many times must I say, that the children aren't to blame for the problems created by their elders or by their elders elected political representatives?

    Best reason I told people, to vote for Bush, was to vote against the DemocRAT Kerry.

    Huh? Are you suggesting that virginity pledges, and why or why not that they are supposedly effective, is not a "religious" topic? Ha! Are you trying to make a funny? Virginity not a religious topic? Surely you jest? Don't you know, religion affects EVERYTHING?

    Oh, I scrolled down, to see to what thing I said that you were referring. So you only want to address an issue or two, and then leave people as lost as ever?

    Ah yes, sitting around a campfire and singing. I seem to have a few dusty memories of doing something like that, some years ago.

    Yeah, the world is moving ahead of us, in so many ways it's scary. And it's greedy corporations, the corrupt political elite ruling class, and libtards holding us back. Foreign country schools are radically outperforming ours; Corporations blocking household fiber optic data services upgrades are holding us back to perhaps increasingly the slowest internet connection on the planet, leaving us to pay exorbitant costs for cable or DSL monthly fees; And we seem to own less and less of our own country, as we drive away our jobs, run up rampant consumer and government and business debt, and foreigners who actually save money—What a concept!—Are fast buying up our country and businesses.

    Something tells me you for some strange reason, don't like "virginity contracts."

    Why not sing Kumbaya? At least the political elite ruling class hasn't figured out how to tax up on singing yet, but then of course, with "cap and trade," we may soon be paying YET ANOTHER TAX upon the very air we breathe, which God gave us all for free.

    Or just turn your TV off, since it's connected to the sewer anyway, and just spews in bad news and filth all day.
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    I guess i agree with that, the problem i have is with the word itself. Abstance always conjures images of the religious nutcases. I just have a better image of the drink responcably campaines for achole and think that THIS is what would be worth incorporating into a sexual education campaine. I have yet to hear ANY sexual education campaine teach that abstance of sex makes you go NUTS though

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    i would like to see it because it seems to be the truth no one wants to speak

    John there is always a risk with surgury but the more probable reason is that they were ectopic pregnancy's. The treatment for this is sadly to remove the folopian tube as well as the embrio
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Are you Tiassa? If not, you may have just broken his longstanding record for longest post! Congrats!
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Pronatalist your real name wouldnt be Fred Phelps would it?
    because hes the only other person i have herd making those idiotic claims
  14. distantcube Registered Member

    Why are people still acting as though virginity pledges are only being made by teenage girls? Do I need to repost that statistic which states quite clearly that 16% of males are pledgers?
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    who cares what the gender is?
    its still disterbing and dangerious
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Irony: I wish I could tell you who, or what show, but there was a guy on a radio show (NPR? PRI? APM?) I heard a couple months ago who had written a book about words. One of the examples he explained during the segment was the word "teetotaler", which is someone who abstains entirely from alcohol. Merriam-Webster puts the origin of the word at 1834, and gives no other information. But the story goes that the word comes about exactly as stupidly as we might imagine, that some American preacher advocating abstention from alcohol phrased the point as "total, with a capital T", or "capital T total", hence "teetotal".

    In that context, the word seems nearly derisive.

    And you won't. After all, for all some people want the Bible taught in schools, we won't hear that redemptive monotheism is a form of conditioned mass hysteria derived from ego defense mechanisms that eventually leads to delusion.

    These sorts of explanations are complex, and many Americans, at least, don't like complicated explanations. Politically, while people of all stripes frequently suffer such troubles, the sentiment presently has a home within the Republican Party. Indeed, Gov. Palin struck many as the living embodiment of this anti-intellectualism. Her version of speaking "truth to power" demanded an incredibly simplistic assertion of truth.

    It's populism at best, playing to the lowest common denominator of a society in order to attract political support. We see it in the drug war, the war on terror, the teaching of history, sex education, civil rights, election rhetoric—pretty much anything with a stake people feel compelled to fight over will eventually encounter this sort of lowbrow appeal to emotion. The object is to keep throwing empty arguments at the opposition, because each point of the empty argument then needs to be refuted, and at some point you can just throw your hands up and say, "See? He's making this so complicated!" and many will nod and fall in line.

    Consider dealing with one of our fellow members, for instance: He might post a string of questionable statements. Now, how to respond to those seeming distortions? Call them lies? Well, that's the populist shorthand, and when you're playing against a dishonest appeal to emotion, a true statement—e.g., the arguments are false and deliberately misconstrued—only goes so far; generally, it just rallies the faithful, or preaches to the choir. But if you put forth a stronger analysis, it is inevitably a longer argument. And how do people respond? Well, the anti-intellectualists will do whatever it takes to avoid the discussion, denigrate the analyst, and reinforce their solidarity.

    Apparently it's rude, though, to say that this is the best these people can do. To the other, it's apparently rude to say that they can do better and, for reasons of their own, choose to represent themselves so poorly.

    So in the meantime, the only noble thing to do is to perpetuate ignorance, because it would be impolite to do otherwise.


    "teetotaler". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Accessed January 2, 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teetotaler
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    You are very misinformed.

    For one thing what the hell is Abstance? You have been spelling it that way for too many posts for someone not to point out to you that the word is Abstinence.

    You have no right to determine who does what or for what reasons and ESPECIALLY how people raise their OWN CHILDREN. Can you understand that?

    A few years ago i was involved with a woman who at 25 years old was not sexually active and was totally normal but wanted to wait until she had a commitment. She had a child already and the father (if you can call him that) was a moron and abandoned them. This was HER choice to make.

    The other part where you are weaseling in your own fabricated story is FALSE. If not, then are you saying i am lying?

    This woman (a good friend of mine) told me that 3 or 4 abortions leaves a woman unable to conceive. If this is not the case then the fault lies with the doctors who told her this.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    At this point i would like to make a comment.

    This is nothing personal against Asguard or Tiassa but how in the world do they moderate a scientific discussion board?
  19. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    how the hell is it dangerous? :bugeye: Not having sex is dangerous? Aren't you the one always going on and on about diseases and pregnancies.
  20. distantcube Registered Member

    Some progressives apparently feel that trying to control ones sexual urges is 'unnatural', and hence reprehensible. Someone should tell them that it's not as though virgins don't get to orgasm.

    If done correctly (where the child gives informed consent), I see no problem whatsoever with virginity pledges. A lot of the outrage expressed on this thread is just supposed 'liberals' showing a burning intolerance for lifestyles that are not akin to their own.
  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    lets see, could it be because these people are JUST AS LIKLY TO HAVE SEX (as was stated earlier in the thread) but ARE MORE LIKLY NOT TO USE CONDOMS. Hence they probably have higher rates of STD's and unwanted teenage pregancy, hence dangerous. Only a moron couldnt understand that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Oh that's too bad. I used to work at a clinic and if a woman came in early enough she didn't need a surgical procedure. Perhaps her doctor wasn't that great. We used to have women come back 7 or more times, many of them married women. But whatever, that's off topic.

    I don't see what's wrong with virginity pledges. Except I think you should pledge to yourself and not your parents. You should remain a virgin because it's important to you not because your parents told you so. Otherwise I don't think your pledge has much meaning. If it is truly important to YOU that you remain a virgin then I think you will have more will power if you find yourself in a tempting situation. I choose not to drink, smoke, or gamble, not because of what my parents think, but because that choice is important to me and it easily allows me to turn these "vices" down. Making a 10 year old pledge abstinence until marriage is like signing a contract that you haven't read. It would have no real personal meaning to a child that young and I think that it should. Parent's should let their expectations be known of course, but they shouldn't condemn their child if they develop different expectations for themselves.
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    yes was most likely surgical. this was an older woman.

    you mentioned it.:shrug:

Share This Page