Drowning = Pregnancy???

Post by **Orlion** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:36 pm

I must point out that you can, indeed, get a sexually transmitted disease whilst being abstinent. Blood transfusion is one-way. Someone spiting into your McDonalds sandwich is another.

Post by **Rawedge Rim** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:47 pm

Orlion wrote:I must point out that you can, indeed, get a sexually transmitted disease whilst being abstinent. Blood transfusion is one-way. Someone spiting into your McDonalds sandwich is another.

Yeah, and if someone stuffs a nuclear weapon inside a Barbie doll, a child can find themselves at the center of ground zero, but it's not real high on the probability scale.

Post by **Orlion** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:20 pm

Rawedge Rim wrote:
Orlion wrote:I must point out that you can, indeed, get a sexually transmitted disease whilst being abstinent. Blood transfusion is one-way. Someone spiting into your McDonalds sandwich is another.
Yeah, and if someone stuffs a nuclear weapon inside a Barbie doll, a child can find themselves at the center of ground zero, but it's not real high on the probability scale.

Higher than you think. Much higher than you think.

Post by **Vraith** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:45 pm

Rawedge Rim wrote: I will say however, that however distasteful you may find "Abstinance Only" sex education, it has one absolutely truthfull assertion that cannot be gainsaid: If one reframes from engaging in sexual intercourse, one will not become pregnant, or become infected with a sexually transmitted disease."

Any other solution is a roll of the dice.

It can accurately assert the first one [the std one is problematic].
What they CANNOT assert without being demonstrably wrong is that "abstinence only" education lowers the rates of unwanted pregnancy, STD's, or abortions...because, in fact, that would be false.

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:27 am

Vraith wrote:
What they CANNOT assert ... is that "abstinence only" education lowers the rates of unwanted pregnancy, STD's, or abortions...

Because people will have sex regardless of what you tell them.

Just like they'll do drugs.

--A

Post by **sgt.null** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:40 am

i'd rather practical sexual education. the abstinence only school of thought people are deluded.

and it goes to show that big daddy gov't should not be in the business of sex ed.

Post by **deer of the dawn** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:23 am

But abstinence is: 1. possible, 2. healthy, 3. effective in drastically reducing chances of pregnancy or STDs, and 4. provides no financial gain to anyone: which is probably the main reason it is so unpopular.

Technically, it's not an STD if it's not transmitted by having sex, ya know.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:07 am

deer of the dawn wrote:4. provides no financial gain to anyone: which is probably the main reason it is so unpopular.

Except the folks who came up with the idea of purity rings, of course.

Post by **Cail** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:20 am

I'm Murrin wrote:
deer of the dawn wrote:4. provides no financial gain to anyone: which is probably the main reason it is so unpopular.
Except the folks who came up with the idea of purity rings, of course.

Which, of course, are not required to stay chaste.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:13 pm

Well I didn't say it made money from abstinence by default. All beside the point anyway, I didn't mean anything by throwing it in there.

Post by **wayfriend** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:32 pm

What about Cold Showers, Inc. ?

Post by **Rawedge Rim** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:09 pm

How about we do the responsible thing:

1. If you can't afford birth control, don't have sex.

2. If you can't seem to do the above, then don't kill the one innocent party in this scenario.

Post by **sgt.null** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:42 pm

deer of the dawn wrote:But abstinence is: 1. possible, 2. healthy, 3. effective in drastically reducing chances of pregnancy or STDs, and 4. provides no financial gain to anyone: which is probably the main reason it is so unpopular.

Technically, it's not an STD if it's not transmitted by having sex, ya know.

where it goes wrong, imho, is when the gov't promotes abstinence only. i'd rather have kids using birth control than getting abortions.

Post by **Cail** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:57 pm

sgt.null wrote:
deer of the dawn wrote:But abstinence is: 1. possible, 2. healthy, 3. effective in drastically reducing chances of pregnancy or STDs, and 4. provides no financial gain to anyone: which is probably the main reason it is so unpopular.

Technically, it's not an STD if it's not transmitted by having sex, ya know.
where it goes wrong, imho, is when the gov't promotes abstinence only. i'd rather have kids using birth control than getting abortions.

Null's got a point (ouch). Abstinence-only is a poor way to go, but there's certainly nothing wrong with teaching (and stressing) abstinence. It's the only foolproof way.

Post by **sindatur** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:50 am

Cail wrote:
sgt.null wrote:
deer of the dawn wrote:But abstinence is: 1. possible, 2. healthy, 3. effective in drastically reducing chances of pregnancy or STDs, and 4. provides no financial gain to anyone: which is probably the main reason it is so unpopular.

Technically, it's not an STD if it's not transmitted by having sex, ya know.
where it goes wrong, imho, is when the gov't promotes abstinence only. i'd rather have kids using birth control than getting abortions.
Null's got a point (ouch). Abstinence-only is a poor way to go, but there's certainly nothing wrong with teaching (and stressing) abstinence. It's the only foolproof way.

Oh, absolutely. If I had a 12 -19 year old Daughter I would want to put a chastity belt on her, and I would do my best to reason with her and put a psychological one on her, until she really did have a worthy relationship towards the future and that she was emotionally ready for it (And hopefully in a stable committed relationship), but preaching Abstinence by itself is Not Helpful unfortunately. Because, regardless the values you try to instill in your kids, some (if not most) will rebel or fail to achieve your high ideals, and I sure as HELL, don't want to hear from her, that she couldn't hold out and abstain, but, she got pregnant, because she didn't use Birth Control because it's importance wasn't drilled into her (She only had the options of Being a Virgin or a Scarlet Woman)

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:34 am

wayfriend wrote:What about Cold Showers, Inc. ?

That's not a bad idea but autoeroticism is better. Lots of people may frown on that practice but it is certainly better than the alternative.

sindatur wrote:Oh, absolutely. If I had a 12 -19 year old Daughter I would want to put a chastity belt on her, and I would do my best to reason with her and put a psychological one on her, until she really did have a worthy relationship towards the future and that she was emotionally ready for it (And hopefully in a stable committed relationship), but preaching Abstinence by itself is Not Helpful unfortunately. Because, regardless the values you try to instill in your kids, some (if not most) will rebel or fail to achieve your high ideals, and I sure as HELL, don't want to hear from her, that she couldn't hold out and abstain, but, she got pregnant, because she didn't use Birth Control because it's importance wasn't drilled into her (She only had the options of Being a Virgin or a Scarlet Woman)

Our daughter is 11. My wife has already decided that she will be taught abstinence first but, because teenagers are teenagers--and we were teenagers ourselves once so we know--that birth control options will be discussed. Naturally, I will have similar talks with our son as he gets older. The discussions I dread are the ones with the boys who will want to date our daughter--if it seems like the relationship is getting serious I am going to want to know if he is responsible enough to keep control of himself or, at worst, if he is carrying a condom and that he knows how to use it. Yes, that should be his parents' responsibility but I dare not take the risk that they, too, are irresponsible.

Post by **deer of the dawn** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:55 am

Cail wrote:
sgt.null wrote:
deer of the dawn wrote:But abstinence is: 1. possible, 2. healthy, 3. effective in drastically reducing chances of pregnancy or STDs, and 4. provides no financial gain to anyone: which is probably the main reason it is so unpopular.

Technically, it's not an STD if it's not transmitted by having sex, ya know.
where it goes wrong, imho, is when the gov't promotes abstinence only. i'd rather have kids using birth control than getting abortions.
Null's got a point (ouch). Abstinence-only is a poor way to go, but there's certainly nothing wrong with teaching (and stressing) abstinence. It's the only foolproof way.

Null, that's a straw man. The govt will NEVER promote abstinence-only. But it would be great if they would promote abstinence at all.

You know, way back when schools taught abstinence only, there were lots less pregnancies and STDs. Funny how that works.

And I was thinking that it is funny no one's come up with a hi-tech chastity belt to make zillions off of...

Post by **Cail** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:16 pm

deer of the dawn wrote:
Cail wrote:
sgt.null wrote: where it goes wrong, imho, is when the gov't promotes abstinence only. i'd rather have kids using birth control than getting abortions.
Null's got a point (ouch). Abstinence-only is a poor way to go, but there's certainly nothing wrong with teaching (and stressing) abstinence. It's the only foolproof way.
Null, that's a straw man. The govt will NEVER promote abstinence-only. But it would be great if they would promote abstinence at all.

You know, way back when schools taught abstinence only, there were lots less pregnancies and STDs. Funny how that works.

And I was thinking that it is funny no one's come up with a hi-tech chastity belt to make zillions off of...

Well yes and no. There have been localized pushes for abstinence-only sex education, but they don't gain much traction, and they'll never be typical.

Post by **sgt.null** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:56 pm

deer - it would be nice to go back to a saner time. but hat isn't going to happen. too much info, too much world affecting our kid's choices. too much time that kids spend unsupervised.

Post by **Vraith** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:03 pm

Cail wrote:
deer of the dawn wrote:
Cail wrote:Null's got a point (ouch). Abstinence-only is a poor way to go, but there's certainly nothing wrong with teaching (and stressing) abstinence. It's the only foolproof way.
Null, that's a straw man. The govt will NEVER promote abstinence-only. But it would be great if they would promote abstinence at all.

You know, way back when schools taught abstinence only, there were lots less pregnancies and STDs. Funny how that works.

And I was thinking that it is funny no one's come up with a hi-tech chastity belt to make zillions off of...
Well yes and no. There have been localized pushes for abstinence-only sex education, but they don't gain much traction, and they'll never be typical.

I don't know...IIRC, there is 50 or 100 million a year in funding for it from the Feds...something close to 2 billion spend on it the last 20 years.
But, as a matter of fact:
Teen pregnancy is at a record low, has been dropping since the late 80's or early 90's.
The states with the highest rates require Abstinence-primary. The states with the lowest rates do not.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Drowning = Pregnancy???