Teen Abstinence

[Falagar]

Because while they may not value not having sex, they certainly value not having kids when they have sex.

[Janny]

But we have an education system that doesn't actually acknowledge the link between intercourse and children!

At the very best, it says that we can have complete control over the consequences of sex.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Janny

But we have an education system that doesn't actually acknowledge the link between intercourse and children!

At the very best, it says that we can have complete control over the consequences of sex.

I hope you have biology of mammals at least!

I think safe sex is at least more manageable than abstinence though. I don't object to it being included in a sex ed class, but it has two barriers to overcome and safe sex has one.

We naturally want to have sex and have babies. Biologically, we seemed to be geared towards this when we're teenagers.

Safe sex at least helps avoid the babies, but abstinence also has to overcome our desire to have sex as well. IRex went into that earlier and I agree that it is radical and non-traditional education that we're persuing here, and I'm all for it.

[Janny]

But safe sex doesn't help avoid having babies. It makes people think they can avoid having babies. Then it's termination that prevents people having babies.

I'm afraid that with teenagers the thought process which is encouraged is that abortion is bad. Contraception is less bad. Contraception negates abortion thus we should use it.

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am waiting for a quote from Inferno. I even give you a hint; you might find the one on Paolo and Francesca to your liking.
I hope you will forgive me if I don't take a piece of poetry seriously as guidance in important ethical matters.
A part from the fact that I don't hold Dante in any authority on the matter of ethics, your quote does nothing but restating your own position. I had understood it the first time.

Rethoric of oppression, as I have witnessed it countless of times. You refuse to see the intrinsic good of people manifesting their free will in consensual acts. You try to distort my point by throwing in a "disregard to partner" when I specifically say consensual. You again try to mischaracterize my position by mentioning offsprings - offsprings that are a likely results of your view of intercourse, but not of mine.


You keep of disparaging many things that are morally good by using the term "hedonism".
But I do agree that that humans are capable of more than that. I myself am an example of high moral standards and self-less acts. Funny enough, I am such an example in this very moment. In this very moment, I am forgoing more pleasent activities to protect teens (that I don't even know) from hearing unchallenged only your rethoric of oppression which I deem harmful to them.
As far as the "called to" part of your statement, I don't recognize any caller (in the manner of gods or deities), but I do agree that humans are "called to" moral imperatives. An example of moral imperative is to stop publishing misguiding pseudo-information about failure rates in condom usage.

Ahh, TWFM,

Does your knowledge of Dante's Commedia extend beyond INFERNO? I hope so! I am utilizing the Commedia so that what needs be said might be not mere propositional explication but dramatic and pictorial explanations. Though I am amused that you think I quote Dante as the authority, he would have laughed you out of Florence for that! (or Ravenna or any of his later abodes).

If you know the geography of the Inferno, where does the location of Paola and Francesca occur? What is the meaning of that locus within the Commedia as a whole? Does their placement their by their acts of will betoken that sexual congress with anyone by consent absolves that couple of responsibility to themselves, each other, family, society, or God? Does the moral order displayed in the Commedia say that such is unforgiveable?

A few hints: your referenced couple are in the "sins of the Leopard", the circles of incontinence, and are only one example in this part of the realm of those areas of Inferno. Their sin happened to involve sexuality (specifically unchastity on both parts, adultery since Francesca was married to Paolo's brother) but that is incidental to the real errors! What were the real errors?

It may joggle your memory to note that other sexual sins typifying increasingly worsening sins are placed lower in the Inferno.

It may give you pause to consider that in Purgatorio, on the 7th Cornice, this similar sexual sin is purged: Canto XXVI, lines 82 - 93.

Nostro peccato fu ermafrodito;
ma perché non servammo umana legge,
seguendo come bestie l'appetito,

Our sin was with the other sex; but since
we did not keep the bounds of human law,
but served our appetites like beasts, when we

in obbrobrio di noi, per noi si legge,
quando partinci, il nome di colei
che s'imbestiò ne le 'mbestiate schegge.

part from the other ranks, we then repeat,
to our disgrace, the name of one who, in
the bestial planks, became herself a beast.

Or sai nostri atti e di che fummo rei:
se forse a nome vuo' saper chi semo,
tempo non è di dire, e non saprei.

You now know why we act so, and you know
what our sins were; if you would know our names,
time is too short, and I don't know them all.

Farotti ben di me volere scemo:
son Guido Guinizzelli; e giÃ* mi purgo
per ben dolermi prima ch'a lo stremo».

But with regard to me, I'll satisfy
your wish to know: I'm Guido Guinizzelli,
purged here because I grieved before my end."


Your allegations of rhetoric of oppression are hilarious. You, who would oppress mankind with the inability to be more than sheer animality, who would abandon the reins of morality which allow fruitful labor in the vineyard by directing and guiding the human will to worthy goals and achievements, have a far more oppressive reality than me; inversion of reality is true oppression. My rhetoric is that of reality - humans are not at the whims of their animal parts and may so properly use them as to achieve greater personhood and relationship. Persons who align themselves with the Natural Law as well as those who serve under that and the Revealed Law, are more fully human, are ultimately enabled to become fully human rather than merely animals with some degree of self-consciousness.

But I choose the Purgatorio rather than the Inferno for I hope for your purgation, not your damnation!

May your selflessness be held to your good by He who holds intentions in great regard!

And I issue the call that philosophers, saints, and mystics, as well as the Incarnate God Himself have issued! Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Or, in more colloquial terms "Be all that you can be; surrender not to mere animality!"

[The Wizard from Milan]

I studied all of the Commedia (being italian, it is frequent), but i forgot a lot of it and i don't particularly care.

You put up a big smoke screen to hide the reality of the pseudo-ethic that you promulgate. Well, I am not deceived. You call "sheer animality" what is in the both the right of people and the ethically good. You want all humanity to work in your vineyard (a vineyard that you purporte without proof to be a god's vineyard), robbing humanity of the choice to do what they deem best.
You accuse me of inversion of reality when inversion of reality is all what you have been doing from the first post I read of you. I have never said that humans are at the whims of their animal parts; there is you twisting words once more.

There is no such thing as Natural Law and you have no proof that you call Revealed Law is not a (misguided) human creation.

But I choose the Purgatorio rather than the Inferno for I hope for your purgation, not your damnation!

I thank you for your wishes, but I don't need them.
In the extremely unlikely case in which a benevolent god and an afterlife existed, I am sure to go directly to heaven, because my life is informed to the highest moral standard; and a lot of time and effort I put every day to do what I feel being Good, even if I have personally no gain into it. And I do it with serenity because I know that I am doing what I feel being Good, although I am human and sometimes I regret giving all this time up to other people.

[inked]

TWFM,

If, as you so plainly state, there is no natural law and no revealed law, please stop the charade about your morality. What you allege as morality has no basis. You cannot call something moral or ethical since there is no basis for it. Unless you care to adduce something appearing to be a basis.

You may have read the Commedia, but did you take from it no wisdom? The four cardinal virtues (from the Latin for hinge, therefore the hinges from which other virtues and activity pivot) were Temperance, Justice, Prudence,and Fortitude. They were and are recognized by all civilized peoples.
PRUDENCE means taking the trouble to think out what your are doing and what is likely to come of it. As CS Lewis noted, "The proper motto is not 'Be good, sweet maid and let who can be clever,' but 'Be good, sweet maid, and don't forget that this involves being as clever as you can.' " And the appeal to regulate sexual behaviour can be made on this ground for good medical and scientific and psychological reasons.
TEMPERANCE means taking pleasure to the right proportion and no further. Though often associated with alcohol only in our age, it applies to all pleasures, including sexual pleasure. This clearly has personal, psychological, and social applicability to sexual behaviours.
JUSTICE means not just legal determinations but honesty, give and take, truthfulness, keeping promises, and all of that side of life. And, while you could take the view that mutual orgasm solves the issue in regard to sexuality, most persons would recognize that much more was involved.
FORTITUDE is courage that faces danger and endures under adverse conditions or pain. This one is involved in all the others because of the need to persevere. The point of testing always requires courage.

The connections with sexual behaviours are obvious in each of the cases.

(I must leave to deal with the consequences of this discussion. I shall return anon.)

MEANWHILE, be careful, Ya'll!!!

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

If, as you so plainly state, there is no natural law and no revealed law, please stop the charade about your morality. What you allege as morality has no basis. You cannot call something moral or ethical since there is no basis for it. Unless you care to adduce something appearing to be a basis.

I have already explained the basis of my morality in the other thread. You did not want to understand them there; and you keep on refusing to understand them here. Well, sorry for you, but my morality is not a charade, it is something I try to live up to everyday. And instead of making light of me you should try to learn something.

I am not going to be listen to your lectures of pseudo-morality given that you need a few lectures in morality yourself.
In dozens of posts you have shown no empathy what so ever.

Originally Posted by inked

I must leave to deal with the consequences of this discussion. I shall return anon.

Where is the empathy in this sentence? What heart do you put in when you cure your patients?
Given your posts, it looks to me that you constantly judge your patients. I wonder whether you would prescribe the "moring after" pill

[inked]

TWFM,

Be all that you can be.

Just remember that there are longstanding and vital rules of human behaviour that call for more than "do as you feel" and hedonism.

Those morals enhance life and humanity rather than surrender to physical impulses and urges. Mankind is not deterministically and mechanically human.
Free will certainly can constrain behaviour to the improvement of the individual and society.

Howsoever you choose to live your life is your business, of course. But the inversion of morality you proffer under the guise of opposing the old is merely the re-iteration of an ancient selfish code. See the Dorothy L. Sayers remark in my sig!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

But safe sex doesn't help avoid having babies.

Eh? Using a condom doesnt limit the possibility of pregnancy? No wonder you are confused...

By the way did anyone else see the study that came out today about how young teens (under 15) are having more oral sex and less sex? Yes, it seems kids are creating their own logic about how to minimize the dangers of sexual intercourse while balancing it against the inevitable compulsion to being sexual when young. Even while educators and adults and busy body know it alls scream back and forth about what we should teach kids and what we should hide from them.

[inked]

TWFM,

"Where is the empathy in this sentence? What heart do you put in when you cure your patients?
Given your posts, it looks to me that you constantly judge your patients. I wonder whether you would prescribe the "moring after" pill"

While you are so busy judging, I spend my life delivering the consequences of your "morality". It may educate you to know that given the failure rates of the various birth control techniques used, and, primarily, the failure to use the techniques available to them and about which they know, I routinely lose sleep to deliver teenagers. Just this past weekend, I delivered two 16 year olds each of their first baby and one 20 year old of her third. (All by the way on different nights between midnight and 6 AM.)

Each of these patients stated that they knew that sex led to babies but none of them used any contraception. It is not the lack of education, it is the lack of will to do what must be done. "I didn't think it would happen to me" is a notoriously POOR form of birth control.

So, a close adherence to your philosophy results in dirty diapers in heterosexual teenagers. Given the rising rate of HIV infection homosexual males reported by the CDC, I'd say the same philosophy is resulting in increased transmissions. "If it feels good and is consensual" it has tremendous consequences. Most often not due to ignorance but failure to act! - even for self-protection.

[azalea]

I read the other day that in my state it is illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to have sex (putting it in basic terms). 16 year olds can have sex as long as the partner is under the age of 19 (and over the age of 15). 17 year olds can have sex with anyone under the age of 22 (IIRC) and over the age of 15. These are part of Florida's statutory rape/ child sex offender laws. So unless the teen is 16 or up, the partner can be labeled a child sex offender, and that label will always stick with him/ her. I'm not sure about if both are under the age of 16.

I think these laws are an acknowledgment that teens are in a different place mentally in terms of understanding the future implications of their actions. That's also why there are age restrictions for driving.
Thus, I think that it's important to look at both abstinence and birth control in sex education classes. It isn't just STDs and pregnancy, but also the fact that teens (those under the age of 18) generally aren't ready emotionally for a sexual relationship (and I include all sex acts, not just intercourse).

It certainly doesn't hurt to wait. Certainly, it is preferable, but birth control should be discussed in terms of "You need to wait till you're older, but if you DO end up doing it, BY ALL MEANS, USE A CONDOM!" Protection for oral sex should be discussed as well! But all of it should be in the context of abstinence being practiced until they are older.

Also, I think it should be stressed that even if they engage in a sex act once, or with one person more than once, they can then choose to NOT have sex again, and to NOT have sex with the next boyfriend/ girlfriend. That EACH TIME is a SEPARATE CHOICE.

I only had sex ed. in middle school (in Georgia), so that means we're talking about 11 to 14 year olds. It probably would be nice to balance it out, maybe stressing certain things at different ages. 6th and 7th grade should focus more on growth and development, STDs, and abstinence. 8th grade should begin the focus being on types of birth control available, still with an equal emphasis on abstinence, and then it should be offered within some high school classes, since that's when most teens become sexually active. We received no sex ed in high school where I lived (as I said, only in middle school).

[azalea]

Also, I want to add an admin. note: everyone please be careful at the language you use. You need to use polite language and a non-accusatory tone when posting your arguments. Refrain from negative personal comments. Thank you.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Eh? Using a condom doesnt limit the possibility of pregnancy? No wonder you are confused...

By the way did anyone else see the study that came out today about how young teens (under 15) are having more oral sex and less sex? Yes, it seems kids are creating their own logic about how to minimize the dangers of sexual intercourse while balancing it against the inevitable compulsion to being sexual when young. Even while educators and adults and busy body know it alls scream back and forth about what we should teach kids and what we should hide from them.

That has more to do with a little thing that happened during the Clinton Adminstration. All people heard rounghly 7 - 10 years ago was thet oral sex wasn't sex. 20/20 has done a thing about the rise of oral sex amongg young teenagers and many of them have used Clinton as a reason why they feel nothing is wrong with it. We reap what we sow and people created this problem by arguing whether oral sex was really sex or not. Well now these kids who constantly heard that it wasn't - now amazingly - don't consider it sex.

BTW - I sent in a letter to a newspaper or something during this time - stating this very thing. That when the teenage oral sex rises and they come back with "well we don't consider it sex" - you have Clinton and his supporters to blame for that one.

[Insidious Rex]

Well then you should be happy with him that he wasnt boinking monica cause then our kids would be in a mess of trouble huh.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well then you should be happy with him that he wasnt boinking monica cause then our kids would be in a mess of trouble huh.

Obviously what I was getting at went right over your head. it wasn't the fact that she was giving him blow-jobs that is the issue for teens - it's the fact that everyone went around saying that it wasn't sex. Well now - amazingly - these teenagers who were kids during all that time - now don't think of it as sex. And everyone is so shocked and surprised that 13 and 15 years olds think nothing about oral sex. I don't know why people are shocked - it was determined it wasn't sex and was no big deal.

[inked]

Ok, this OT, but I CANNOT resist!

Did we ever get a definition of "is" - as in "it depends on what the definition of is, is"?

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Eh? Using a condom doesnt limit the possibility of pregnancy? No wonder you are confused...

Limit, not prevent.

If teaching safer sex is working so fine and dandy, why are so many teenagers getting pregnant?

And why are the majority thereof from socially deprived areas? Is that not a bigger deal?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Obviously what I was getting at went right over your head. it wasn't the fact that she was giving him blow-jobs that is the issue for teens - it's the fact that everyone went around saying that it wasn't sex. Well now - amazingly - these teenagers who were kids during all that time - now don't think of it as sex. And everyone is so shocked and surprised that 13 and 15 years olds think nothing about oral sex. I don't know why people are shocked - it was determined it wasn't sex and was no big deal.

...or maybe its just common logic for 13 year olds that oral sex is less risky then vaginal sex. This certainly was true when I was in high school among kids. and that was well before Monica. So no need to always try to tag the blame for every issue in the world on old Bill as much as you like to.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

If teaching safer sex is working so fine and dandy, why are so many teenagers getting pregnant?

so many more then when? didnt we just post a bunch of stuff recently about how the pregnancy rate among teens has been going down? and other stuff about how targeted thorough sex educational programs that dont just stop with "wear this condom" or "never touch yourself ever" have the best results?