Teen Abstinence

[Grey_Wolf]

The whole sexual maniac bit dumped on Swedes is just a load of crap.

Just because the generation born in the 40's went abroad and nailed everything in sight the world thinks that Swedes are nymphomaniacs.

I'm sick of this stigma that they have pushed on the young people of Sweden.

[inked]

Hie Scots wha' ha' wi' Wall(y)(ette) be'n....

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=754672006

[GreyMouser]

From the new academic year this August, teachers will be told it is appropriate to discuss:

• Protection from sexually transmitted diseases for lesbians and gay men, including information on female condoms for lesbians, and ensuring condoms used by men and women have quality kitemarks;

• How to access sexual health services for homosexuals;

• Same-sex crushes and the emotional side of homosexual relationships;

• The law on consent for homosexuals;

• Contacts for support groups and websites.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=754672006

Yes, that certainly sounds like good news.

[inked]

This is unbelievable....

will they get away with it?

*mantra* There is no slippery slope*There is no slippery slope*mantra*

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...src=rss&rpc=22

[Arien the Maia]

I am SO with you! this is truely unbelievable!

Originally Posted by inked

This is unbelievable....

will they get away with it?

*mantra* There is no slippery slope*There is no slippery slope*mantra*

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...src=rss&rpc=22

[hectorberlioz]

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

Why is this always the argument? If everything suppressed just makes people want it more, then why arent we dead!!!

This has to be the stupidest idea ever thought up...I mean, this is truly The End of what is normal and human, and reaches over into pure debased crazed animalism. Even the animals would probably agree with me.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

*mantra* There is no slippery slope*There is no slippery slope*mantra*

What slippery slope are you referring to here?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, I support them on the free train travel. Was it just me, or was that rather strange, considering the rest of their goals?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

Why is this always the argument? If everything suppressed just makes people want it more, then why arent we dead!!!

LOL! So true! After all suicide is illegal.

[GreyMouser]

I'm totally opposed to sex with animals- I don't believe that they're capable of giving informed consent (to another species, that is)

As for the age of consent, aren't you guys always decrying modern values and the way society has degenerated? - well, this is just about restoring good old-fashioned values; the kind that all Christian societies accepted up to the last century. It wasn't until 1885 that the age of consent was raised from 12 years old in England; in earlier ages common law held it as young as ten.

Very similar in the States; as Jerry Lee Lewis's 13 year old wife/
cousin said, "You can get married at ten if you can find a husband".

I would have thought you would have supported the return to good old-time morality- as long as it involved legally-wedded bliss with a 12 year old, of course- no extra-marital stuff.

The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity.

During the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present one, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.

http://teenadvice.about.com/

And in Canada it's still 14; only two years off what those horrible Dutch perverts propose.

[inked]

GM, You plan to offer your 6 year old to a pederast so as to advance the cause of education? Return to old fashioned values, eh? Good one that!

Actually, you probably needn't worry about consent at all, since might makes right and I have yet to see a 6 yr old or younger fight off an adult.

Are you thinking or knee-jerk reacting to any imposition on any individual of any age to any restriction whatsoever?

I think this links very well to the whole issue of cyber-pederasty on the other thread. Except of course it involves real children.

[hectorberlioz]

By the way I'd like to mention the sicko who raped a young girl (underage), and thE judge let him off, why? Because he was too short to go to jail!

So suddenly, instead of protecting the children, we protect the rapist?

And what about the guy who raped a 9 yr old over a course of FOUR YEARS, and the judge let him out in 60 days!

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

GM, You plan to offer your 6 year old to a pederast so as to advance the cause of education? Return to old fashioned values, eh? Good one that!

No, take the time to read my post- nobody is talking about six-year-olds; the issue is whether to return to the age of consent of 10-12 years which was in place through the last 16 centuries of Christendom.
Now, our modern age- myself included- has rejected the barbaric standards of those unenlightened times; unfortunately a few perverts want to revert to the age level accepted by the Church throughout her history.
Since some here constantly decry the moral standards of our times and demand a return to (capital T) Tradition- well, that's your tradition.

Are you thinking or knee-jerk reacting to any imposition on any individual of any age to any restriction whatsoever?

No, I've said before on this thread- I think 16 is a good compromise, with a Romeo/Juliet provision down to 14.
I'm just wondering why those whose standards are based on the Absolute found it perfectly acceptable for ten to twelve year olds to have (properly married) sex for a millenium-and-a-half, and now it's a horrible perversion. You would think Somebody might have addressed the issue while He was laying down strictures against adultery and sodomy.

[Insidious Rex]

Because tradition is only used when its convenient and ignored when its not of course. It doesnt matter what makes sense or not.

[inked]

I know, that selective use of tradition is a real bummer, guys!

"You seem to argue that Christianity was an overwhelmingly good social force for women."

RS: "It was! Christian women had tremendous advantages compared to the woman next door, who was like them in every way except that she was a pagan.

First, when did you get married? Most pagan girls were married off around age 11, before puberty, and they had nothing to say about it, and they got married to some 35-year-old guy. Christian women had plenty of say in the matter and tended to marry around age 18.


Abortion was a huge killer of women in this period, but Christian women were spared that. And infanticide—pagans killed little girls left and right. We’ve unearthed sewers clogged with the bones of newborn girls. But Christians prohibited this. Consequently, the sex ratio changed and Christians didn’t have the enormous shortage of women that plagued the rest of the empire."

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/i...s/13-1pg44.html

So, as you were ignoring the data...............................

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I'm just wondering why those whose standards are based on the Absolute found it perfectly acceptable for ten to twelve year olds to have (properly married) sex for a millenium-and-a-half, and now it's a horrible perversion. You would think Somebody might have addressed the issue while He was laying down strictures against adultery and sodomy.

ROFL

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

GM, You plan to offer your 6 year old to a pederast so as to advance the cause of education? Return to old fashioned values, eh? Good one that!

Now, inked, a pederast wouldn't be interested; they go in for adolescents.

[inked]

Here's a lady complaining at 42 years of age that she didn't contracept and somebody else is responsible for her result:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060201405.html

and she's a lawyer!

Be warned, 'Mooters! Unprotected sex results in dirty diapers! Yes, it does!
Just like your MaMa told ya!

Unbelievable.

But notice the underlying conviction: I'm not responsible for my decision to have unprotected intercourse even in a marriage relationship - somebody else is.

And nobody else is allowed to be responsible to themselves or their beliefs which are an imposition on my decision to have unprotected intercourse.

Even more unbelievable.

And the poor thing had trouble using the yellow pages, I suppose, as well as the internet. And Virginia's laws were unjust because she had to wait and couldn't take two days off. Well, no wonder. She couldn't take time to prophylact.

All for "a moment of passion" and failure to use contraception at age 42.

But that unintended pregnancy was all because of (NO! not failure of contraception BUT failure to contracept!) the harsh reality that she didn't contracept.

[Rían]

That's just awful - God forbid this lady be inconvenienced while the FDA has a few more studies about how 16-yr-old girls could use it safely w/o a prescription!! They're studying deaths that are related to this drug - IMO any other drug that had some deaths related to it would be instantly yanked. But no - this self-centered woman wants her convenient quick-fix for her dangerous roll of the dice by choosing to have unprotected sex. The poor victim I guess she thinks the stupid 16-yr-old girls should just fend for themselves

She blames "conservative politics" for this? --> "Nonetheless, in May 2004, the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B, requesting more data on how girls younger than 16 could use it safely without a doctor's supervision."

Jerk.

(I'm in a snarky mood and am tired of all this victim, "It's not my fault" stuff)

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by inked

Abortion was a huge killer of women in this period, but Christian women were spared that. And infanticide—pagans killed little girls left and right. We’ve unearthed sewers clogged with the bones of newborn girls. But Christians prohibited this. Consequently, the sex ratio changed and Christians didn’t have the enormous shortage of women that plagued the rest of the empire."

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/i...s/13-1pg44.html

So, as you were ignoring the data...............................

that is SO sick! what was the world's obsession with having boys?!