Category: Let's talk
I'll post these questions, then once I have some replies I'll post my own opinions.
Do you think that abstenance only should be taught in school, or do you think birth control should be taught as well? Do you think waiting until marriage is the ideal situation and should be proclaimed as so, or should we just educate students and let them decide with their parents when it is right for them to become sexually active? How young do you think is too young to have sex?
I'm interested to see where this topic goes. Opinions?
To answer your first question, no, I don't think that only abstenance should be taught in schools. Sex is a natural part of life, and sooner or later, people are going to want to experiment with it. If birth control is taught in schools, at least kids will have the education they need to make the most well informed decisions. that doesn't mean that nobody will be irresponsible, but the least we can do is try. not only that, but I'm a firm believer that if you teach a kid not to do something, they're going to want to do it more, because, if nothing else, they're curious what's so bad about this thing they *must* stay away from.
How young is too young for sex? Normally, my philosophy on life is that maturity, not age determines when you should be able to start doing something. But when it comes to sex, some people will probably never be mature enough to handle the potential consequences. But alass, there's really no way we can stop them. I honestly think everyone is entitled to have at least some time alone, or with a partner of their choosing, behind closed doors. So, I'm going to eat my words, and actually put an actual age to this one. this age should be whatever age one can legally obtain some sort of stable income, whether through public asistance or work. If you have a stable income, you at least have the means to afford birth control, so whether you want kids, or just having sex for the pleasure, you have the means to look at your options from a financial standpoint. and if you screw up, it was your own doing, and not because of the limitations placed on you by law.
Is abstenance until marriage the ideal situation? Perhaps, but I think that one is more about personal beliefs than facts. Personally, I don't think it is. You really need to know your partner before you get married. Marriage is a huge deal, and you need to know that you are completely compatible with your partner before you become legally binded to them. I certainly think it should be discussed between kids and parents, and maybe even between kids and educators. however, I think of this the same way I think of religion: Kids should be aware of all possible beliefs, and the reasons behind them, but they shouldn't be pushed into adopting any of them by others. if they're too young to choose their own belief system, they're too young to follow any of yours.
Abstenance should not be even a word brought up in school. I'm not even sure sex should be tought, but if we've got to learn it someplace other than the comunity, than sure it should be tought.
A person should get sexual education, or the start of it, as soon as they are able to understand how people mate, or that people mate.
At what age that happens I'm not sure. Now after you understand about mating, or sexhaving it should happen when it does.
If you are aware of birth control than having sex isn't a financial thing, so you don't need a stable job or be able to support yourself only protect yourself.
If sex were a general part of the comunity girls wouldn't be looked down on for getting pregnant, so help would be available at any age and support. Boys are tought responsibility, so the girl doesn't "get herself pregnant."
I personally was sexual at the age it physically started working, so about 7 or 8 years old. In my comunity sex was a major part of growing up, and due to that we should have had as much education as possible about it.
I honestly believe that sex, or having sex be natural caused me to be a better sex person and I learned that I had to be responsible for the after effects if I wanted to continue having sex for pleasure.
Ok;
1: completely agree with OceanDream: Abstinence only should not be taught in school. Kids will experiment. Especially if they're told they shouldn't. So give them the tools that will allow them to be safe. Of course, I'm not advocating for there to be a green light on sex; ForReal is taking it a bit far. I don't think people should be sexually active at six or seven, or even thirteen. A kid is always eager to grow up, until he actually does. Everyone grapples for the innoscence of childhood once it's slipped out of their grasp. We should teach kids that abstinence is the only foolproof way to stay sexually safe, and that having sex is a big deal and shouldn't be taken as lightly as buying a pair of socks, but it is a natural part of life after all and it could, and should be enjoyable. Abstinence until marriage? Hell no. Maybe there's something romantic about a guy being able to sleep with his virginal bride on the first night of the honeymoon, but frankly, not many females I know are positively drooling over the idea of their new husband being a virgin. lol. What I'm saying is, that it's not a particular fantasy of any women, virgin or not, to sleep with a man who hasn't had sex before. We like the idea of our lover being experienced. We don't necessarily like that other girls had him before us, but we don't tend to dwell on that for too long after the fact. Sure, it may be special when two virgins get together as a married couple; Ideally, that means they get to be with each other exclusively, get to explore, and have adventures together. But what are they bringing to the table really? And what kind of experiences do they have to compare with what they have with their spouse? People are curious, and eventually, their curiosity will get the best of one or the other. People need to have some fun before they settle down. And to all the prudes that want to shove some fictional statistics down my throat that the couples who waited to have sex till marriage are more likely to avoid divorce, that's a load of crap. lol. a more experienced lover will know what they like and what they don't like, and will be more sexually open and expressive. And if both people are like that, then more adventures are to be had. The appeal of shyness and timmidness wears off quickly. And while it is true that many virgins, once they've broken out of their shell, become practically insaiciable And eager to please and be pleased, often that is not the case. And unless you're a total prude or are sexually repressed, sex is definitely a major component of a marriage, or a romantic relationship in general, and it can be awesome and healthy, and a way to express yourself to your spouse. So it should be good. I am also of the thought that I want to try it before I buy it. lol. Look. I'm not the type to sleep around by any means. But let's just put it this way. I am not going to go to a store, pick up a pair of shoes and buy them before I try them on. How do I know if they won't cramp my toes or if they won't be too big, etc. I am of the oppinion that we should go to the store, try a couple pairs of shoes on that we think we might want to buy, and then buy the pair that fits best.
Now apply that analogy to sex, and you get the clear picture of how I feel about that.
I'm in agreement with most of what was said here. If sex is an essential part of a marriage, why should it be between two people who are incompatible in that aspect? I've been told, and have experienced myself, what happens when a relationship goes well...everywhere except outside the bedroom. It can be frustrating, and I'd venture to say that's why a lot of marriages don't work, and why infidelity is almost considered normal. Not only that, but I think it's important to know every aspect of your partner, physically and emotionally, before tying the knot. Some people would disagree and say that the Christian way is the only way to true happiness, but I don't believe that for one second. It's usually Christian couples who are the most miserable. I have family members who are Christian, and go on and on about everything and everyone that's evil every time I talk to them.
So no, I don't think abstinence only classes are the way to go at all. It's the same with this bullshit about how unhealthy foods will kill you before you can snap your fingers. The more you wave the temptations of something in front of kids' faces, the more they're going to want it, and the more risks they're going to take to get what they want just to say they did it and defied the system. I think honesty is the best policy here. That's not to say that the gory details of aids and STD's should be discussed, at least not to the exclusion of other things that are taught, but the teacher does need to present all angles of sex, what can happen, and how to prevent it.
How young is too young? Well, that depends on the individual. I don't think anyone should say how old you have to be to engage in a behavior that may or may not harm you at a certain time. For example, although this is somewhat off topic, how is it that you can poison your body with cigarettes, help decide the fate of your country (though I'm well aware that the popular vote doesn't actually mean shit, but let's assume for a moment that 18-year-old kids do think it does, because I've known a lot who do), and fight and die for your country, whether it's for a justified cause or not, before you can drink, which technically isn't as harmful as any of those things unless it's to excess? Why is it that you can drive a car, risking yours and others' lives even before that?
My point in bringing all that up is this: you can do so many things that are reckless, but you mean to tell me that having sex is somehow worse than all that? That there's no "right time" because teenagers are too irresponsible to understand what they're getting into, yet they can sign their life away, smoke a pack a day, or get behind the wheel and get hit head on by a drunk driver? Nope, that logic doesn't work with me at all.
Finally, I want to address the phrasing of one of the questions posed in the original post, the one about deciding with your parents when the right time to have sex is. Maybe some kids are close enough to their parents to discuss that stuff honestly, but most aren't. Most parents don't even want to think about the possibility that their kids are sexually active, particularly if it's sexual experimentation with the same sex or something similar. I guess that's why sex education exists in schools in the first place. It's kind of a first line of defense, although it's hard to take teachers seriously when they discuss those subjects too, unless the teacher is someone trustworthy, someone who's gone above and beyond and proven themselves to the students as someone who understands them and speaks their language. My point is, if you can look your parents in the eye and have those discussions, that's great. And it can't just be one talk about the birds and bees, either. It would have to be ongoing, thorough, completely open discussions. I know I didn't have that with my parents, partially because they were the type who handed my sister and I a book to explain things they didn't want to say out loud, and partially because for me specifically, they were uncomfortable with me having sex because I'm blind. Then again, I suppose it's a generational thing. It's entirely possible that these things will evolve, as our culture becomes more sexually expressive, so will the parents to their children. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I'm not sure, as some parents set an example by what they do (like living in poverty and having 10 kids just to collect more welfare, or berating the opposite sex if their marriage ends bitterly.)
There are no easy answers to these questions. What works in one home might not work in another. What works in some hick town like where I live certainly won't fly in an inner city ghetto. It has to be individualized, and approached carefully, depending on the students in question.
Oh crap, I meant to say when a relationship goes well everywhere except in the bedroom. My bad. I'm glad I caught that.
Lightning, , I'm sure you're just waiting for a post like this so you can tell the person how wrong and misguided they are. I mean no personal offense. It just seems to me that it brings you some satisfaction to do so. I'm nothing if not obliging.
Let me preface this by saying that I love sex. I love being pleased, I absolutely love the female body, and I especially love doing the pleasing. There's nothing quite like a drawn-out romantic evening,, a hot and heavy nooner, or a bout of self-satisfaction to make most people's days better. Yes, I am a Christian and no, I did not wait until marriage before having sex, even though I can see the wisdom in that. Do I wish I had? Well, even though my first full-blown sex experience was a terrible one, I don't know how much I regret the hereafter effects. I never said I was perfect.
Now that I've gotten the exposition out of the way, here is my answer. I'm going to try to not go all holier-than-thou over this, though doubtless a few of you will take a crack at putting words in my mouth. I believe sex to be a sacred act between two people who are, at the very least committed to one another. This act holds a power to create life and shape emotions, and no matter how physically and emotionally protected a person strives to be, there are inevitably times where both barriers are ineffectual. I believe that much of the world views the act of love-making in the same casual manner as ... well, going to a store to pick out a good pair of shoes. The problem is, most truly casual acts rarely have far-reaching consequences. That's why they're casual. I'm not going to quote statistics, because I frankly don't believe in them. We all know the potential for pregnancy, disease and heartbreak that can come from having sex prematurely, and without forethought. We also know that while the majority of people probably know the many ways to protect themselves, not all of us do. But then, that's probably not the rule. I'm sure just as many of us could have a dozen sexual partners without any sort of oops transpiring. I know I've known a few.
But in my thirty years, I've come to believe this. The oppertunity to be that intimate with someone is one of the greatest things we can share with one another, and one of the greatest gifts we are given. I don't believe that privoledge - that gift should be squandered for the mere intent of satisfying one's base desire to have a good orgasm. I think that when you perform that act with someone, you take upon yourself responsibilities for you, and them. Sure there are instances when both parties agree on the simbiotic satisfaction of bodily needs with no strings attached. Heck, there's half an industry devoted to that truth which is probably at least as old as recorded history. But based on all the movies I've seen, the people I've known, the conversations I've overheard, I feel reasonably confident when I say that the times where both parties are okay with it being casual are the exception rather than the rule. Before you all start jumping on me for that, remember that this is based on my own experiences.
With regards to abstinence only, my oppinion is somewhat gray. I don't think it's okay for teachers to express the mentality that casual sexuality is all fine and dandy. But I definately think that both boys and girls should, when they are individually ready, be tought about their bodies, and the bodies of the opposite sex. So many of us know barely anything about our bodies aside from the most rudimentary functions and reasons behind those functions. There can sometimes be a certain amount of trauma as our bodies mature, and I think it's important for such things to be discussed as the need arises. In a perfect world, parents would fully understand the ins and outs of the human reproductive system and would take the responsibility of educating their children upon themselves in a loving and appropriate manner. But we don't live in a perfect world, and parents aren't always that considerate. The frustrating thing here is that education often leads to a need to put into practice what we have learned. And when we get a taste of it, it's very hard to stop. I think that's one of the biggest reasons I'm so against self-experimentation, or experimentation with another person until you're at least committed. I'm well aware that this oppinion isn't worldly in this era of blurred genders and undisciplined idolness. But I lived the consequences of casual experimentation. And I can not, in good faith condone them, even if I do fully understand them, and enjoy the pleasure they bring.
I should probably add that I absolutely thing sexual compatibility is essential for a healthy and stable marriage. Physical imtimacy, communication, intelectual stimulation and spiritual growth (of whatever kind) are the building blocks of a long-lasting and fulfilling partnership.
BG, I'm not going to jump down your throat. I invited your opinion, and you gave it. I am simply going to ask one question. Can you tell me exactly what it is about sex, the actual physical act, which makes it so special? Is it as special for monkeys? Cuz you see, monkeys also have sex for pleasure, and they don't seem to be burdened by all these pesky emotional problems. Why don't monkeys feel the same way we do if the act of sex is so important?
Or is it that the act isn't what is important, but the connotation? And aren't those connotations socially driven? That is to say, aren't they created by the society in which you live? For example, in many cultures, sex is not looked down upon, but encouraged. Why is sex not so special for them? In short, what is it about sex which makes it so uniquely special?
As for the post about parents, I don't accept that as an excuse. If you bore children, you get to accept responsibility. I dont care if its uncomfortable. First, I don't think sex should be an uncomfortable subject for a parent, I mean where did you get the kid from in the first place, the stork? Second, uncomfortable or not, its your duty as a parent to prepare your child. This means, you get to deliver the talk about the birds and the bees. Welcome to parenthood.
Now for my opinions. I don't think abstenance should be taught as anything more than a choice. I don't think it should be called an ideal, because that ideal is clearly religious based and I disagree with any religious teachings in the classroom. I think birth control should be taught, and I think it should be available to the students in the form of condums without the parents needing to be notified. Now, I support the school sending out a notification saying that they will be handing out condums. However I don't think that the parents of a specific student should be notified when that student avails themselves of the free condums.
This may seem strange, but I have a reason. For many teens, it is much easier to simply not get the condums, than it is to have parents find out. Because parents so frequently overreact, which goes back to the idea that sex is some special thing. Thus, the teenager will just forgo the condums to avoid their parents finding out. This would negate the program entirely.
I do not believe in abstenance until marriage. Sex is natural, fun, and necessary for healthy living and healthy relationships. I don't believe for a moment that having it will rob you of your innocence or anything like that. Its just a physical act, that's all.
As for how young is too young to have sex. I think if we were to remove the stigma around sex, and actually educate our children, it would be fine for them to have sex at young ages. Technically, if a girl has had her period, she is old enough to have sex. Would I have sex with a girl that young, no, but I won't deny her right to have sex if she wants.
I don’t think that Lighting posted this topic to get in to a religious debate. If the religious side comes up, we’ll he’ll state his opinion, but I really don’t think he post topics like this one to fight about religion.
I give him credit. When he’s talking religion he posts in that section.
Now as for me taking it to far let me explain that a bit.
My dad had friends that were openly sexual with the women they brought over to the house. My uncle was as well. I am not talking about physical public sex, but here is an example.
A man brought his women to our house. He had a rule that she did for him. She set on the floor between his legs, touched him often, rubbed on him, and got that scent women do when turned on. What do you tell a boy of 12 is happening?
The lady in question was looking good and I wouldn’t have understood why she was making my feelings run hot if I’d not been told about sex.
Next example. We’d have reading time at school. The girl that read the books was about 16 maybe 18. She smelled like a girl, was sweet talking. Now I’m not talking perfume, but natures scent. She was nice to us, had a soft voice, and was killing me. If I had not known about sex what would I think?
At about 13 a boy has a wet dream. That wet dream is really physically something, but you don’t have an explanation about why your sheets are sticky? Why is your penis hard and why do you have these feeling around people, male or female if you happen to like the same sex?
Puberty is scary at best, so all this needs talking about before it happens.
Girls think they are bleeding to death, because know one has taken the time to explain what will happen to them before it happens and why.
I personally don’t know how a girl is affected by men, but for a boy like me these girls/women were making me crazy. I am glad I had a reason.
You kiss that first girl and you get hot, why? In my community the older girls would tease the boys, so if you didn’t understand what was happening you’d make mistakes.
I understood about STD’s, prostitutes, and that sort of thing, so was not harmed. At age 13 or so a girl told me to go home and get her 7 dollars and we could have sex. What do you think a boy does?
If he’s not instructed what happens to him?
Last I had gay men in my young life. If not explained I’d have grown homo phobic, or not understanding.
I am sure we had lesgian women as well, but women aren’t as public about being gay as men. The guy named Kenny did his hair and you name it. We had a beauty shop that catered to gay men.
Sex should be a part of life just like you learn how to brush your teeth, good hygiene, and money, whatever.
I'm not here to get into a religious debate either. One of the reasons I more or less left religion out of it.
Lightning I can't explain my feelings of sexuality being sacred and special. That is just how I view them, and how I have always viewed them. I am not a monke, or even a dolphiny; I am a human being. I don't know how animals view sex, but I do know there are many animal species who mate for life, just as there are animals who will hump anything that moves.
I do have to strongly disagree on the idea of children having sex at a young age. I think the reasons parents get so up-in-arms about the idea is usually (barring perhaps religious reasons) a matter of preservation. They want their children to grow up to be successful, well taken-care of (in one way or another) and to gain an education, thus fulfilling the sociological and human requirement of contribution and self-reliance. You get pregnant, or someone pregnant when you can't be responsible for them, you're in a world of trouble. It happens all the time. And rarely do I imagine it goes well. Never mind the maturity aspect, a child, when had at the wrong time causes a barrier in many ways to the education and economical maintanence of the parents. It's a fine line between educating a child and teaching them when it is good to use that education. Children want to experiment, and I think parents' perceptions often influence their children. Does that mean kids are evil for experimenting, or parents are terrible for letting it happen? Of course not. But every action, good or bad, has consequences. And there are a lot of adults who can't handle the unfortunate consequences of a sexual oops. So how much harder would it be for a young teen or young adult.
For Real, I really don't want to insult either your culture or your family. I don't know your situation. I can't help but be a little disturbed by the story you spoke of, but perhaps that merely stems from my life-long belief that that level of blatent foreplay should be the business of the two people involved. BBut hey, maybe I'm just old fassioned, right?
Cody, I love you for posting this topic! Sex education is one of my favorite topics to debate about.
Do you think that abstenance only should be taught in school, or do you think birth control should be taught as well?
I think both abstinence and birth control should be taught about in schools because they are both perfectly healthy decisions. Of course, abstinence should never be proposed or pushed as the only way of avoiding STDs/STIs and pregnancy. People are naturally compelled to have sex, and so they will, no matter what is taught. So birth control should be almost overemphasized in sex education.
Yes of course, schools should provide condoms and information on how to access other forms of birth control.
Do you think waiting until marriage is the ideal situation and should be proclaimed as so, or should we just educate students and let them decide with their parents when it is right for them to become sexually active?
Kudos to the people who decide to wait till marriage to do the deed, but I have not made that choice personally. I don't think it should be taught as the ideal situation because you should always test-drive a car before you buy it. Sex is important in many relationships, and if you and your partner value it, then you should ensure that there is compatibility before entering into a legal contract.
Also, when to become sexually active is often not decided with one's parents; but perhaps such a question can be posed to another authoritative figure. Most parents don't teach or talk to their kids about sex because they are not comfortable, and so it is likely their children won't be either. Also, parents will incorporate biases into sex education because they hold a certain image of their child and do not appreciate the thought of being responsible for yet another human being, or the thought of their child catching something.
In addition to sexual education, sexuality education should be involved and it's a hard time for the schools to discuss such a thing, so it most definitely shouldn't be left up to parents who most likely have never considered the possibility of their child being anything other than heterosexual.
How young do you think is too young to have sex?
I'm not sure how to answer that question. Maybe it is not too soon if you understand all the risks involved, and also understand exactly what is sex, and that what you are doing is a sexual act. But then it is possible for a ten-year-old to know or have a vague understanding of such things. So maybe anyone younger than twelve.
I really want to say that people shouldn't be having sex if they are not up to effectively communicating what it is they want and don't want, and don't have access to birth control. But there are people my age and even older who can be classified as such.
Also, I want to say that while sex with certain people or in certain situations can be special, I do not think that sex itself is special, or that all forms of sex with every person is special. I highly doubt that many one-night-stands could be counted as special, and I know for a fact that the sex some people have with their significant others/spouses is special.
Actually animals don't "jump anything" Animals go on readyness. When the female is in heat than she gets jumped, but if not no.
Humans don't either. Even people that go out and find sex partners pick them. That skinny girl, or fat guy on the corner looking for sex mightnot be sexually interesting.
Lst, I am not insulted. You didn't grow up as I did, so how can I be insulted because you disagree?
Parents don't always understand sex either. I have been with women that have kids, but have never had a orgasm, did they or the person the decided to have sex with understand it?
These women were extremely orgasmic with the right partner, but never had it with the other parent of the kids.
I suppose if a women must have pain with birth she needs pleasure with getting pregnat. If she has had this she enjoys being pregnant better.
BG, as someone who actually feels similarly to you on this topic, might I point something out: Maybe it's different for you, so I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I know for me, it's not the act of having sex itself that I view as being sacred, but that the two people involved share the same feelings and intentions. If two people are exclusively in love with each other, then the feeling of being in love and showing that in the bedroom is special. Admitedly, if two people are in complete agreement about a one-night-stand, it's hard to call it special, but at least they both understand that everything will be over in the morning. I can't see myself knowingly getting into that. If I'm going to have sex with someone, I'm at least hoping that something more will come of it. If I know nothing will, I'd rather not get involved. But my point is: Is it the sex itself, or is it the feelings you share and the love you have for one another, and the confidence you both share that your feelings are mutule that is sacred to you?
that was exactly my point of the question I asked BG. That emotion can be attached to anything, you are choosing, rather arbitrarily, to attach it to sex.
I, for example, had a girlfriend once with whom my favorite and most romantic memories are things like dancing, and fireside chats; and this is the girl to whom I lost my virginity. I just choose not to make the sex the focal point of my romantic emotions with her. Why? Honestly its because the sex was usually, almost always, for pleasure. We weren't looking to have a family, sex felt good, and she knew what I liked and vice versa. We had great sex. But only when we were dancing or by her fire talking did it truly become romantic.
I think this over fascination with sex being the ultimate in emotional contact robs the other, more fulfilling milestones in a relationship of their beauty. If you don't think of sex as this great be all and end all, this alpha and omega of romance and love, then you are free to truly appreciate the other aspects of the relationship. Believe me, I can tell you from personal experience, the sex isn't what is most special when the person is gone.
I actually think the social climate that forereel grew up in is very healthy. Why should we force our children to be afraid of sexual contact? Its not a venomous viper that will kill you ever time it bites. If you are educated, it probably won't bite at all.
Let me point out one thing. Condums are 98.9 percent effective, and there have been no instances of a condum failing in laboratory testing under normal conditions. This means that for the condum to have failed the tests, they had to break, or be used improperly. Its this last one we should focus on. Do you know how we can keep our kids from misusing their condums? By teaching them how to use them.
we need to stop, especially those of us who are parents, assuming our kids won't have sex. We need to drop this whole childish facade that its uncomfortable. Its only uncomfortable because we are continuing the idea that it should be uncomfortable. do you think its uncomfortable for neudists to talk about it? I highly doubt it. We need to educate our kids.
You can't even point out to me what is so special about it, you just think its special. You probably think its special because your parents told you it was, and it was always treated like this holy grail. Its not that big a deal, I promise.
Yes I agree. Sex and love aren't the same. A special girl is not because we are having good, or even bad sex. Much more to a relationship than sex, but that drive is there, so.
I personal enjoy sex and I don't need the harts and flowers or any special commitment, but I'm different. I do have to like the girl sure, but sometimes I just want sex for sex sake, not because I think we're going to move on.
I’d like to add this to my opinion.
I would have liked to have had easier access to birth control or condoms when I was a teen. I had access to all the written material on sex and could read any book I wanted on the subject, and I did. That caused me to understand sex, but on the other hand it made me want to experience it as often as I could. Sex was in the movies, and sang on the radio.
That caused a problem, because the community wasn’t with me on this. To walk in to a drug store and ask for condoms was an embarrassment.
Birth control should be as easy as buying a soda pop or candy bar.
Maybe barbershops or beauty shops should carry things.
Sex is going to happen, and girls suffer because of sex happening, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
I made myself get past the embarrassment, because I didn’t want kids all over the place, and I was thought women needed to be respected. I had the sex, and the respect, but not easy access to the tools.
I make it a point to provide access to any young man that comes in to my life. I keep a large box and let it be known that thy can have some if they want.
The first free condoms I got were the cheapest worst things the market had I think. If clinics are going to provide these thing please provide some decent ones. You can’t prevent sexual issues if you hand out the worst stuff to use to prevent it. People are just going to not use them.
Actually my mother is anything but a prood when it comes to sex. I know more about her sex life than I do about my own! Okay, perhaps not. But you get the idea. She tought me that it IS natural, and should be enjoyed. And I definately do. But within reason.
Perhaps I am misunderstood. Of course it is the emotional connection that two people share that is sacred. Sex is not the only thing that makes a relationship; it's one part of a whole which I hope all people have the oppertunity to experience. I can't deny what is being said; sex is natural, and it's in our natures to want to have it. But I also definately think that some passions need to be bridled until the appropriate time. And the appropriate time for me is when I feel an emotional connection with someone which is strong enough for me to want to be with that person for a long time. I can not condone one-night-stands, especially when they come about by clouded judgment due to alcahol or other things. I'm sure it could be the best physical stimulation of a person's life (which would be sad) but there's no connection beyond a brief window. You can't build a relationship on sex alone.
Now I do think the act of sex itself is sacred. To me, sex is an ultimate and intimate expression of trust. And it more often than not has a profound effect on at least one of the parties. Furthermore it holds a power and obligation that is to me, extremely sacred. That is the power to bring forth a life, and an obligation to care for that life. Yes there is birth control; yes it should be tought, and yes it should be available, and used. But it should not be depended upon 100%, because no birth control is 100%. If you have sex with someone, you better be at least reasonably committed to them, because if something does happen, it'll be your responsibility to deal with it along with your partner.
My church does believe very very strongly in no sex before marriage. It is in the Bible, and the Book of Mormon, as well as a part of many other religions. But the act itself is not a sinful one, only meant to be done grudgingly for procreation. Within the bonds of matramony it is one important and wonderful part of the whole package. And while I do sort of agree with all of you that it's nice and even useful for us to explore, understand and experience each other before we settle down, I will be teaching my children this principle because I believe it to be good. I want to teach them about sex and sexuality, and explain to them the reasons, both spiritual and practical that it is important to wait. But if I walk in to find my child masturbating, or if they fool around or even have sex before they are married, amy I going to turn my back on them? Not a chance! I realize that I'm trying to walk a fine line here, but ultimately I think if more people felt the way I did, we'd have a lot less unwanted pregnancies and messed up emotions. Now, I'm not saying you all need to do as I do. This is just another, apparently much different oppinion.
And yet, I point out again, you can't explain why its sacred. it just is. If something is ever called sacred just because, you should seriously question why it actually is sacred.
So I ask you again, what is it about sex that makes it sacred? It isn't the emotion, because that emotion can be attached to a dance or a kiss or a walk on the beach, all activities which are conspicuously not sex. So what is it that makes it so sacred? Is it the fact that you can procreate, but then is sex with sterile people not so sacred? if sex is sacred, all sex should be sacred. Is anal sex sacred? Cuz you can't create a baby from anal sex, or oral sex for that matter. So why is sex so sacred to you?
Maybe he means it is a basic need or desire? Am I correct?
I'd not marry a girl I've not had sex with. I have known couples that follow the church rules, but end up unhappy. I don't thinkk it is the rule that causes this, but the lack of education that goes with the rule.
If you are taught to whithhold sex until you are married you also need to be taught that you must give pleasure offten, willingly, and strive to make your partner happy in this department. Most do not teach the other half, and mostly teach that sex is somethiing that needs to be gotten out of the way quiickly. It should be dispatched quietly, and with as little easy as possible.
I have notied that in the Morman church the women wear a sheet over there bodies with a hole, so that the man doesn't touch them, but has access to her reproductive parts. Doesn't sound fun to me at all.
I am off topic here, but education needs to be given the complete story not just some of it.
Guardian, you'll do well with your kids because you are willing to at least walk the line.
silver lightning, i love this topic. here goes my take on it. perhaps it's not logically consistent but hey that's my right.
in an ideal world, whatever that is, parents should talk to kids about sex. schools should stay out of it. since this planet we live on is far from perfect, if the parents are unwilling or unable to discuss sex with kids, then schools should do the job. when i was a kid, my mom talked to me. she was very uncomfortable about it so we got a book which we red together. then i was able to ask questions and the walls of communication were broken down.
when i was 12, i went to sleep away camp. us girls were talking and I was apallede at the misinformation they had. for example if a guy pulls out you won't get pregnant. wrong. if a girl does it only once she won't have a baby. wrong. i could go on and on.i was the big expert and answered a lot of questions.
even more than sex education as in the physical act of procreation, other issues need to be discussed. for example, a few years ago, my daughter's boy friend at the time was going to a bachelor party at a strip club. he caled it a "gentleman's club" but i've been around the block a few times and he didn't fool me at all. anyway i said
"enjoy yourself, but remember, that woman you are objectifying is someone's daughter, sister,girl friend, and/or mother. she's probably doing this because it's good money." he laughed it off. the next day i asked him if he had fun. he said i'd ruined his evening. all he kept thinking was daughter, mother, best friend and sister whenever some hottie came out to do her thing.
Sorry but I'm digressing. in an ideal world virginity should be the goal until marriage. i used to be rabid about this until my son got his fiancee pregnant. now i feel that a committed relationship is all you need. one night stands and hookups for sex are meaningless and nasty.
abstinance is the only way of not getting pregnant and not transmitting stds and ids. condoms only protect part of the genitalia from spreading these things.
i think a good educational institution should teach both abstinance and birth control. the mechanics and the emotions and consequences should be stressed. also girls and boys should have those babies that cry to take around for a month or so. a cute cuddly baby is a lot different in our arms than it is in our minds.
For Real, please allow me to correct one small thing you said. I can posatively garontee you that there is no law in the LDS (mormon if you prefer the nickname) church that says a woman must cover herself during sex. Neither I, nor any of my LDS aquaintences and friends have ever even so much as hinted at that. If there are people who do that, they are either not of our church, misunderstand its teachings in some fundimental way, or choose to do that for some reason that has nothing to do with the church at all. You're right; that sounds positively dreadful. Sorry to go a little off topic, but I just wanted to clear that up. We may be guided to waiting until marriage, but I can garontee you that many of us enjoy it quite a bit after that. It is part of who we are, and a fundimental principle in a working marriage.
That does bring up a valid point however. When two people have absolutely no idea at all what they're doing, I imagine there are times when it can be really unpleasant. That's why I'm all for education, and open communication. The couple should at least know a little of what to expect. And they should be able to communicate, and just have fun with it. There's a lot of give and take, and I think that's forgotten sometimes. We all had to start somewhere, and while being with someone who is experienced for your first time can be nice in some ways, I don't really think it's a requirement either. I realize I'm perhaps a little idealistic, but there you have it.
Lightning, I can't really explain the sacredness anymore than I already have. If that's not enough to satisfy you, I can likely never do so. I think I made my feelings quite clear on this subject.
BG,
You said it was the emotion which made it sacred. But the same emotion can be gotten from a night of wine and romancing without having sex. Should we then wait until marriage to have wine and romancing? And, what is it about marriage which makes those emotions legal? Certainly you can't say marriage is some permanent bastian, most marriages end in divorce. So why can't two people who love each other have sex and enjoy those oh-so-sacred emotions?
Turricane
Why are one night stands nasty? What makes them so? If the two people want to have sex, what is so nasty about them doing it? What makes it less nasty if they've been together for six months, or a year?
why is virginity until marriage the ideal? what makes it so? If that marriage ends in divorce, should you never have sex again because its not ideal? If you remarry, is that sex less ideal? Can you have sex after your first marriage, wwithout being married a second time? After all, you're not a virgin anymore. Does that matter?
And what is mairage? Why is sex all of a sudden lawful because you have purchased a document?
Isn't it just an agreement between a couple to be with each other until they decide not to be?
I personally don't go in to a intimate relationship thinking it will only last one night, and I really don't think most people do, but it might happen you just don't like the person after?
I personally believe that due to having sex a part of my life I don't need to go out to bars or other places picking up women. I have learned one valuable lesson and that is safe sex is best sex.
Thank you for the correction on the church.
I think you should teach children about sex cause then they know how to protct themselves.
if they do not protect themselves they will catch something bad you never know.
I do not know what age to teach a child probably when they start the period or something like that.
Because that is the time where they might feels in there body.
I would teach my child cause my mother talked about it as a child and I did not like it at as a audelt to not be taught that kind of thing.
so that is the the thing on how I feel about this topic and marage I do not think thalt a teen will listen to you when he or she a teen will do what it wants i know from my experance being a teen myself.
I, too, have also wondered on more than one occasion why marriage is the only time that it's supposedly acceptable to have sex. If you divorce your partner, it doesn't matter anymore that you've lost your virginity to them. The next relationship you get into, even if you do wait until marriage again, will be lacking that component. And as for the point that was made about being romantic, there are some devout christians who don't believe you should kiss someone or even hold hands until you're married, because any physical contact with another person that has the potential to become romantic is somehow sacred. That point of view doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Off topic for a second.
I did some research about the hole in the sheet business. It seems to have been blamed on the Jewish religion, but is false. It was put in a movie for some reason, so the rumor took roots.
To the last poster, I have 2 friends that attend a church with that rule about hand holding and such.
It is because women will get confused and the guys can than take advantage of them. Hold a girls hand, her panties drop.
I'm serious. Lol Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
There goes the media clouding the truth about aspects of life again. Chances are pretty good that if you read it on Wikipedia or see it on TV, it's time to double-check a few facts.
With regards to the rule about not even holding another person's hand or kissing until Marriage, I don't personally believe in that. I think what this is here is a much much stricter regulation on sex. They don't want even the temptation of sex to enter into the equation. I'm guessing here, and I definitely don't agree with it, but I can, I think, understand it. I'm not going to condemn anyone for having sex with someone they truly care about before they marry. I do think that doing so certainly has its consequences down the road, but that won't really matter to anyone who disbelieves religious teachings, and so it has very little place in this discussion.
As for the sacredness of sex itself being reserved for the bonds of matrimony, I do believe this. It's not the act of losing one's virginity alone that renders everything meaningless after a divorce (though I think that first time is something very special and shouldn't be wasted either). It's everything; the act, the emotions that come with it, the responsibilities of child-rearing. Children have the rite to be born into a family with parents who love, and are committed to one another. Obviously that doesn't happen as much anymore. Tons of children come from broken homes these days. I myself did. Sure I still had a pretty good life. I was raised well; I wasn't subjected to abuse or ridicule, and I didn't really grow up with most of the cliche blindness-related barriers some people now find themselves hard pressed to break free of after reaching adulthood. But I can't help wondering how much better my life would have been had I grown up in a home with a stable, loving relationship. Perhaps it would have kept me from making my own sexual mistakes, perhaps not. But I'll never know. I'm not saying that a couple can't make mistakes; we do. Nor am I saying a couple can't get divorced, even though I think a lot of couples jump to that conclusion a little hastily sometimes. I think divorce should be a last resort, unless the marriage is just poisonous to one or both parties. But then I also don't know each individual divorcing couple's circumstances. To sum it up, I believe all spects of sex are indeed sacred and should be kept in check until a couple is committed, and i also believe that sexual ecucation - everything from birth control and understanding of the human body is essential to prepare us for our teen years and adulthood.
On a personal note, I do have to ask you this Lightning. Why do you consider my stance on this subject so wrong? You and I have been at odds for a long time now, and one thing I don't really understand is why, even though you certainly don't agree, you are so bent on either twisting my words, trying to trip me up, or trying to convince me of how wrong I am? I know you must have had a reason for creating this topic and others like it, and I guess I can't help wondering why you feel the need to disprove so much. I know you want people to actually stop and think for a moment; to make their own decisions independantly from the masses. But that doesn't mean those who do will reach your same conclusions about the mysteries and rules of life (or lack-there-of) I'm not trying to personally attack you, but I would like to understand you better, because it's clear to me that such discussions are common-place here on the zone. Maybe I don't refrain from imposing my beliefs on others here, but I certainly try not to do so. You however seem to have no qualms about not only voicing your opinion, but contending with and belittling other people's. I know I'm singling you out here Lightning, and I suppose that's not really fair to you, because in truth you're not the only one. At least you try to back up your statements most of the time instead of just cracking some thoughtless joke. I'm all for an exchange of differing beliefs; I think it's healthy to understand one another. I just can't help feeling like you (and others) aren't content with it being only an exchange of ideas. Yes there is a natural tendancy to try and refute points during a debate, but I can't help feeling like there's much more too it here.
BG, as has been stated time and time again, if you truly were/are so secure in your beliefs, why does it matter to you that Cody, myself, and others constantly enjoy challenging you? cause, whether you see it as such, that's all we're doing.
the reason you take it as a personal attack, though, is cause in your mind, your beliefs represent every bit of who you are. whereas with myself and Cody, our beliefs are part of us, but they're far from defining every bit of who we are.
now, back to the topic at hand. while I didn't grow up in a similar way as forereel, it's great to know people do. I'll definitely be one who teaches their kids about sex, and doesn't treat it as something that should be looked down upon, or made into a huge deal.
I also think birth control should be taught in schools, so kids are able to make informed choices and in turn, feel empowered about the happenings with their life that they have every right to control/make decisions about.
BG,
You asked your question in a very respectful manner, and I will try to answer it in the same fashion. However, some of the words I am forced by circumstance to use may seem offensive. Believe me, they are not used as hyperboly or to shock or offend you. They are used because they are the only sufficient way to show you my stance on the subject. Now, for your answer.
I challenge you because I see your beliefs as dangerous. We in america have the highest instances of teen pregnancy, STD's, abuse, and several other statistics of the developed world. We also are the only one who allows the teaching of religious principles to infiltrate our schools. We don't teach children about proper use of birth control in the vast majority of cases. We teach them that sex is wrong and dirty and something that should be avoided, and that's in the best of cases. This leads to a country full of ill-prepared teens and children who have been taught that the natural feelings they are experiencing are evil.
This isn't only restricted to sex, homosexuality shows the same signs. Suicide is extremely high amongst gay teens. that is mostly because of the biggoted teachings of religious leaders in our nation, and in other nations.
Now, I am certainly not blaming you personally for the suicides of gays. It is your belief systems, and the hatred and biggotry and exclusivity which it promotes. Now, you may deny it, and that is your right. But that does not change the fact that it is there.
Let me see if I can give you an example. Lets say you met a man in your coffee shop who said he was a follower of the norse religion. He says that he must die in battle to go to heaven, so he pulls out a sword and runs you through. You would, I'm sure, agree that this man is dangerous. In fact you might even say he's insane.
That man, is exactly how you are seen by an Atheist. You follow an ancient and out dated mythology which has no basis in reality, and is clearly faulse to anyone looking at it from the outside. Just as you think the norse mythology, or the Greek mythology is faulse, we think your mythology is faulse. And while you may not pull out a sword and run anyone through, your belief systems are causing the deaths of thousands, and the destruction of countless lives.
You cannot understand the vile things that one is told as an Atheist. I myself have been called a devil worshipper. Parts of my family refuse to speak with me. I have been exercised, prayed over, prayed for, blessed in more than one language, all because I supposedly had the devil in me. That is just Atheism. Imagine being homosexual and being told that the attraction you feel for someone of the same sex will curse you in the eyes of god; and that is a mild thing that I've heard said to homosexuals.
Imagine being a teen and being told all the time that those feelings of lust you feel, which are completely natural, are evil. Or worse, being a girl and being told that the blood that comes from your body on a monthly basis is a curse from God for a woman thousands of years ago eating an apple she shouldn't have.
Those are just a few examples, and I know that you think they are terrible, and will proclaim that you don't believe them. That isn't my point. My point is that the tenets and dogma you follow do proclaim them, and though you may dismiss them, many do not. That is why I challenge you. Because I cannot sit back and let it go unchallenged.
My hope is not to offend you or to make you feel miserable. My hope is that someone with questions will see something I've written, or one of my friends has written, and will take heart from it. My hope is not to destroy your beliefs, because I could honestly care less what you actually believe personally. My hope is to give those who question, those who doubt, those who do not believe someone they can turn to, some hope they can cling to. Because I never had that.
I cannot tell you how alone and helpless you feel when everyone around you curses you simply because you do not believe. It is something no words can describe. I would spare others that fate.
This may seem like I'm trying to be a hero, but I'm not. Just as Christians send missionaries out into undeveloped nations to spread the word of god, I am spreading the word of Atheism. I am proclaiming that there is another way, another belief, another life; and that its ok to feel this way.
That is why I do what I do, on here and on other sites and in magazines and in person. I do it so that someone can take heart from it. It has happened before, and I can't tell you how wonderful it feels to know that I've helped someone.
Thank you , lightning for being respectful and sharing your views. I really do appreciate it. You and I perhaps aren't that different in our motives, even if we do believe differently.
Everything you say, and your reasonings do have a lot of marrit in this country, and in others. I know you probably don't care whether I believe in your cause, or your ideas, but I want you to know that I do. I just think you judge religion itself too harshly, and lump every religion - even every Christian church for that matter into one tainted and disgusting group. And I think I can understand why. I never lived your life, but even just hearing some of the crap you had to put up with makes my bowels quiver in distaste. You shouldn't have had to put up with it, but you did. And that sucks. Why shouldn't you want to protect others from falling into that same trap? I think that's admirable. Maybe I don't get you, but I'd like to hope that I'm sort of understanding.
Furthermore many of the things you blame on us Christians are absolutely true. There is a ton of hatred, persecution and misunderstanding that happens in the areas which you mentioned; and in many other areas as well. And every time I hear about such happenings, it sickens me. A lot of Christians, sadly have not been known for their tolerance as much as they should be. And that's frustrating as a Christian, because I do not follow their way of thinking. Let me tell you how my church views these issues, and how I myself view them. I'm not expecting you to change your mind, nor suddenly want to investigate my religion. But I would really like you to realize that we are not all evil; and even our teachings are not evil. I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again. While it's true there are teachings that don't jive well with the worldly viewpoint, a huge amount of the terrible things perpetrated by us Christians are done by individuals acting, either on the words of a beguiling leader, or on their own. Sometimes the church itself is to blame, sometimes it's the people behind it. But not every church is so quick to judge, even if its individuals might be.
These are my thoughts, and they are echoed for the most part in the teachings of my church. I do believe that sexuality should be reserved until you're committed, and even if my church believes that commitment is the bonds of Marriage, we do NOT - read it twice - NOT believe that sexuality is evil, or that the people who have sex outside of marriage are evil. There is a difference between the act, and the individual. The act might be condemned when not in the right circumstances, but the vast majority of people who perform it are NOT evil, nor should they be treated as such. Yes, they will have to answer for what they've done, but circumstances, emotions, and understandings ARE taken by God into consideration. A person who loves their partner and doesn't want to be married is going to have a much easier time come the final judgment than the dripping penis who could care less about the feelings of their partner and just wants to screw anything with a vagina. Extreme example, I know. On the heels of this, I am absolutely for educating (mentally mature) children about their bodies, birth control, pregnancy, disease, and how wonderful and yes, even sacred sexuality and all that goes with it is. The church encourages all of this, and I support it. I don't know how I feel about schools teaching it, because their views are a little too casual for the way I want to raise my children. But if my son or daughter comes home one day and asks me what a blowjob is, I hope I will be able to respecfully answer them according to their maturity and understanding. I don't really know until I have children, but that's the plan. I am absolutely going to teach my child that it's important to wait until marriage to be with someone sexually. But if they don't, while I'll certainly be disappointed, I won't love them any less, or treat them like any less of a human being. They need to realize there are going to be consequences, but that's as far as it goes.
The same goes for homosexuality. God does condemn the act. I'm not going to go so far as to call it natural, or even right, because I don't believe that now, nor did I ever before I joined the church. But that said, the people who practice it are not evil. Many of them are wonderful individuals with amazing hearts, and lots to contribute to society. And that's how they should be treated. You can disapprove of certain aspects about a person's lifestyle. But that doesn't mean you have to hate them, or even dislike them. Nor should you actively seek to change them. As Christians we are to lead people towards the truth by example, and with gentle words, not by saying they're going to go to hell and burn forever. Things aren't that simple anyway. Jesus Christ himself spent a lot of time with "sinner" including those caught in adultery, or involved in prostitution. And he was loving to them, and kind. And that is how we should be. We are more than just our sins and our actions. If we weren't then any God-Fearing Christian could accept Christ, then go off and rape and murder without a fear of retribution. (Yes, another very extreme example).
But what about Sodam and Gamora? God sure as poop destroyed those cities, and it's clear that some of that was because of homosexual and (I THINK!) even bestiality acts. And it's hard to really talk about that without considering the eternal perspective. There was one who prayed, saying that if he could find a hundred righteous people, would God spare the cities. God agreed. And god kept lowering the bar, until he would even spare the city if there were even ten good people. Now, based on my understanding, it was a great deal more than just homosexuality going on in those cities. I don't know about the exact nature of these people's transgressions off the top of my head, but in other similar instances, the enhabitants were raping, murdering, cannibalizing, worshiping inventions of men and really just not being very upstanding citizens. What kind of world would that have been to live in, I wonder. Had God not destroyed those cities, how many people would have been born into that kind of life? How many cultures would have been subject to that grim reality? Many people died in those destructions. Their spirits were then removed from mortality where they could do no further harm to the children of men who took their place. And what happened to those spirits? I don't fully know. Perhaps they were so wicked that there is no hope for them. Or perhaps they will be given a chance to repent, though that process would undoubtedly seem like an unquenchable fire. Either way, that is how I understand what happened to those cities. I still don't like it. Nor do I think every natural disaster is the judgment of God (though one day one might be).
Lightning, I know you're not in the least religious. And that's fine. Maybe in God's place you or I might have acted differently. Who knows. I wanted to bring that issue up because I know it's something you've expressed concern about in the past. I don't really think this explanation will convince you (it's really hard to keep that eternal perspective in mind, even when you believe in it), but I wanted to show that there are different reasons for it. And there are Christians, and churches and religions who aren't quite as judgmental as the vocal masses who are helping to bring about such discord. Jesus Christ himself said (in both the bible and Book of Mormon) that there would be many false Christs, with false teachings. Some are out for money, others because they truly believe in what is being tought. What is a true Christian? How would we know what a "true" Christian is? I don't have any answer to that other than to say by their works shall you know them.
I stand on your side BG and strongly believe in God, however, organized religion creates the sexual issues teaching abstaining is supposed to protect children and adults from.
If we believe that God created us, than we also must except that God gave us this drive to have sex, and that drive is one of our most powerful emotions. It is like being hungry, men and women have a need to satisfy it. You don’t eat poison when you are hungry, because you understand that doing so will make you sick or cause your death, so why can’t your sexual appetite be recognized, explained, and teaching provided to help you enjoy it as well?
If you believe the Bible how many men and women in there were abstaining from sex, married or not? I suppose the men just wanted to get some woman on the end of their dripping penis, because many had several wives. They enjoyed the slave girls and concubines. We even have rules written stating that couples must strive to please each other, but this for some reason is not preached on Sunday mornings. I can’t say all churches are sexually oppressive, because many religions are not, but here in America we are.
I honestly think that women that are educated sexually want sex just as much, so it is not a man that wants to screw everything that moves.
We have much technology now to allow sexual relations to be had without creating, but this is not new and there have always been methods to do so and nature takes care of over population.
The idea of marriage, love, and such things are taught, we are not born with these ideas, only the need to partner up, so why must these be so heavily regarded?
I did not come from a broken home, but think people create the break. Your father and mother can give you just as much love and support without being married. All is required is they be adults and create that world for you.
A man that doesn’t care for the things his dripping penis creates is not a man, so laws, like in many religion structures, like the Muslim, if we are talking religion, only need be enforced.
If we are going to use religion to enforce sexual thought, than we also must use it to enforce caring for one another.
Let’s toe the line, care for our sexual partners enough not to infect them, impregnate them and cause them sexual issues. If a child is created lets enforce father and mother hood, so we don’t have orphans.
BG, I'd like you to do something for me. Go back and look at what you said about homosexuality. You said it was unnatural and condemned by god. Now, try if you can to put that to something that effects you. Let me explain.
You are certainly not homosexual, so you can't imagine how it would be. But you are morman. I know from seeing many of your posts that you get up in arms whenever the morman faith is called satanic or cult. It offends you. Now imagine that you got that from everyone you met. Imagine that you were sent to psychology to fix your mormanism. Imagine that your mormanism was called unnatural and condemned by god; (as it has been before by a few prominent preachers). Imagine that this faith for you is belittled in that way, every moment, of every day, by your family, friends, relations, teachers, authority figures, everyone.
Now take it one step further, what if mormanism is something genetically based? What if you couldn't control it? What if it wasn't your choice. What if you did everything you could to change it, but it never went away. Keep in mind you're still being riddiculed by everyone you know.
That is what you are doing to a homosexual person. You are, by saying they are unnatural and condemned by god, furthering the hate that is driving thousands of gay teens to suicide. You, personally, with those opinions, are causing the problem.
I beg of you, think about that. Can a book which you view as so full of love, of kindness, of happiness, of bliss, cause you to have an opinion that causes thousands to commit suicide? Can you live with that?
This may sound drastic, but its not. You may not have held the gun yourself, but you've done nothing to fix the problem, and you hold the opinions which cause the problem. That, if it were me in your position, would move me to tears.
for those of you who argue that you should wait until marriage, please consider the following situation:
You've just married a wonderful woman, you've had your wedding reception, and you're headed to spend your first night together as husband and wife. You arrive at the bridal suite, and after some cuddling and reflection of the preceeding day, you're heading to bed to give your virginity to one another. But your wife is quickly becoming more and more scared. she has never felt anything like this before, and it's hurting her. After a few painful minutes, she pleads for you to slow down, and then to stop. Gently, you try to reason with her, telling her that it will hurt a bit the first time, but that the pain will be short lived. Over the course of the next few months, you try to help her overcome her fear of love-making, but it just isn't happening. Eventually, you're faced with a tough decision: You want your wife, and only her. You want to make love to her. You're willing to do anything, and you've tried to tell her. But you do have needs. You'd never even consider cheating on your wife, and in the meantime, you use your own hands and imagination, but eventually it becomes frustrating. How could you get a divorce over this? You vowed to love her no matter what. But this fear is consuming her, and there is simply nothing you can do to help.
Now, admitedly most situations of that sort are not going to end up that way, but some of them do, and they could all be avoided if you'd discovered this issue before you vowed to share your life with this person. Let's face it. We all have needs, and whether you wait until marriage or not, you're eventually going to get frustrated if they aren't getting met. Wouldn't you rather know that you're not getting into an awkward, uncomfortable situation like the one I described? OK, so perhaps you've considered everything I've said and still prefer to wait. But how can you tell your kid that this is not only important, but that it's the best option? Maybe your marriage turned out better, but that doesn't mean your kid will be so lucky.
As for growing up in a broken home, yes, it's sad the parents weren't able to have a happy marriage, but divorce is often way better than staying together for the kids in a marriage that clearly isn't working. Not only is it dangerous for the husband and wife, but it's extremely hard on the kids.
finally, BG, you attach an emotion to having sex by saying it's sacred. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but sacred emotions are not natural. that doesn't mean they're bad; they're just not natural. Humans are social creatures, yes, but as Cody pointed out, other animals just do what their instincts tell them to do, and the emotion or the reason behind it is quite limited. And yet you say that homosexuality is unnatural? How is it unnatural when they're expressing their desires, which is actually a lot more basic than applying a spiritual meaning to sex. also, might I point out that humans are far from the only species that have shown homosexual tendencies? On the other hand, homophobia is very unnatural, because you're fearing something simply for existing, that something being a simple desire that nobody is forcing you to have, and that nobody is harming you by having. Spreading all this antigay propaganda, using the bible to speak out against it, forbidding people from expressing their own desires? Please tell me how that is natural.
Humans aren't even the most common species to display homosexual tendencies. that honor goes to the fruit bat, if I remember correctly.
For the record, as I've said, I do not condone the hatred and bigotry of homosexuals, or anyone else. I think I've made my stance on these subjects quite clear. If I can still be seen to be anything else after this, I'll be wasting your time and mine by trying to clear things up anymore. I can't put myself in the position you asked Lightning, but I can empethize with those who suffer. That's why I'll never be that way to a gay person, or anyone else. Just because I disagree with that lifestyle does not mean I'm a homophobe. I'm not scared of gayes, I don't even dislike them. This is not the first time I have expressed my distaste at those who do, and it probably won't be the last. Do I think it's genetic or even natural? No, I don't. Sure other animals do it, but they are what they are, as are we. You can't bring forth children - further the sepecies as it were - with two men and two women. Certainly artificial impregnation can accomplish this, but not without a third party. But none of that matters to me. I don't have to agree with that lifestyle to enjoy spending time with and appreciating the people who do it. I'm not the enimy here. I've said it once, and I'll say it one final time. It disgusts me how minorities of any kind, gays and lesbians included are treated. I don't know what else to say here, about this, or anything else.
If you think they are bound for hell, or condemned by God, whatever you want to call it, you are promoting the hatred. Pure and simple. You can put sugar all over it, it won't make it taste any sweeter to anyone but you.
Other animals do it, but they are what they are? Honestly, what is that supposed to mean? Furthermore, it certainly doesn't prove that homosexuality is unnatural.
First off: This is an interesting topic so here is my opinion:
I agree with most posters surprisingly. It is funny that I go to a Christian University, but I still disagree completely with remaining abstinent until marriage. What the heck? People are going to experiment way before this point, and as long as they are taught methods or protecting him/herself, it should be fine.
I wouldn't put an age on having sex either, just when you have an income in case you "screw up", and that you are mature and somewhat committed to the partner that you are having sex with, or else it won't be as enjoyable.
Ocean you are exactly correct, however, the root of these sort of problems is selfishness.
If a person has no physical or medical reason, and loves their partner they'd seek help to solve the problem, not just refuse totally.
Sex can be learned, so if your partner decideds she or he doesn't want to learn, than you are not compatible.
Last, I'd personally like to know if she has any fetishes I'm unwilling to support. That is a form of selfishness, true, but think of some things you'd probably not do no matter what?
Exactly, which is why I posted that cinario. And it's completely avoidable. I'm not saying have sex on the first date, though if you're responsible about it, I'm not against that either. If you want to wait six years to have sex, then fine. I couldn't do that, but if that's your thing, go for it. Just keep in mind that though breaking up can be emotionally devastating, divorce is all that, and a whole lot more.
6 years? Now is that fasting, or abstaining? Lol
Exaggeration for effect.
All teasing aside. There was a post some time back were a guy said he was dating a girl and was waiting on marriage and they'd been dating 6 years or so.
More power to them, then. If it's what they want there's no reason to frown upon it. And Forereel, I would just like to point out that because, as many posts have already stated, sex is a natural thing, it comes naturally to us eventually. Sure, we want to know about it starting at a young age, and there are things that are important to be learned in order to practice safe sex, but even if we want to know what it is and how it's done from early childhood on, if no one were to ever tell us anything about it whatsoever, eventually our curiosity would get the better of us and we would experiment. And one way or another I'm sure we would figure out that, hey, this part goes here, and wow it feels good and seems like the right thing to do. So sex is not entirely learned. We can learn about the different ways to do it and how to use birth control/protection to be safe, but sex is really something of which we are actually already born with the knowledge and instincts of how to do it.
All the more reason to drop this whole sanctity crock and just admit that we are animals with the instinct of animals. We still have instincts that control us as much as our pet dogs, we need to start admitting that.
yes. the problem is that society, for the most part, discourages running on instinct. One of the many ways the world is screwed, in my opinion. But, I digress. On a related note, though, as far as I know, humans are the only creatures to talk about so-called "safe sex". So technically, safe sex as we think of it isn't natural either. Do other animals run the risk of spreading STD's? Maybe not the same ones we can contract, but I'm sure it's possible for them to get sick as a result of having sex.
That's why there's really no such thing as 100 percent safe sex. Protection methods do fail. So the only way to be 100 percent safe is to abstain from it all together, which I'm sure isn't going to happen any time. People get STD's all the time.
ok here goes. remember i'm 55 years old, and a southern baptist. i don't blindly accept the doctrine i have heard.
why do christians feel they need to do God's job. He is the ultimate judge of our behavior and knows our hearts. Why do we condemn what others do? The fchoices we make are between god, our partner and ourselves.
Parents need to have open communication with their kids. If they are old enough we should be able to answer a question in an age appropriate manner. When my son was four, we were driving home fom a fun day at a big playground which we'd spent with my dad and step mom. Out of the clear blue he says "mommy, what is aids?" My dad looks me and goes "hon, this one's all yours." To stall and collect my thoughts i asked him what he thought it was. He said it's something that people get from sex. so how could he have a baby because he has to have sex to get his wife pregnant. I said that it is a disease from irresponsible living. Drug addicts get it. It came from africa, which is a long way away. I said the thing you must remember is when you have sex for the first time, you must make sure your partner doesn't have it. She can get a blood test.
as for one night stands, you must remember i came of age in the free to be 70s. studies have shown that particularly women who have experienced repeated one night relationships have had serious intimacy problems. The part of our heart we reserve for love, physical and emotional is very special and fragile. if women used it inappropriately and separate the act from the emotions, the love center tends to become hardened.
when my kids were little i was all for the virginity until the wedding night routine. hey, my son was engaged and got his fiance pregnant. they just moved the date up. big whoop. i don't think that god or man should respect and or condone sex without commitment. it is special and wonderful. if a person is in a committed relationship, it is a logical and natural extension of the love felt one for another.
oh yes, and you christian and lds moms and dad, talk to your kids about birth control. I have a dear friend whose daughter has been living part time with her no account boy friend for over two years. of course you and i know they are doing the deed. she won't discuss birth control with her because "she's suppposed to abstain. if she doesn't she's on her own." I said then when is the baby shower going to be?
recently my daughter has become involved in a long term relationship which will probably be permanent. oh yes it's monogomas too. i gave her the planned parenthood number and websites where she could find info about contraception. she also went to the family doc and made the decision which was right for her. maybe that's wrong, but she's an adult. if she asks for advice and assistance resistance is not my job.
god is supposed to love us. we are supposed to do likewise. another word for love is respect. we don't need to condemn others. we need to respect their rights to make choices. hope this helps.
Turricane, you are a breath of fresh air and make more sense than the nonsense spewed by both extremes, who basically deserve each other in my opinion.
As to instinct? There is no maternal instinct, there is no sex instinct, there is no food-gathering instinct, basically almost no instinct at all when it comes to humans. I know culturally we talk about instinct among humans. The more altricial the species, the fewer the instincts.
Consider on one extreme, frogs or flies: They need no parents. It's all in the firmware and they know how to get food and survive from birth. They don't need to actually learn anything in order to survive. Note animal people I didn't say they don't learn anything, just they don't need to learn anything to survive.
Any of you as kids try and rescue a baby bird? Provided that bird didn't die from whatever happened before you found it on the ground, or from bad diet / crop burns or some other problems caused by improper feeding, you would find that birds don't know how to fly. They have no instinct for flight: the parents teach them. Go to a bird rehab place and ask to observe while they perform flight training on juveniles.
Then there's the whole finding food thing: Parents are constant in their instruction of the young birds from psitocenes to softbills to poultry.
Finches (canaries being the most famous for this) learn to sing from their father. They possess no instinct that tells them to sing.
They have nest-building instincts: parents don't teach them to build nests. But many migratory birds don't even possess migration instincts, meaning if they don't follow the flock for the first year, they would fly around aimlessly and get lost instead of migration. There is no supernatural force guiding them, be it god or instinct: it's the parents and their flock culture.
It's hard to believe we wouldn't have sex instincts, but we basically don't.
Now that doesn't mean I argue for the fundamentalists' stance. I've known at least as many sexually twisted, or shattered, or messed up fundamentalists as everyone else. And as to OceanDream's comment about the frightened virgin and all the hang-ups? That's an absolutely probable outcome. Remember that the hangups-ridden are not the most capable to survive or most capable people. Hangups are basically obstacles. Companies with hangups would rather go out of business than change with the times and enter new markets. Animal and plant species with physical "fixed" hang-ups go extinct when their environment changes. The reason humans with hangups survive is entirely because the rest of us maintain an artificial bubble in which they can survive, or they simply wouldn't make it. Philosophers and the like could argue whether the bubbles made the hang-ups or that the rest of us create the artificial environment to sustain life for the hangup-ridden as a result of their prior disposition, but it remains they are not the most survival-fit and so constraints are in place at least for their maintenance if not the best quality of existences.
But anyway I drifted: Instinct in humans is extremely overrated. The reason that traditionally human mothers were supposed to have a maternal instinct is simply exposure to the young. Take the young away from its biological mother near birth for a few days, she will have no kinship or affinity outside of culturally constructed morrays.
On the other hand, I was shocked at the level of "instinct" that I had, since from the moment I held my newborn daughter through the first few weeks of her mother's recovery from birth, I went from being instructed by the midwives and medical people on how to burrito wrap, to how to care for the umbillical cord, to all the rest. It was all in the exposure. If humans had sexual instinct, they would have evolved instinctive firmware that would help them avoid sexual behavior in disease-ridden contexts and other areas. But humans have to be taught, even how to feed or nest (be put down for a nap), etc. The only things you did not have to be taught how to do were suckle, cry, and breathe. Even suckle you had to be taught some in the beginning, at least parts of it.
Instinct in humans is extremely overrated.
I almost agree with you Leo, accept sexually we do have an instinct. we have a pleasure instinct. This is why we masterbate in the womb. Don't believe me, its true. You all did it. Babies masterbate in the womb. Its a natural thing. Its only when we get older that we are told doing that is weird and will send you straight to hell.
We have some basic instincts, , but we don't know about birth control, or the concept of safe sex.
When I am talking about safe sex I am not only talking about using condoms, but observing your partner, talking to them, getting to know there sexual habits and ideas.
If you are having a one night stand, or meeting partners and having sex right away, than even using condoms is not completely safe sex, but does help.
I don't believe people would spread STD's if they were honest and didn't have the need to sneak around, or have quick sex, because of taboos. That is an odd statement, but I think if sex were more thought of as natural we'd be pickyer about whom we had sex.
Animals I don't believe have STD's or get sick, because they don't pick sickly partners. Some how the STD is introduced in to the pool, than spread. I don't know how, but it does.
An example of a not careful person is a gay man or male person that goes cruzing for sex. Most times you are cruzing, because the sex you want is taboo, so you go looking for it in places that aren't so healthy among others that don't care about health. You bring that STD back to your clean partner whom you picked because there were the proper person.
If you could get the sex you wanted without having to cruz you'd pick healthy clean partners.
So having said all that, if sex were tought as a natural state of being, and we were tought that it isn't dirty, we don't have to wait until a special time, and how to protect from child birth we'd be better sexual adults.
Um... you do realize that AIDS was orriginally a virus in monkeys right, and that most spiders eat their mates, and that dolphins are really just sluts with tales? There are three animals who have sex for pleasure, dolphins, monkeys, and humans. Guess what, they all have some safety concerns as far as sex goes. Guess which one is trying to say that sex is some evil act that we should wait to have until some arbitrary moment where we sign a piece of paper and get some overpriced metal circles. I'll give you a hint, it ain't the monkeys or the dolphins. Those two, they're just going with it.
Wow. THis is still going? ... Well anyway. Turricane, I really couldn't have said it better myself. As for this wholeinstinctual comparrison to other animals, I really don't see how that is relevant. I think it's true that all these urges are instinctual and natural. I'm not even saying they need to be suppressed, just that they aught to be at least kept in check until a time when there is some actual emotional commitment, and an ability to be socially responsible. As both an member of the latter-day Saints, AND a Christian, I certainly plan to teach my children as much as I possibly can.
We ain't nothin' but mammals!
Hmm Cody I never heard that about masturbating in the womb, though since we basically do a lot of other things in the womb - thumb-sucking and all sorts of things, that would make sense. It's kinda like prison: not a whole lot to do in there, so the more ways to entertain oneself the better, it would seem.
If that's actually true (reliable source perhaps?) , it certainly brings up an interesting question; at what point do we become a creature of thought - even unconscious, instinctual thought?
Well, there are several lines of thought on that subject. we can measure brain activity in infants, even directly out of the womb. However, many claim that in order to have something be classified as a thought, it must be reasoned. Infants do not reason, they don't have that part of the brain yet. Thus, you wouldn't actually start thinking until you started exploring your world and grew up a little, before then its just your brain working quietly in your head. That is the theory that I've read at least.
I confess, psychology is not my strong suit, so I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means. I have a very basic education and understanding of it, but that is all.
One interesting thing, on a small side note though. According to some biblical verses, and some biblical experts or preachers, we aren't actually counted to have any value until we are one month old. Before then we are meaningless. And women are valued far less than men. I can't remember the exact figures, but there are actually details in the bible telling how much a man is worth and how much a woman and a child are worth. Its an interesting thing to ponder over.
Well, there are several lines of thought on that subject. we can measure brain activity in infants, even directly out of the womb. However, many claim that in order to have something be classified as a thought, it must be reasoned. Infants do not reason, they don't have that part of the brain yet. Thus, you wouldn't actually start thinking until you started exploring your world and grew up a little, before then its just your brain working quietly in your head. That is the theory that I've read at least.
I confess, psychology is not my strong suit, so I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means. I have a very basic education and understanding of it, but that is all.
One interesting thing, on a small side note though. According to some biblical verses, and some biblical experts or preachers, we aren't actually counted to have any value until we are one month old. Before then we are meaningless. And women are valued far less than men. I can't remember the exact figures, but there are actually details in the bible telling how much a man is worth and how much a woman and a child are worth. Its an interesting thing to ponder over.
Well, there are several lines of thought on that subject. we can measure brain activity in infants, even directly out of the womb. However, many claim that in order to have something be classified as a thought, it must be reasoned. Infants do not reason, they don't have that part of the brain yet. Thus, you wouldn't actually start thinking until you started exploring your world and grew up a little, before then its just your brain working quietly in your head. That is the theory that I've read at least.
I confess, psychology is not my strong suit, so I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means. I have a very basic education and understanding of it, but that is all.
One interesting thing, on a small side note though. According to some biblical verses, and some biblical experts or preachers, we aren't actually counted to have any value until we are one month old. Before then we are meaningless. And women are valued far less than men. I can't remember the exact figures, but there are actually details in the bible telling how much a man is worth and how much a woman and a child are worth. Its an interesting thing to ponder over.
Whoa, forgive the multiple posts everyone, sorry about that.
That's interesting. Sadly in the end they are really only theories it seems. I wonder what sort of thoughts a child that young would have. There are of course just as many theories which say stimulation of the child's mind - by music, b y the parents talking to it etc) are very influencial also. I wonder then about that verse in the bible you mentioned. I myself do not recall reading such a thing. That's not to say it isn't there of course. Do you recall where? I'm guessing old Testament. I know for certain that my church doesn't believe either of those things. Women and men are "worth" (whatever that actually means) the same. And a child is a child when it is born. We believe it is so even before, though there's no concrete settlement on when a body is united with its soul.
And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver.... And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. -- Leviticus 27:3-7
There's the verse, yes its from the old testament, but why does that matter, its more than half the bible. Notice it said nothing about anyone under one month old, this means they have no value.
It doesn't really pertain to this discussion though.
No. The values were put on the sex of slaves not value of people.
Now about these monkeys, I had forgotten about that, but than I'm not interested in monkeys. All the better reason to know your partners sexual likes, huh?
Swimming with the fish takes on new meaning
Abstenance only programs do students a major disservice. Regarding sex ed, or lack there of in schools, students have the right to information. However, it's also up to the parents to help present said information. I am very uncomfortable with the fact that many of the religious right in this country now influence what is taught in many schools, all the way down to the science textbooks for example. (Some children in this country do not learn about evolution and this is 2012! What a mess.) If a child is in a public school setting, then he or she should be given a balanced education based on fact, not on religious dogma. It's natural that teens may experiment with sex to one degree or another. That's reality. So, I would like them to at least be aware of the methods available to help prevent pregnancy and the spread of stds.
for real, slaves are not people? very interesting statement. I wonder what that says about your character.
ok guys here are my last thoughts on this issue. we seem to blame humans for god's deeds. I don't want to argue about creationism and evolutionism. both are theories. anyway who cares how we got here. it's what we do to make things better while we are on this earth that is important.
anyway, humans have put all these limitations on sex. we put our creator in a box which fits our agenda. if we look at the scope of what he is and the things he has done and can do, then we have a lot of nerve interpreting his book to fit our agendas.
if god had not wanted sex to be enjoyable he could have created it to be painful disgusting and pointless. it is our human morals and mores which have caused it to be thus.
i am not a theologian. i am just a woman who has read, prayed, and pondered these issues in both the bible and in life. The reason god condemns promiscuity both in heteresexuals and homosexuals is two fold. In order to have a world filled with harmony and social values we have to practice commitment. Laws have mandated that it is marriage and a license. if we look back even to the people who first came on this earth, we learn that every society had some kind of commitment ceremony. This ensures survival of the speces. If two parents are required to be responsible for the off spring they produce, then societies will flourish and grow. Back in the day the man was the defender because he was the physically stronger.
in order for species to survive the man is the scatterer of his seed. if he has a zillion kids by a bunch of different women, then everyone suffers.
although i am not a homosexual male, i know from talking to many that the reason they stray is not moral weakness. it is just a man's job to be the creator not the nurturer. in many ways i applaud the whole gay marriage thing as it encourages men to stay with one another. thus aids is limited and their world will eventually become more stable.
To put it simply. God abhores slutgty behavior. He is a deity who loves and respects his people and respects us to return his favor by doing the same to those around us.
Don't argue with me if there is or is not a god. That's not germain to this discussion. enjoy your day.
Ok, I won't argue as to whether there is not or isn't a god. There isn't, and I'm glad we agree on that.
However, I will argue about a couple things.
first, the next time you feel like saying that evolution is a theory, and thinking you're being negative, you might want to pick up a dictionary, look up the scientific definition of a theory, then smash yourself in the face for being so inept at vocabulary. For those of you who don't know, there are two types of theories. There is a theory as in what you see on detective shows which is a hunch or idea. That is not the kind of theory that is evolution or gravity. There is the scientific definition which is a hypothesis which has undergone testing by multiple sources and has been accepted as truth by the scientific community.
You want to know what kind of things are theories, I'll give you a sampling. Gravity is a theory, germs are a theory, the earth orbitting the sun is a theory, the earth being round is a theory. Theory doesn't mean its just a hunch we all have. it means its a proven fact in the scientific community. Remember that next time you feel like being an idiot and claiming evolution is "just a theory".
Second, I would like for you to prove to me that god hates sluts. Can you give me any evidence other than your biased opinion that God hates them? Has he told you, and do you have a recording of this? Is there somewhere we can see a law that says god hates sluts?
Oh, and before you pull out that holy bible of yours, let me point out a couple things. First, it doesn't say anywhere in their that God hates sluts, the word slut isn't anywhere in that book. Second, it doesn't prove anything that its written in a book. You're the only one who believes in that book. It isn't true. Just because you believe it to be true, doesn't actually make it true.
So, please present evidence that god hates sluts, whether gay or straight. Can you?
Guess after 400 years I'm trained to believe slaves aren't people. Now about my character, well that is up for debate too. Lol
Seriously I didn't mean slaves aren't people, but being that they were property value was assigned to them. That was the value written in the Bible.
you know silver lightning there are loaded words and loaded sentences. slut was a poor choice of words on my part for which i am truly sorry. You need to look at how you sound as well. I am neither stupid or uninformed. If i were the type who took personally what you said, I'd be very angry at your superior and condescending tone. Of course that's the path of least resistance for the young and/or liberal. Bluster and ridicule another person and you feel superior.
For the record for 32 years i worked for a scientific organization. I have continued my education in many areas beyond high school and read at least two books a week. I also home schooled my kids, which meant I had to remember a lot i was taught in high school to help them. i am well aware of all the definitions of theory. My point, oh enlightened one is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how we got here. it's what we do with the short span of days which we are given that counts. do we treat others with respect? do we love thos who care about us? do we give back something to the community? Do we show commitment to our spouse and family? Do we find our special gift and use it? those are far more importantg oals and questions then if we came from a monkey or were made out of clay. if everyone gave 100% to improving their small sector of the planet, this world would be a far better place.
I hope that when you look back at your life, you will find out that it meant more then the mindless search for shallow pleasures. In my opinion we were put here for more than that. Of course according to you i'm ignorant so you don't have to read this.
I am wondering how pure are your motives for starting and continuing this discussion. It seems that you did not genuinely want to know others opinions. Instead you wanted a platform from which to pontificate yours. that's fine, but let's be honest next time you "innocently" ask a question.
silver lightning, i was reading the posts below which purported to discuss temporal opinions and eternal truths, what a crock of crap that whole discussion is but i digress, and i had one of those aha monements we suddenly get. I thought I might share it with you.
If we look back at jesus' family tree, which is in the book of mathew i believe, we see that he came from a long line of distinguished people. he also had a prostitute, a spy, and a bunch of other folks in it. also if his earthly father hadn't smanned up and married her, mary could have been an unwed mother. joseph could have stoned her to death for getting pregnant with another man's child. he had the faith to marry her based on a dream. i think that the heavenly trinity may have differing views on commitment then we everkknew.
Turricane, I applaud you 100%, both in your thoughts, and how you choose to present them. Lightning, thank you for sharing that verse (and telling me where it was). Its meaning has been made clearish, but I do plan to research it further.
Turricane which of Jesus' family trees would you be referring to? the one found in Matthew or the one found in Luke? Neither match by the way.
Okay back on topic.
I believe that abstinence only education is not only illogical but is also harmful. Both to the individual and a society.
It promotes ignorance rather then teaches. When abstinence only education became widely taught in US schools the teen pregnancy rate jumped up by 20%. The Amount of teen STD cases also went up. This is largely due to the lack of education about using protection and proper education about STD's.
Also if you wait until marriage problems can, and often do arise. Problems such as sexual incompatibility such as frequency of intercourse and stamina. Also many sexual dysfunctions will not show themselves until intercourse is attempted.
in our area unless you attend a christian high school, abstinence has never been taught. So i can't adress the rise in teen pregnancy rates. from what i have read recently at this time, they are steady or going down slightly which is a good thing. My son and daughter in law got married, and are doing really well. they got pregnant at 19. a lot of her friends didn't marry the father of their child. they are now really struggling and are on welfare and wic. i'm hopeful that this is not always the case.
i am referring to the family tree in matthew ss it is much more detailed. so what if they don't match. my dad was an orphan so we know very litle about his roots. my brother has researched these and gone in to exhaustively and exhausting details about them. there are several places apparently in the distant past where you can pick who you want to represent you. again, what's the big deal? what we do while we are here is much more important than who we come from.
Turricane, by being so vehement, you prove that you were offended by what I said. Which is good, anger is a wonderful thing. While your accredidations are somewhat questionable (I could read two Stephanie Meyer books a week and have my IQ drop exponentially each time, and just because you homeschooled your kids, doesn't mean anything accept that your kids were homeschooled), I won't question them. I'll take you at your word.
Now, taking you at your word, I have to wonder one thing, and I'm going to put in a little quote so there will be no question of my accuracy. Here's the quote: "I don't want to argue about creationism and evolutionism. both are theories". That was said by you, I'm sure you recognize it.
Now, my question is, if your point was to indicate that it is pointless where we come from ETC. why did you bring them up, and why do you claim they are both theories. First, evolution is a theory in the scientific sense, which you claim to understand, creationism is not a theory at all, nor scientific, so it is impossible for them both to be theories. One is a theory in the true sense of the word, the other is just something a bunch of crackpots want taught to our schoolchildren because it was written in some book a few thousand years ago. You're being inaccurate, and that means either A. you didn't know, or B. you didn't care. I want to know why.
Also, we didn't come from monkeys, I would expect someone of such great age and experience to know what the theory of evolution actually says. We came from a common ancestor as monkeys. Its just like you and your cousin share the same grandmother, your cousin is not your grandmother. You should really try to be more accurate next time.
As for reference to the bible, it matters for a few reasons. First, it shows that the bible is imperfect, and thus cannot be the perfect word of God. This kinda blows over the whole doctrine of faith, and so you'll probably want to ignore it. Second, it shows that the writers of the books of the bible were just taking things from other books, and making stuff up in a few places, and thus we can conclude that they are just fiction. This also destroys that whole faith thing you've got going on, and so you'll probably want to avoid that idea as well. I don't blame you, most people who's claims are baseless want to avoid the evidence of said baselessness.
Finally, I'd like to thank you. Because the only things you could think of to actually attack in my statement were the fact that I hurt your feelings, and the fact that I'm young, means that the actual substance of my article was irrefutable. If you found flause in it, I'm sure you would have attacked those as well. As you didn't, I'm going to assume that it was perfect, and I'd just like to thank you for outlining that.
Oh, and the next time you feel like calling someone conceited, you might want to read back at your posts and realize that every thing you've said about yourself has dripped with conceit. You mention how you're fifty-five, and so us youngin's couldn't possibly measure up to your intellect. You talk about how you spent decades working for a science center, and yet you don't know that we didn't come from monkeys, and you still believe a book that talks about a talking snake and a talking donkey. You talk about homeschooling your kids, because us public school kids are just so stupid, how could we possibly compare.
You're being both conceited and hippocritical. I'll fully admit I'm conceited, and so are a few other people on here who follow my line of reasoning to one degree or another. But you know what's funny, the only people whining about other people being conceited, are ones who can't form their argument into coherent sentences, or those who can't back up their argument with fact, or even tell why they have the opinion in the first place. For example, I refer you to the questions I asked after your first post that went sadly, if not entirely unexpectedly, unanswered.
Oh, and I have to add that I love how I riddicule you, and suddenly I'm the one who must be young and/or liberal. I love how its fine for you to riddicule, because you're old and conservative. Even though I doubt you even have a clue what true conservatism actually is, (most people don't), or what the actual principles of a conservative would be, (since they haven't followed them since the late 1800's).
I also feel I should address your questions on why I wrote this post, or rather, what ideas I had when writing it. I'll tell you. I wanted to debate the issue. I didn't want everyone to just go, "This is what I think", and everyone else to go, "Oh, well that's nice Bob, thanks for sharing". I wanted people to ask questions, to present evidence, to give opinions and vehemently defend those opinions. That was my idea when writing this.
Now, unfortunately, for the most part, i got a bunch of limp wristed responses with little to nothing to back them up. People gave their opinions, and then had nothing to defend them with. They said, "Well, that's just how I feel". Which is, if you think about it, translatable too, "I think this way, and there's nothing you can do to change my mind".
It is somewhat telling that most of the people, you included, have then belittled me for vehemently defending my opinions and point of view. It is odd, none of the people who have differing views from me, and can defend them, ever complain that I stridently defend mine.
So, I'll go on record once more by saying, if you don't like people defending their opinions with vehements and self-assuredness and confidence, don't post to my board posts. If you can't handle your opinion being questioned, don't put them on the table to be questioned. However, if you want to engage in a debate where you can be as forceful as you need to be, welcome, enjoy.
And just to prove that I can put my money where my mouth is, here are a few of my opinions. Abstenance is idiotic and denies human nature, teaching only abstenance in schools makes our teens ill-informed and invites teen pregnancy and STD's, it is perfectly fine for upper teens to have sex, it is our responsibility as an older generation to educate those beneath us in the most full and comprehensive manner possible, religion should have no place in school or government of any kind shape or form, girls should not be riddiculed for having more than one sexual partner, virginity should not be celebrated as some pure and innocent state of perfection, the single loss of virginity should not be seen as the be all and end all of sex, sex should be seen as fun and wholesome rather than evil and dirty, and finally, there is no god. I invite any of you to destroy those opinions. Rip them apart limb from limb, attack me, assault me, insult me, make me look like a brainless moron, in short, change my opinions..I just ask two things in return. First, that you be prepared for me to strike back and you don't whine when I do. Second, that you attack me with logic and provable fact, and that you know why you hold the opinions with which you are attacking mine. If you're on board with that, lets see what you've got.
I honestly believe the teen pregnancy rates would decline if our youth had access to this education. Along with it should come access to the things required.
I think it was nice that your son stayed with the girl, but that was probably because he felt some pressure to do so. That is not a put down, and I say it to make this point.
No matter how we preach, suggest, scold, and pressure youth not to have sex, they do. Your son is a perfect example of how that can happen.
It is possible that if he had access to education without strong opinions, and taboos, he'd not have gotten his girl pregnant in the first place, and would not have had to marry her at such a young age.
Struggling on welfare is not the way to enjoy your youth, and I sincerely believe that youth are better served without that pressure, or struggle.
You could even marry your partner at 19, but it would be because you wanted her or him, not because you had her or him, and got stuck, so gave in and did "what's right!"
So many fallacies I have to quote Turricane.
""in our area unless you attend a christian high school, abstinence has never been taught.""
WRONG!
George Bush increased funding for abstinence only programs all through his presidency.
Also many states such as Utah and Tennessee have passed their own legislation to teach abstinence only, Tennessee took it one step further and made real sex education illegal. Other states are following the practice.
Sources
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/05/tennessee-legislature-passes-abstinence-only-sex-education-bill.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/tennessee-sex-education-b_n_1411100.html
""from what i have read recently at this time, they are steady or going down slightly which is a good thing.""
While the national number have fallen Actually states that have abstinence only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and teen STD rates. Which is further proof this doesn't work.
Sources.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/states-with-abstinence-only-sex-ed-programs-rank-highest-in-teen-pregnancies/
""My son and daughter in law got married, and are doing really well. they got pregnant at 19. a lot of her friends didn't marry the father of their child. they are now really struggling and are on welfare and wic. i'm hopeful that this is not always the case.""
Why do people who prove abstinence only education is a failure, still defend it?
Why is it that those who are against socialism are the ones who use social programs the most?
I honestly feel that your son did not marry this woman because he loves her, but he married her because he felt obligated to do so due to religious pressure.
Welfare is a symptom of a far bigger problem, which is typically lack of education, which abstinence only education encourages.
""i am referring to the family tree in matthew ss it is much more detailed. so what if they don't match.""
The fact they don't match is a huge problem, even for bible scholars. It is one of the hundreds of contradictions that shows that the bible is not perfect and since the bible is supposedly the word of god then wouldn't that mean your god isn't perfect either? Since he was the one who supposedly wrote the damn thing.
""my dad was an orphan so we know very litle about his roots. my brother has researched these and gone in to exhaustively and exhausting details about them. there are several places apparently in the distant past where you can pick who you want to represent you. again, what's the big deal? what we do while we are here is much more important than who we come from.""
Really? Really?
Jesus lineage should be quite straight forward, but it isn't. He supposedly had one adoptive father (Joseph) yet Joseph has two lineages. Which one is correct?
Today we use DNA testing to see into our pasts the least your god could have done was make Joseph's lineage non-contradictory.
It does matter where we come from. We learn so much from our history and from our ancestors. We learn where we came from, where we fit into the great scheme of things, and we even learn about a part of who we are.
How in the hell can you say that's not important?
My cody you must feel better. the only thing that is better than a good rant is a sexual encounter with multiple orgasms. after i stop laughing i will respond to your allegations and accusations. I haven't had this much fun in a long long time.
congratulations my dear. you hve achieved two firsts. . you are the first person who has ever called me a conceited hippocrite. I've been called a ranting dramatic bitch who has no common sense many times. Also unkind, mean, inflexible, cold hearted, etc. etc. etc..... never conceited. As for hipocrite, i firmly believe what i say and practice what i believe. so if that makes me one of those in your world, then i must misunderstand the definition. of course since you feel i'm dumb as paint and sharp as a bowling ball, what can i say?you made my day. it shows just how unschooled in reading and comprehending and understanding emotions you are. i was saying that i was old and probably out of touch with the real world. i was not saying that i knew everything. no one, not even you, owns right and no one, not even king cody the greatest debater since the roman empire, is the keeper of all knowledge.
Since you are niether my boss nor my parent i don't owe you an explanation for anything. the reason i home schooled my kids is because our schools were and are riddled with gang violence. several of my son's and daughters friends were either attacked physically or sexually to the point where trips to the ER followed by stays in the hospital hilton were unplanned events in their day(s). also when i have a child come up to me in fifth grade and ask me what state london is in, i kind of wonder what they are doing for six hours everyday in school. When i went to my sixth grade daughter's parent teacher conference and she had the nerve to say in front of us "my job is based on your kids doing well in math and science. if you want them to learn anything else, you will have to teach it to them." since i was doing over half the dumbass' job, i figured why not take over and finish it.
as for believeing in a book that has a talking snake and a talking ass in it.... it could be argued that i'm writing to a person whose character contains portions of both unlikely creatures. however, i'd never be rude enough to say so. whoops. i just did. my bad. so sorry. i'm so sad if you are mad.
Oh and when you take all the excess verbiage away from your remarks i basically shock, tgasp, agree with you. Schools should present all sides of every major issue. Wheteher it is sex, evolution, politics, or jane austin's literature, gag barf,, kids have the right to learn In fact i feel that if they get out of school without being able to see all sides of a situation and find their version of the truth, their parents and their educators should be shot at sunrise. . Plato, I think, once said a mind is not a bowl to be filled but a fire to be lighted. It's both the home and in the school that a child should have that flame of knowledge started. whever light enters the darkness of fear and ignorance are banished. too often kids don't catch on to learning for its own sake and think passing tests equals knowledge. the ability to see all sides of any issue, whether it is sex or anything and make our own decisions that are right for us separates kids from adults and the weak from the strong.
I think the whole hang up on virginity on the wedding night is ridiculous. It has taken me years to come to this conclusion. I guess i didn't make this clear to you either. The big thing to me is commitment. You are a male, and your gender looks at sex differently. You are more able to separate the physical from the emotional.
as for their not being a god. i can't argue that and i won't. sorry. it is unfathomable when i am standing on the beach listening to the ocean, walking through the groves of red woods in california, or the boreal forests in alaska, it is obvious to me that a higher power is present. however, whatever i say you will ridicule, so I will leave you to your beliefs. on another subject, for real, you are making assumpsions about things about which you have no idea. as i said in my email, my son and daughter in law were engaged. they were getting married, with both family's blessings, in april. they got married in september. age is a number. both these people were mature enough to handle it. age is a number. i know plenty of 30 year olds who were and are less prepared then were they. additionally they both have strong and supportive families to help them. and finally, they are not on welfare. my son works as a cable guy and my daughter in law is a futures investor. in other words she takes excellent care of my grand children. they watch little tv, do lots of fun stuff, and i wish i was their age. Both
The infrastructure is failing: Roads, bridges, and the like. So we should remove all engineering education from the schools because if they do not learn how to build roads and bridges, there will be no roads and bridges to break down. Never mind the fact that little tiny ones are constantly attempting to build stick and block houses, roads and bridges. That is my answer to the failing infrastructure. And my answer to the failing power grids is stop electricity education. Those 8th-grade science lessons on electricity? STOP IT! Electricity education got us a failing power grid!
I I say the Bible wants couples to match. If couples read the rules they'd strive harder to be better sexual, spiertual, and help mates to their partners.
As I posted before there is lots of sex there, but knowone wants to talk about that part.
If we move on to the Karan it suggest a man should service his slave girls so they do not suffter from lack of sex. Doesn't require him to marry them, just support them if they should have a child.
Of course, then that gets into the realm of slavery, and the dubious ethics around it. Speaking of dubious ethics, I haven't read much of the Islamic holy texts, so I'll just have to take your word for that. It raises a question though. How many of those men who are "servicing" their slave girls are doing it for the slave girls' benifits? What I'm getting at is religious texts may tell us something, but our motivations and reasonings behind doing them are also very important. Probably an irrelivant post, but that was the first thing that came to mind after your post, For Real.
In all seriousness I have serious doubts about the whole virginity is the best way philosophy. I guess AIDS is what really kept me more or less prudent in that area as a young man, but still. What OceanDream described about the fear in a woman who is a virgin, or all the hang-ups that can be associated with all of this stuff, I have seen more often than not.
Then again, when things aren't working I always question their usefulness. Either extreme only paints the good in their light and the only other alternative as the opposite extreme. But none of us has just an off or on state for a thermostat or runs either hot or cold water in the shower. It is possible to be prudent and mindful of commitments without being oppressed or hangups-ridden. And it's equally possible to be open about sex and sexuality without being careless about the thoughts and feelings of partners. Both have been well displayed on this topic.
I love that, rather than presenting evidence for anything, you just said, "this is how I feel, and you'll just have to live with that". You also said, and I'm paraphrasing, "You're not my mommy, I don't have to tell you". Really, how old are we here? I mean age might just be a number, but seriously, lets get past the second grade level for a few minutes, please?
Those are valid reasons for homeschooling your children. Though homeschooling has been shown to have some negative side effects, especially when blended with a religious upbringing. still, at least they're getting a good education. Or at least, the best one you can give them. I commend that.
Since you didn't give me much in your post to work with, I'll just end by saying that London is in Ohio, and a few other states; that's actually a trick question. i agree with you on Jane Austin being awful. Um... I think that's about all I have. You might try again when you can actually compose a thought that wouldn't be better elucidated by a fourth-grade child.
oh, i am aware of where all the londons are in this country. also london, ontario canada.
Yes BG when I read that I wondered how many men were servicing the girls for the sake of doing so. I thought about that a while, and decided that women require physical sex as much as men do. Some women after they get naturally ready to have children have issues if they can not get some sort of sex now and than. It was finally given a medical name, and the vibrator was created to help people feel they were using a medical aid instead of sinning by using their han.
If a slave girl had no chance of marryiing, and was not a prostitute, and the man that was head of her unit was totally responsible for her, I suppose he would not cause her any problems if she had his child.
Interesting point though.
okay, my turn, now seriously, don't rip me apart for my views please they are just my opinions.
Do you think that abstenance only should be taught in school, or do you think birth control should be taught as well?
I really don’t see why we should have sex education. It’s a very private thing and should be taught by the parents and not the school system. My old high school has now made health or sex education optional, as it should be if there’s sex or health education at all. If the parents have not done their job and the kids feel as if taking the class is important, then they by all means can choose to take it. but if the class must run, I believe as much as I agree with abstinence, that birth control and using the condum should be taught as well. Research has proved that the teaching of just abstinence in such programs do not have the correct outcome and thus is ineffective.
Do you think waiting until marriage is the ideal situation and should be proclaimed as so, or should we just educate students and let them decide with their parents when it is right for them to become sexually active?
I agree with sex only after marriage, and that dating does not have to be all about sex, and in many ways I do agree with the blind guardian about this matter. Love is very sacred and sex goes hand in hand with it so you don’t want to give your virginity to the wrong person you’re not even going to be partners for life with, and if you find out you’re not compatible in bed there’s always other methods then sex if you truly love one another. There’s always the option of adopting. I also love the freedom of choice thing so I think it’s up to someone to decide though, just because I don’t like it as long as they are not flaunting what they are doing in the bedroom or show public display of affection or have sex in the open, go ahead. It’s your life not mine, but I do think the sex after marriage option should be covered too and more thoroughly and be given more of a fair hearing. It should be remembered and make the students realize it more, that it is there.
How young do you think is too young to have sex?
Anywhere before 24 or 25. After you finish school, get a good job, be on your feet, and you can support a baby which is one of the outcomes of sex. Otherwise, you would be struggling to support yourself. And, oh, I don’t think anyone should be dating before 17 or 18 if not later.
There you go that’s my take. Now laugh, but please respect me.