Did anyone see that programme on BBC2 last night about the abstinence programmes they have in America? There was also a similar show on 4 a few weeks back.

Do you think its better to teach abstinence than give people information about sexual diseases and other related issues? The abstinence prorammes didnt appear to tell much in the way of what diseases are out there and what they do. They were pretty much saying that abstinence is right because it leaves you pure and holy for when you first have sex after marriage. And Bush is an ardent supporter of programmes like this. Does this show what an idiot the man is?

Thoughts please.

it is basically a christian recruitment campaign, US taxpayers dollars funding it too ($1.2million). Separation of state and religion?

Thats waht I thought. And the way one of the women said its better to get to them while they're young.. What's she meant was "they are easier to brainwash at that age, more malleable". The whole Silver Ring Thing made me lsugh.

One brainwashed yank irritant said something like:

"Sex is bad because you get diseases and pregnant."

So use a condom. Oh, I forgot, you're not educated about these things. And I thought America was all about the freedom of speech and the right to make decisions based on all the facts.

Filled with hate for religion. :bombguy:

All these kids are going to have serious issues when they are older.

All depends how you want to organise your society I reckon.

If you’re a religious fundamentalist and want a theocratic state then it’s a pretty sound strategy. Good people don’t need information, just follow the rules. No need to know about diseases cos you won’t be getting them and you don’t need any sympathy for people who do cos they were bad all along.

George is a religious fundamentalist. I seem to have discovered a dispute on the web, over this, it is very bizarre. He believes in this shit. He is evil, and misguided, not an idiot. (Not saying he’s real bright, either)

During the show, people were pointing out that there's separation between church and state, but these programmes were openly saying things along the lines of "jesus will love you if you dont have sex before marriage".

The whole abstainance thing makes me want to laugh and cry all at once. It truly is a token of the media-brainwashing ideals of the era.

My favourite parody being http://www.technicalvirgin.com/

Surely the best policy towards raising a sexually responsible generation is not to impose ideals upon them in order to control their sexual tendancies to your will, but to just be fucking honest.

As far as I'm concerned, issues of sexuality should be taught to children as early as possible, as young as 4 or 5. Kids are going to find out about sex at that age, but it'll be something they'll find out about from friends, TV, magazines etc. which will be full of misinformation and taboos. Rather than letting these misinformations fester in our playgrounds, I'd much rather the kids knew the facts from the start, and in turn didn't consider sex that dirty secret that is obviously so appealing to stupid teenagers to explore to express their hormone fuelled rebellion.

Jesus will love you no matter what, he's that kind of guy.

It depends on what your desired outcome is: STDs and teen pregnancies tend to be lower where people have information. Where ignorance, fire and brimstone reign, STDs and teen pregnancies are always higher.

Total agreement with Kormiic's last para above.

I saw this programme a few weeks ago. To be honest I dont mind what they want to preach, however i found it appalling that they were advising people that condoms did not work and therefore if they had sex they would get pregnant.

The programme also touched on the fact that people were having anal sex before marriage so they could maintain their virginity which to me is just selling yourself down the river.

salsa spouted:
anal sex before marriage so they could maintain their virginity which to me is just selling yourself down the river.

Must be a joke in this. Shit creek?

I don't entirely agree with george bush but he's got a strong case. Who would you prefer to marry ?
An experienced tart or lad who knows all about stds
An inexperienced lady or gent who who doesn't know but is waiting for you to share life's greatest experience.

Personally I think that sex is something very special and is more than just an animal act. If people 'left it out' instead of 'putting it about' I'm think we would live in a better world - benefit mothers, overpopulation etc

Experienced tart pleeeese.

Surely they should keep their virginity, it's for the bishops and priests to take that away.


Does't holland have a legal consent age of 12 or something, and one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in europe?

crunt spouted:

Does't holland have a legal consent age of 12 or something, and one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in europe?

Yes, but things are changing now. According to a 'Dr Van Loon' low dutch teen pregnancy rates were attributable to strong Christian family values, not their wacky teaching methods.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/purity/ppi/a0026828.cfm

.

Dogsick, talk about a false dichotomy.

Any longterm relationship involves mutual exploration. Someone who has no idea what they want sexually, no realistic idea what the options are and no realistic expectations has very little to offer a relationship except to someone equally ignorant. It is possible to get sexual experience without STDs or pregnancy or other longterm consequences, and people need accurate information.

Corr.

Who the devil would want form a longterm relationship with an AIDS dodging crack whore anyway ? Most people wouldn't.

I already know what I want sexually . I want to put my penis in my ultimate lover's vagina and ejaculate.

Also, I'm certain I wouldn't want a 2ft dildo slid up my lover's back passage just for the sake of us being sexually aware. Yet would you class us as being ingnorant for not doing so ?

True it's possible to evade STDs and pregnancy with the right information but the safest and decent way is to abstain.

Dogsick, the point of what follows is you implication that complex, multifaceted human problems are either black or white. These are called false dichotomies and you are hampered in your decision-making abilities if you find yourself choosing between A or Z while ignoring the subtleties in between.

Who the devil would want form a longterm relationship with an AIDS dodging crack whore anyway
That's what I meant about the false dichotomy. Most people are neither as pure as the driven snow nor as putrid as slush.

I'm certain I wouldn't want a 2ft dildo slid up my lover's back passage just for the sake of us being sexually aware. Yet would you class us as being ingnorant for not doing so ?
Just because something isnt forbidden, that doesn't mean it's compulsory. This whole free will in a complex world really has you stumped, doesn't it?

Try to imagine what would happen if you found yourself in a stable, loving, longterm relationship. After some years, your ultimate lover surprises you one day b saying, "let's try something different. I'd really like to have a 2ft dildo slid up my back passage". What are you going to do, forbid it? Read from the book of Psalms until she falls asleep?

True it's possible to evade STDs and pregnancy with the right information but the safest and decent way is to abstain.
You were doing so well. I thought you fiiiiiiinally got it, right up until that halfwitted and pejorative inclusion of the d-word toward the end.

It is perfectly possible to behave in a decent way in one's sexual life without being married. To assert otherwise is most definitely ignorant and disrespectful, regadless of what choices you and yours may make for yourselves.

ahhhh so thats what dichotomy means. i actually thought it was a sexual position involving more than one penis.

that would make U the :cock: plus its lil :cock: a dichotomy but i was wrong all this time :(
its a duality o_O Black or white. Every thread has a Michael Jackson lyric waiting to be exploited.

Its far better for people to be correctly informed about diseases and pregnancy. The abstinence programmes didnt appear to teach about those issues, just that there are yucky diseases that can be caught. Not if you're careful you wont. Giving false information is wrong. I think the people running these programmes have issues themselves.

Hee.

'Van Loon' means 'from the money' or 'from the bribe'. A hoax? Probably not, but it would be nice to think so.

It is true that Holland has some very strict Calvinist traditions, the Christian Democrat Alliance (a strong opposition party that many beleive to be funded by American sources) making the Methodists or the Wee Frees look like a hard-drinking stag party on an opium den crawl. This is true of many other countries though, and Holland compares favourably to Belgium in this respect, having less of a heroin and cocaine problem and very few social or legal problems caused by prostitution because, well, it's legal.

Plus, Belgium's boring as fuck.

Holland's policy of gedogen (toleration of that which would cause more social damage if legalised) extends also to soft drugs, but this approach is slowly being eroded by the CDA and other European Governments, notably the French and Berlusconi's bastard semi-fascist junta

Dazzla spouted:
Hee.

'Van Loon' means 'from the money' or 'from the bribe'. A hoax? Probably not, but it would be nice to think so.

It is true that Holland has some very strict Calvinist traditions, the Christian Democrat Alliance (a strong opposition party that many beleive to be funded by American sources) making the Methodists or the Wee Frees look like a hard-drinking stag party on an opium den crawl. This is true of many other countries though, and Holland compares favourably to Belgium in this respect, having less of a heroin and cocaine problem and very few social or legal problems caused by prostitution because, well, it's legal.

Plus, Belgium's boring as fuck.

Holland's policy of gedogen (toleration of that which would cause more social damage if legalised) extends also to soft drugs, but this approach is slowly being eroded by the CDA and other European Governments, notably the French and Berlusconi's bastard semi-fascist junta

I want to put my penis in my ultimate lover's vagina and ejaculate.

Awwww. How lovely. A vanilla romantic.

... and after you've done that once, what then? Perhaps your imagination doesn't stretch that far.

If sex is so dirty, why did God design us to reproduce that way?

Reproductive sex isn't dirty, only a buffoon would think otherwise.

But it is my belief that God created STDs to target the people who abuse his gift of lovemaking.

cor_innit spouted:
Dogsick, the point of what follows is you implication that complex, multifaceted human problems are either black or white. These are called false dichotomies and you are hampered in your decision-making abilities if you find yourself choosing between A or Z while ignoring the subtleties in between.

Poppycock ! And no amount of flowery languaged issue-fudging from you and Dazzla will covince me that subtlety between moral and immoral exists.

I agree entirely that there is a clear line between what is moral and what is immoral.

I just don't agree that any two people draw that line the same shape and in the same place. So there is a grey area.

But it is my belief that God created STDs to target the people who abuse his gift of lovemaking.
So the 5 year old who ends up with AIDS after having been raped has nobody to blame but themselves.

flowery languaged issue-fudging
I wrote clearly and addressed the issues directly. I gave you an example and you dodged it because you can't cope with the dilemmas that real people face every day. ou have nothing to offer people facing real choices, so just give up.

Dazzla spouted:
I agree entirely that there is a clear line between what is moral and what is immoral.

I just don't agree that any two people draw that line the same shape and in the same place. So there is a grey area.

I agree it depends on what is considered immoral.

Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr drew the line in different places but I don't think their behaviour was worth defending !

cor_innit spouted:


I wrote clearly and addressed the issues directly. I gave you an example and you dodged it because you can't cope with the dilemmas that real people face every day. ou have nothing to offer people facing real choices, so just give up.

Dodged what exactly ?

Dogsick spouted:


I agree it depends on what is considered immoral.

Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr drew the line in different places but I don't think their behaviour was worth defending !

Well, no.

But if you were attempting a reductio ad absurdum, you picked the wrong absurdum.

Let's have a better example: some would say that there's nothing wrong with consensual sex and that your continued preaching impinges on the freedoms of others, and that therefore your position is morally indefensible.

So I reckon you're pretty imorral. And a bit creepy, too.

I don't think, I know you are misunderstanding things on purpose. ;)

Dogsick did it again:
Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr drew the line in different places but I don't think their behaviour was worth defending !
No, but you do believe that Carr/Huntley is the only real alternative to living a life committed to ignorance and judgmentalism. You're wrong about that, too.

Dogsick also said:
Dodged what exactly ?
Here it is again:
I said earlier:
Try to imagine what would happen if you found yourself in a stable, loving, longterm relationship. After some years, your ultimate lover surprises you one day b saying, "let's try something different. I'd really like to have a 2ft dildo slid up my back passage". What are you going to do, forbid it? Read from the book of Psalms until she falls asleep?
Don't answer this because I really don't want to know. This is the sort of dilemma that real people face every day, and your black or white approach is of no use whatsoever in helping people around the dilemmas that they face in real life. Being both ignorant and snippy as you are Dogsick is no good to anyone. In an age of knowldge and wonder at least have the humility to not be so judgmental in your ignorance, because your Carr/Huntley claim was breathtakingly stupid even by your standards.

Just for the record ~

In answer to Corr's earlier question, I would draw on my own sense of decency and refuse the offer of the 2ft dildo.

The only dilema I face is whether to have sex outside marriage or not. I don't think it's too difficult a concept to grasp. Even for someone who is breathtakingly stupid.


Dazzla spouted:

some would say that there's nothing wrong with consensual sex and that your continued preaching impinges on the freedoms of others, and that therefore your position is morally indefensible.


My preachings may be considered and disregarded (I’m not forcing anyone to do as I say ) and this is what goes on in the world today. And I know that the world is awash with AIDS, STDs and the like. Even after billions spent on safe sex campaigns, education, free condoms etc. these people deliberately risk their own health and the health of others in a shameless and revolting manner.

By contrast, I can’t just consider and disregard catching AIDS from an infected partner.

These people that spread AIDS (thru willy nilly shagging) impinge on my freedom to have consensual, meaningful sex and not die afterwards.

Should people like me be rubbished and poo-pood ? I think not.

I have a moral duty to protect these people from evil and to protect these sinners from infecting themselves.

My earlier question did not relate to an offer to you. My earlier question related to your (hypothetical) partner's wishes for themselves. Read it again. Have the courage to confriont a moral issue, rather than the cowardly and selfish trait of twisting it to suit yourself.

You can't claim to be following The True Word when you obviously have such an aversion to real-life situations.

Look, do what you like Dogsick. Do not, however, presume to judge others. I know nothing about high-end physics so you don't see me weighing into debates about that. You know nothing about sexual relationships, so your assumption that they are inevitably sumps of Carr/Huntley degredation and illness is absolute crap.

Like I said you should avoid being judgmental because you have no idea and are activelty hostile to getting any idea. I know however that you will not do so dogsick, because from your very name you are stuck in an endless cycle of Proverbs 26:11-12. As for me I'm going to make like verse 4 and leave you with these ignorant harangues.

Amen

You know nothing about high end physics so you wouldn't weigh in to debates about that.

And if they were designing the doomsday device you would feel judgemental when you stepped in and criticized their idiocy.

I have every right to argue my corner because I have got the integrity and courage to stand up for what I believe in.

Goobye forever all dogbombers.
May God have mercy on your souls

Mercy ? That game hurts ....:(

I think its a bit of both. In this day and age, (we are no longer living in religious times, especially in the western world), everywhere you look, sex finds its way into something, one way or another- be it eastenders, adverts for designer perfumes, cars, books, magazines, EVERYTHING, so you can't blame young single people for being curious. Children from the age of about 9 or ten really do need to know about sex, diseases, taking care of yourself as a growing adult, man or woman, and equally important, to AVOID getting pregnant at a young age, when you are a child yourself.

Just reading about that 12 year old girl who became pregnant, made me feel sick and wonder if the country is actually better off scared into abstinence by religion, rather than remaining misinformed and doing it anyway. This is because Britain especially, is shit at educating young people and the issue of sex is still taboo and "undercover", yet people fuck like rabbits here anyway - youth pregnancy and more importantly, std rate is evidence of this.

In our neighbouring countries, people have a greater exposure to sex in the media etc. yet the rate of std's and teenage pregnancies are much lower. Why? because people are better informed and more open about such issues.

Religion also comes into it, and the belief that you should or want to remain "pure" is respectable and fair enough. I don't think this view should be imposed on people, but then again neither should sex be promoted then, and it totally is- so if some bloke is rejecting the idea of sex before marriage, he/she is no different to those who are for it.

There are too many young slappers about nowadays- a crude term, but sadly true. Girls are getting into nightclubs at the ages of 13 - 14 and looking older, as our society seems to have a preoccupation with how you look and whether you are shagging or not, which does not help- especially when these girls' are more physically than mentally developed.

You see children from the age of about five, dressed up in clothes whose style is more appropriate for an 18 year old. This is worrying.

Young people up to the age of about 17 should be getting an education, preparing themselves for the future, not obsessed with relationships and having sex, there is plenty of time for that later.

Dogsick spouted:
I but is waiting for you to share life's greatest experience.



im sorry but I disagree, sex is not life's greatest experience. Haagen daz ice cream, with belgian waffles, belgian chocolate sauce and pecan nuts however, is.