Good luck!
Matt - You are such a flaming lefty motherf#$ker who’s belief system is typically so far out of touch from any balanced human being in their right mind, but I agree.
Matt - You are such a flaming lefty motherf#$ker who’s belief system is typically so far out of touch from any balanced human being in their right mind, but I agree.
Ohhhh stop, you’re making me blush.
I’m pretty sure that was a patronizing “good luck”. Rest assured I have back up. My boyfriend raised a well adjusted son who is now 23, in sound emotional and physical health. He has taken on the roll of father for my baby girl…kj
Nobody is advocating that kids have sex, of the group variety or any other kind…we are just saying that stupid abstinence pledges don’t work.
In the first place, we haven’t been talking about abstinence pledges at all.
In the second place, no, you’re not precisely advocating that kids have sex. What you’re doing is saying that it’s value-neutral, at worst, and entirely natural, and therefore positive, at best. Which amounts to the same thing.
regarless of what we tell them most kids will engage in some sort of sexual activity in their teenage years.
I doubt that you can back this statement up with any kind of data. If anything, those “stupid” abstinence pledges show that even a limited program can reduce sexual activity among teens, despite the avalanche of sexuality they face every day when they walk out the door.
Burying your head in the sand and thinking that a promise from a teenager on a piece of paper will solve everything is plain dumb.
Again, we haven’t really been talking about abstinence pledges, and you certainly have never heard me claim that they will solve “everything.”
You’re actually making my point. Kids are making these decisions without the tools to understand the consequences.
If you think I’m making your point, you’re misunderstanding me. My point is not that teenagers aren’t capable of dealing with sexuality because they haven’t been given the proper tools, it’s that they’re just generally incapable of dealing with sexuality because they are simply not developed enough for it.
Sex is not bad, its quite often misunderstood
Amen to that, sister.
Nobody is advocating that kids have sex, of the group variety or any other kind…we are just saying that stupid abstinence pledges don’t work.
In the first place, we haven’t been talking about abstinence pledges at all. Well they have been mentioned a couple of times already.
In the second place, no, you’re not precisely advocating that kids have sex. What you’re doing is saying that it’s value-neutral, at worst, and entirely natural, and therefore positive, at best. Which amounts to the same thing. No its not value neutral, especially for teenagers. Any responsible parent will tell their teenagers not to have sex and to wait until such time that they are ready for the possible consequences of sexual activity. Any responsible parent should also recognize that most teenagers ignore the lectures that parent’s give them, therefore teenagers should be taught safe sex practices so that when those rebellious, horny, hormone filled so succumb to either peer pressure or an offer they can’t refuse, they just might avoid a pregnancy or an STD if they know what they are doing.
regarless of what we tell them most kids will engage in some sort of sexual activity in their teenage years.
I doubt that you can back this statement up with any kind of data. If anything, those “stupid” abstinence pledges show that even a limited program can reduce sexual activity among teens, despite the avalanche of sexuality they face every day when they walk out the door.
Burying your head in the sand and thinking that a promise from a teenager on a piece of paper will solve everything is plain dumb.
Again, we haven’t really been talking about abstinence pledges, and you certainly have never heard me claim that they will solve “everything.” You lost me on these last few paragraphs.
Well they have been mentioned a couple of times already.
Mainly by you, I think, despite that fact that they really have nothing to do with this thread. You’re problem, Matt, is that you think abstinence pledges were an embarrassing failure, when in fact, they were not. But feel free to throw them up if you want to.
Any responsible parent should also recognize that most teenagers ignore the lectures that parent’s give them, therefore teenagers should be taught safe sex practices so that when those rebellious, horny, hormone filled so succumb to either peer pressure or an offer they can’t refuse, they just might avoid a pregnancy or an STD if they know what they are doing.
Right. The logic is infallible. Teenagers are so obviously going to ignore everything their parents teach them, *except *how to have sex safely. That, for some reason, is a lesson they’re going to take completely to heart. Because no teenager thinks he’s invincible. No teenager in the clutches of his hormones would ever throw caution to the wind, and just forge on ahead into sex without protection, if only he has the information available to him. Teenagers are never simply irresponsible. No, it’s just that they don’t *know *enough to use a condom. If only we’d tell them.
You lost me on these last few paragraphs.
My point in those last few paragraphs is that if the abstinence pledges showed anything, it’s that we can, in fact, induce teenagers to refrain from sexual activity.
Didn’t mean it as patronizing. Sorry. I was heading out the door. I just didn’t have anything to add.
I know it’s considered old fashioned but what I find particularly amusing is the notion that now, in the last 30 years or so, how we have become so enlightened and accepting of so many things, particularly in the area of sex outside of marriage. We do it because everyone else is doing it, and suddenly, it’s old fashioned not to do it.
Ok, I am one of those people that is gasp having sex outside of a marital relationship. I’m not doing it “because everyone else is doing it” (how moronic is that?). Just because I don’t have a valid contract legally binding me to another person does not mean that my relationship is any less valid than that of a married couple. We love each other, we are happy, we are monogomous. I’m not legally entitled to 1/2 of what he owns, that has no bearing on our emotional or physical relationship. I would go so far as to say my relationship is in fact emotionally stronger than many marriages. I’m not saying that marriage is meaningless, I would, in fact, like to be married someday. But signing a marriage license and having a ceremony does make a relationship…kj
Just because I don’t have a valid contract legally binding me to another person does not mean that my relationship is any less valid than that of a married couple.
Ha ha ha! Tell that to the gays!
I’m not saying that marriage is meaningless, I would, in fact, like to be married someday.
Why?
I’m not saying that marriage is meaningless, I would, in fact, like to be married someday.
Why?
Because I love him like a fat kid loves chocolate cake. In all seriousness, I’m all for the traditional family structure, not that there’s anything wrong with non-traditional…kj
In all seriousness, I’m all for the traditional family structure, not that there’s anything wrong with non-traditional
In all seriousness, I don’t have any idea what you mean by that. Apparently you think there’s something you can get out of marriage that you’re not getting now. What is it?
My laundry done?
Emotionally, nothing. I would like my daughter to grow up in a traditional home similar to that in which I was raised. I would like him to be her father in the eyes of the law in the event something were to happen to me. Legally, I would like to have standing in case of an emergency, and would like the same for him. Additionally, it may be superficial, but there is a certain amount of respect given to a marriage that is not given to non-married couples…kj
.
I totally agree that promiscuity in teenagers (or adults for that matter) is not an emotionally healthy behavior. But not all sexually active teenagers are promiscuous.
I also don’t think we are generally unhappy as a society. Things weren’t all rosey in the past, they just we’re talked about. People may have stayed married, but that didn’t mean they had healthy, happy marriages…kj
Emotionally, nothing
I think you might be misunderestimating the emotional value of a public committment. But hey, that’s your gig.
I would like my daughter to grow up in a traditional home similar to that in which I was raised.
Once again begging the question: why?
I would like him to be her father in the eyes of the law in the event something were to happen to me.
'less I’m mistaken, you don’t need to be married for that.
I would like to have standing in case of an emergency, and would like the same for him.
See above.
it may be superficial, but there is a certain amount of respect given to a marriage that is not given to non-married couples
I don’t think that’s superficial at all. I think it’s vital.
KEJ, can we agree on this: sex is not a good thing for our kids- we should counsel against it and guard against it. Young kids licking each others genitals is probably not a good thing for them for many reasons.
I also don’t think we are generally unhappy as a society.
We are, in fact, significantly more unhappy than previous generations.
Things weren’t all rosey in the past, they just we’re talked about.
And you know this how, precisely?
People may have stayed married, but that didn’t mean they had healthy, happy marriages.
No, and it doesn’t mean they were trapped in abusive/cold/unloving/wretched marriages, either. That is to say, you can’t draw either conclusion simply from the fact that people stayed married. Those opposed to traditional norms of marriage often talk as if it’s a known fact that before we got all wise and smart and enlightened, the typical marriage was just wretched. In the first place, I don’t think that’s born out by any actual facts, and in the second place, even if it were true, it wouldn’t have the import people think. Let’s say that we were living in such a dark day, and the state of most marriages was loveless. It’s hardly a reason to get rid of marriage, or lessen the value of marriage. On the contrary, such a situation would call for a reaffirming of what marriage is all about, a re-committment to the ideal of marriage. (It’s a little like people who say we need divorce because some couples just don’t get along, and they’re constantly screaming at each other, etc. Well, stop screaming at each other, and learn to love.)