# Used up Tooth brush and chewed gum...



## granfire (Nov 8, 2013)

Analogies the great state of Texas teaches middle schoolers as sex-ed...you know, 'doing it' before the wedding night.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/07/2910611/texas-sex-chewed-gum/

You wonder how well this works for Texas when you read that the state is one with the highest teen pregnancy rates... 



> Information like this suggests that anyone who has sex before marriage is undesirable, worthless, and disposable. Indeed, there can be serious consequences to this type of  abstinence-only approach to sexual health instruction. Earlier this  year, Elizabeth Smart  a kidnapping and sexual assault victim who now works to prevent predatory crimes  made national headlines when she pointed out  emphasizing the importance of purity can make rape victims feel dirty  and worthless. Smart described hearing the exact same gum analogy when  she was growing up. And after she was repeatedly sexually assaulted,  that message had an extremely negative impact on her. I thought, Oh,  my gosh, Im that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of  gum, you throw it away. And thats how easy it is to feel like you no  longer have worth, you no longer have value, she explained.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

First, good for her--what a lot of character and strength she has shown. Second, anyone who looks at any stats on teen sex rates or sex before marriage can see how far out-of-whack this offensive and indeed counterproductive nonsense is.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 9, 2013)

Yes what should we ever promote the only 100% effective way not to get an STD or teen pregnancy.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes what should we ever promote the only 100% effective way not to get an STD or teen pregnancy.



It isn't 100% effective, because the sexual assault rate is not 0%--that's the point being made in the original post about the young woman who was kidnapped and raped ("the importance of purity can make rape victims feel dirty  and worthless"). But even setting that aside, research--sorry, yes, that's an aspect of science, but bear with me--has shown that teaching abstinence is less effective in preventing STDs and teen pregnancy than is teaching birth control. _It isn't working_.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 9, 2013)

So we can't talk about not having sex because of the 1 in a million chance your kidnapped and held as a sex slave


----------



## granfire (Nov 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So we can't talk about not having sex because of the 1 in a million chance your kidnapped and held as a sex slave



Ah, you got up on the argumentative side of the bed again this morning....

Not doing it is one of the options comprehensive sex-ed gives you. 
Without applying  values or labels.

How come I know? 
Oh heck, maybe because I had this type of sex-ed, knew what the consequences were and made up my own mind not to have sex before age 16...which turned out to be much later, because I was educated and not in a rush to try it because it was oh so forbidden....like drinking. Where I grew up neither has a stigma attached to it, it just does not have that allure. 
Do people abuse either? Of course.

The point is, well, not about abstinence, which is a fine thing, because we are not defined by that one thing we do.
That means having sex does not turn us into rubbish, refuse, something not worth of holding dear. THAT is the problem. 


Now, giving the 'don't do it' dogma, compared with the teen pregnancy stats...
You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see that it's elementary not working. Larry Holmes can tell you that!

On the other hand...
Some people believe that not telling the kids about 'it' will majikally prevent the god given blue print to kick in...
In my house I can hide the computer any place I choose, and the kid finds it without fail, every single time...what do you think the odds are he will not find the parts attached to his body on a permanent basis?!

Sex ed is about giving the kids the information that is available. Do you object to that? The truth? Honesty?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 9, 2013)

I've never heard anyone say sex turns you into rubbish  However mmultiple sex partners makes you less desirable partner.  It is what it is.  You can deny it or pretend it ain't  true but the old saying is "you don't turn a hoe into a housewife"


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2013)

Well, that was enlightened.

No one is saying you can't teach abstinence--but you can't teach abstinence _only _and have a real effect on STD and pregnancy rates.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Well, that was enlightened.
> 
> No one is saying you can't teach abstinence--but you can't teach abstinence _only _and have a real effect on STD and pregnancy rates.



And you can't teach abstinence and then wink wink nudge nudge here are some condoms just in case.  There needs to be a better way then all or nothing.  I'm not for totally ignoring all ideas but abstinence.  But it seems when dealing with some its not to even be spoken.  To be fair its the same for the abstinence only crowd they are both wrong.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It isn't 100% effective, because the sexual assault rate is not 0%--that's the point being made in the original post about the young woman who was kidnapped and raped ("the importance of purity can make rape victims feel dirty  and worthless"). But even setting that aside, research--sorry, yes, that's an aspect of science, but bear with me--has shown that teaching abstinence is less effective in preventing STDs and teen pregnancy than is teaching birth control. _It isn't working_.



For that matter, without looking up any studies one way or the other, I have to empirically conclude teaching birth control isn't working either.  :lol2:

I do agree that rape is not the fault of a woman, even when it happens because of bad choices on the part of the woman.  Therefore a woman should not be considered less worthy, nor have to feel less worthy.  I think that concept is a travesty.



ballen0351 said:


> I've never heard anyone say sex turns you into rubbish  However mmultiple sex partners makes you less desirable partner.  It is what it is.  You can deny it or pretend it ain't  true but the old saying is "you don't turn a hoe into a housewife"



Maybe that is a difference in age or location of growing up.  But I can remember when a girl who was raped was considered damaged.  And yes, a girl who was known to have sex before marriage, especially a girl who had "slept" around, would have been less desirable for marriage.  She wouldn't have been considered a prostitute unless it was known that in fact she was.  She just wouldn't have been a first choice for a spouse.  Agree with the idea or not, that was the way it was.


----------



## granfire (Nov 9, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've never heard anyone say sex turns you into rubbish  However mmultiple sex partners makes you less desirable partner.  It is what it is.  You can deny it or pretend it ain't  true but the old saying is "you don't turn a hoe into a housewife"



oh my...we are not that far removed from the days when it made a guy a stud to have been around....and yes...the ladies were considered...easy. 

You did not read the article in any case.
The teaching material likened people - middle school kids - as chewed up gum having had sex prior to marriage. You know, impressionable young minds. Stipud, irrational and damaging. 

In your line of thinking a person with a couple of failed relationships isn't worthy of being maried...

My late sister was certainly not one to kick a cute guy out of bed, but I'd be hard pressed to call her a ho. Serial monogamist, maybe...

And last but not leas, we have still not completely overcome the mindset that a rape victim might have possibly liked/wanted/asked for it. 

In any case, it's not the basis of a healthy self image, body image or sex life.

Kids should not be having sex. But they should not be treated like mushrooms (you know, kept in the dark and fed manure) but treated as sentinent being, given the information needed to make smart decisions.

As often paraded around: The statistics speak for themselves. In countries with liberal sex-ed the teen pregnancy rates go down.


----------



## DennisBreene (Nov 10, 2013)

granfire said:


> oh my...we are not that far removed from the days when it made a guy a stud to have been around....and yes...the ladies were considered...easy.
> 
> You did not read the article in any case.
> The teaching material likened people - middle school kids - as chewed up gum having had sex prior to marriage. You know, impressionable young minds. Stipud, irrational and damaging.
> ...



Bravo! And you will never find an analysis that demonstrates that any form of sex education is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STD's, rape, or failed marriages (or whatever other metric one decides to employ).  The emphasis should be on achieving reasonable success with reasonable methods.  I think it starts with acknowledging that children have the capacity to choose and are not programmable.  Demonstrating some respect for their capacity for free will and advocating responsible choices based on known consequences may actually be beneficial. I think we forget how much our kids already know (and often misunderstand). Openly addressing these issues on multiple fronts with clear discussions about what we as adults recommend, and why, probably reaches more children than obvious attempts at manipulation.  It also means (gulp) discussing sexual issues at home and understanding that the results are not totally open to our control.  As to the gum analogy; it's disgusting on the face of it. I don't care who chewed it before, I don't want a part of it.  That doesn't translate to a relationship with a sexual partner and the kids are smart enough to see the difference.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes what should we ever promote the only 100% effective way not to get an STD or teen pregnancy.



By telling kids that no one will want to be with them if they have sex before marriage?  Over 90% of these teens will have sex before marriage - telling them that they are or will be ruined for doing so seems like a 100% effective way to screw them up.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've never heard anyone say sex turns you into rubbish  However mmultiple sex partners makes you less desirable partner.



Nope. Who you've had sex with in the past has absolutely _nothing_ to do with one's ability to be a good partner now. But someone who holds the opinion you've stated?  They're definitely less desirable as a partner.



> "you don't turn a hoe into a housewife"



I've never heard that saying before, thank god.  That's a pretty piggish, awful thing to say, and entirely BS besides.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 10, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> The emphasis should be on achieving reasonable success with reasonable methods.



Agreed.  And it's a fact that comprehensive sex ed is the most effective method at reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates.  There's a reason that the teen pregnancy rate in the US has dropped in half in the last 50 years - it's because birth control works.  It's certainly a whole lot more effective than saying "don't have sex", or just not talking about it.



> Demonstrating some respect for their capacity for free will and advocating responsible choices based on known consequences may actually be beneficial.



Absolutely.  Tells teens about the potential consequences of having sex at a young age (and not just by showing them gross slides of STDs like when I was in school).  Help teens make responsible, informed choices that are right for them, physically and emotionally.  That may mean not having sex yet, or only certain acts, or it may mean having safe sex.  But don't make them feel worthless for making certain choices, or tell them that they should never make that choice.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Nope. Who you've had sex with in the past has absolutely _nothing_ to do with one's ability to be a good partner now. But someone who holds the opinion you've stated?  They're definitely less desirable as a partner.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard that saying before, thank god.  That's a pretty piggish, awful thing to say, and entirely BS besides.


Sorry but its just the why most people feel.  Just because you pretend its not doesn't make it so.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sorry but its just the why most people feel.



That's clearly false. The overwhelming majority of people have had sex before marriage. You're mired in the 1950s...or actually a Leave It To Beaver version of it, because the rate of sex outside of marriage was about the same then as now.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> That's clearly false. The overwhelming majority of people have had sex before marriage. You're mired in the 1950s...or actually a Leave It To Beaver version of it, because the rate of sex outside of marriage was about the same then as now.



Ok then believe what you want but thats they way almost every Marine Ive ever known, and well guy in general Ive ever known.  That "Ho into a housewife" thing has been around for as long as I can remember.  Kinda like the "shes fun for the night but dont take her home to meet your mother" and many other little sayings Ive heard, But you deny it and pretend to be PC im just  Honest.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2013)

You may well know people who _say _it, but it's simply impossible for them all to have married virgins when about 95% of the population engages in premarital sex and for both sexes the average number of lifetime sex partners is in the 5-6 range.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You may well know people who _say _it, but it's simply impossible for them all to have married virgins when about 95% of the population engag.  in premarital sex and for both sexes the average number of lifetime sex partners is in the 5-6 range.


I'm not talking about virgins or people with limited sex partners.  The comment was people that sleep around alot (what alot equals is left up to the individule to decide)  are seen by others as less desirable.  Especially when it comes to woman.  How many times have you heard oh if a guy sleeps with a lot of girls he's a stud but if a girl does it she's looked down upon.  
Its just the way it is.  An "easy" woman is always seen as "easy".   Fair or not that's how it is.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not talking about virgins or people with limited sex partners.  The comment was people that sleep around alot (what alot equals is left up to the individule to decide)  are seen by others as less desirable.  Especially when it comes to woman.  How many times have you heard oh if a guy sleeps with a lot of girls he's a stud but if a girl does it she's looked down upon.
> Its just the way it is.  An "easy" woman is always seen as "easy".   Fair or not that's how it is.


But, it isn't fair, and that will make the less intelligent whine, every time.


----------



## MJS (Nov 11, 2013)

granfire said:


> Analogies the great state of Texas teaches middle schoolers as sex-ed...you know, 'doing it' before the wedding night.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/07/2910611/texas-sex-chewed-gum/
> 
> You wonder how well this works for Texas when you read that the state is one with the highest teen pregnancy rates...



IMHO, while I don't have kids, I feel that the message that is being sent, is 100% wrong!  I know we've have sex ed threads on here before, with some feeling that it's ok for the schools to talk about it, while others feel that it's only the job of the parents.  Regardless of ones stance, they may as well be telling the kids that if they get raped, that they're a useless piece of gum.  Sounds like the way some of the foreign countries out there, treat women.  

Bottom line...you can't hide sex, unless you're living in a bubble on some island in the middle of nowhere.  I'd much rather see them educate the kids on the potential risks, ie: getting pregnant, STD, etc., and the proper use of birthcontrol, rather than have this cult like mentality instilled in them.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sorry but its just the why most people feel.  Just because you pretend its not doesn't make it so.



What most people?  In Saudi Arabia, you mean?  Because most people in the United States, in my experience, do not feel that way.  I've hardly ever heard anyone say anything like that before, other than religious fundamentalists.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not talking about virgins or people with limited sex partners.  The comment was people that sleep around alot (what alot equals is left up to the individule to decide)  are seen by others as less desirable.  Especially when it comes to woman.  How many times have you heard oh if a guy sleeps with a lot of girls he's a stud but if a girl does it she's looked down upon.
> Its just the way it is.  An "easy" woman is always seen as "easy".   Fair or not that's how it is.



It's true that some people do still have gross outdated sexist ideas like that.  But where do you think they get those ideas from?  Stuff like what was mentioned in the OP, where far-right religious weirdos compare women who've had sex to chewed up old gum.

But these ideas are something we should be working to rid ourselves of, not going "eh, whatever" about.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2013)

I can tell you I heard that the most when I was in the military and that was about as far away from religious wierdos you can get.  Like I said you can pretend its not true to make you feel better if you want.


I also don't disagree with you that's its a backwards way of thinking.  I'm just saying you can't deny people think that way.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 11, 2013)

I'm not sure young people today think of it that way to nearly the extent that the older folks might.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm not sure young people today think of it that way to nearly the extent that the older folks might.



Dude I'm not that old.  I was in the military only 15 years ago.


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:
			
		

> I can tell you I heard that the most when I was in the military and that was about as far away from religious wierdos you can get. Like I said you can pretend its not true to make you feel better if you want.



That way of thinking is hammered home in the military because of the large possibility of STDs. There are always professionals hanging around military bases, and the military culture works very hard at trying to convince ignorant young men to leave them alone. It was the same way when I was in the military in the 70's, despite the fact that everyone else was engaged in sexual free-for-all.  



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I'm not sure young people today think of it that way to nearly the extent that the older folks might.


Actually, it has been my experience in working with young people over the last 15 years that they are more likely to think this way than older people. This is, in my opinion, because they have had the 'abstinence is the only way' point driven home to them for quite some time now. 

The sex "education" course points out a much deeper problem than sex or self esteem. It points out the largest problem in our society today in my opinion. Nobody is encouraged to think for themselves. The leaders of our society seem determined to try and prevent people from making their own decisions. We are told what we should be thinking and why we should be thinking it. We are no longer given information and allowed to make our own decisions. That "sex education" class is a prime example.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 12, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> That way of thinking is hammered home in the military because of the large possibility of STDs. There are always professionals hanging around military bases, *and the military culture works very hard at trying to convince ignorant young men to leave them alone*. It was the same way when I was in the military in the 70's, despite the fact that everyone else was engaged in sexual free-for-all.



I don't know how you meant that, but is almost sounds as if you are saying the "military culture" is wrong, and preying on "ignorant young men" who should be left alone to take their chances with prostitutes who in fact, often do have STD.  If you have seen people with gonorrhea, you would realize they will be less effective in combat until treatment reduces the symptoms of the disease.  Morals aside, there is a good reason to try and prevent military personnel getting STD.  And I wonder how many of you posting here would feel if the military decided to set up an area where prostitutes could be controlled by medical personnel, and soldiers could be controlled by MPs?  Would you applaud it or jump up on your high horse and vilify the military for corrupting the morals of our military?




pgsmith said:


> Actually, it has been my experience in working with young people over the last 15 years that they are more likely to think this way than older people. This is, in my opinion, because they have had the 'abstinence is the only way' point driven home to them for quite some time now.
> 
> The sex "education" course points out a much deeper problem than sex or self esteem. It points out the largest problem in our society today in my opinion. Nobody is encouraged to think for themselves. The leaders of our society seem determined to try and prevent people from making their own decisions. We are told what we should be thinking and why we should be thinking it. We are no longer given information and allowed to make our own decisions. That "sex education" class is a prime example.



I think it is correct that young people should be given all the information available about many things they will encounter in life.  But at the right age and development.  Teachers won't always know that; parents often have a hard enough time figuring that out.  And that will include any legal angles/consequences, social angles/consequjences, and religious angles/conquences.  If you put all other things aside and stick only to social angles or consequences, you are committing the same mistake you accuse religious persons of committing.


----------



## granfire (Nov 12, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know how you meant that, but is almost sounds as if you are saying the "military culture" is wrong, and preying on "ignorant young men" who should be left alone to take their chances with prostitutes who in fact, often do have STD.  If you have seen people with gonorrhea, you would realize they will be less effective in combat until treatment reduces the symptoms of the disease.  Morals aside, there is a good reason to try and prevent military personnel getting STD.  And I wonder how many of you posting here would feel if the military decided to set up an area where prostitutes could be controlled by medical personnel, and soldiers could be controlled by MPs?  Would you applaud it or jump up on your high horse and vilify the military for corrupting the morals of our military?



I do believe at some point in time the 'professionals' did get their health checks by the military hospitals, because while STDs (along with other diseases) are more threatening to troop health than combat (used to be anyhow), sex happens. 
It happens and that's the long and the short of it.
but why you want the GIs controlled by MPs isn't quiet clear to me....






> I think it is correct that young people should be given all the information available about many things they will encounter in life.  But at the right age and development.  Teachers won't always know that; parents often have a hard enough time figuring that out.  And that will include any legal angles/consequences, social angles/consequjences, and religious angles/conquences.  If you put all other things aside and stick only to social angles or consequences, you are committing the same mistake you accuse religious persons of committing.



Social consequences of giving children the facts of life, without religious mumbo jumbo (THAT is the parent's job), _legal_ consequences?!

The social consequences are rather simple: Less teen age girls being put on the fast track to enduring poverty by getting knocked up before they had a chance at being people. having children is still one of the top reasons for women to be poor. 
At bare minimum poorer than their male counterparts and often partners. So instead of spending money on this useless 'don't do it' program and then later on the fallout, we could save tons of money by just telling it like it is!

If you told kids half the crap that is spouted in the name of religion, you'd be charged with the mental abuse of children!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 12, 2013)

granfire said:


> I do believe at some point in time the 'professionals' did get their health checks by the military hospitals, because while STDs (along with other diseases) are more threatening to troop health than combat (used to be anyhow), sex happens.
> It happens and that's the long and the short of it.
> but why you want the GIs controlled by MPs isn't quiet clear to me....



All true.  The idea of having MPs there was because it was a smallish controlled area of bars/houses-of-prostitution.  Having MPs lessened the probability of fights, or if they happened, response was quicker.  They also provided some mutual protection for both GIs and women, in quick resolution of any conflicts.




granfire said:


> Social consequences of giving children the facts of life, without religious mumbo jumbo (THAT is the parent's job), _legal_ consequences?!



If you are right, (and I think you are) all of that is the parent's job.  So why are we inviting the schools in to it?  And come on, one person's mumbo jumbo is another's way of life.  I don't agree with all religions' beliefs and don't mind discussing my reasons, but I won't have many fruitful conversations if I call their religion mumbo jumbo.  As to legal, age of consent, child support, child abandonment would be three.



granfire said:


> The social consequences are rather simple: Less teen age girls being put on the fast track to enduring poverty by getting knocked up before they had a chance at being people. having children is still one of the top reasons for women to be poor.
> At bare minimum poorer than their male counterparts and often partners. So instead of spending money on this useless 'don't do it' program and then later on the fallout, we could save tons of money by just telling it like it is!



But a parent teaching (or school for that matter) abstinence, if followed, will prevent all that.  Why is a 'don't do it' program useless?  Is the promiscuity everyone now says we have OK?  If so, all we need teach is birth control.



granfire said:


> If you told kids half the crap that is spouted in the name of religion, you'd be charged with the mental abuse of children!



Attacks on religion aren't the answer, unless you are talking about a cult that likely abuses its members in other ways as well.  If a religion says sex before, or outside of marriage is immoral for the religion followed, how is that child abuse?  And what solution would you propose, given that religions get to define their own beliefs?  Kill all religious people, brain wash all religious people into your own religious belief or lack thereof?

I get it that you don't think much of any religion.  But is your disbelief of religion in any way a religion in itself?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I can tell you I heard that the most when I was in the military and that was about as far away from religious wierdos you can get.  Like I said you can pretend its not true to make you feel better if you want.
> 
> 
> I also don't disagree with you that's its a backwards way of thinking.  I'm just saying you can't deny people think that way.



I certainly wouldn't deny that *some *people think that way.  I will deny that you can reliably extrapolate from your conversations with members of the military 15 years ago to the idea that *most *people in society at large think that way.

Getting back to the original linked article and the instructional material that was photographed - "_People want to marry a virgin, just like they want a virgin toothbrush or stick of gum."  _Ridiculous, harmful, and false.  _

_


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I certainly wouldn't deny that *some *people think that way.  I will deny that you can reliably extrapolate from your conversations with members of the military 15 years ago to the idea that *most *people in society at large think that way.


Not just the military ive heard it all my life and still do.  "Oh did you hear about so and so she such a slut".  There is a saying in police work to watch out for bagde bunnies or holster sniffers they are fun to play with but you dont end up with one.  You have never heard stuff like that before?  All things being equal would you prefer you wife to have been with 5 guys before you or 50?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> All things being equal would you prefer you wife to have been with 5 guys before you or 50?



No real preference either way.  I honestly have no idea how many guys my wife had sex with before we were married.

Getting back to the original topic, I certainly wouldn't have wanted her (or myself) to be a virgin before we were married.  Making a commitment of lifelong sexual fidelity to each other without having any idea if we were sexually compatible?  How in the world would that make any sense?


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 12, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know how you meant that, but is almost sounds as if you are saying the "military culture" is wrong, and preying on "ignorant young men" who should be left alone to take their chances with prostitutes who in fact, often do have STD. If you have seen people with gonorrhea, you would realize they will be less effective in combat until treatment reduces the symptoms of the disease. Morals aside, there is a good reason to try and prevent military personnel getting STD. And I wonder how many of you posting here would feel if the military decided to set up an area where prostitutes could be controlled by medical personnel, and soldiers could be controlled by MPs? Would you applaud it or jump up on your high horse and vilify the military for corrupting the morals of our military?


  That wasn't my intent at all. The military culture regarding STD's is absolutely necessary. I was simply explaining why the attitude that ballen expressed is prevalent in the military. 



			
				oftheherd1 said:
			
		

> I think it is correct that young people should be given all the information available about many things they will encounter in life. But at the right age and development. Teachers won't always know that; parents often have a hard enough time figuring that out. And that will include any legal angles/consequences, social angles/consequjences, and religious angles/conquences. If you put all other things aside and stick only to social angles or consequences, you are committing the same mistake you accuse religious persons of committing.



  In my opinion, sex education in schools should teach the science behind it. How it happens, various consequences that can occur. It is up to the parents to teach any moral or religious consequences. This way the school and the parents should be able to give the teenagers enough information to be able to make good decisions. By trying to teach sex education the way the original post spelled it out, you are leaving the the youth almost totally ignorant, and simply _hoping_ that they'll somehow come to the right decisions. Far better to teach them how to make good decisions than to just tell them what they should be doing. Of course, you could say the same thing of society as a whole.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> No real preference either way.  I honestly have no idea how many guys my wife had sex with before we were married.
> 
> Getting back to the original topic, I certainly wouldn't have wanted her (or myself) to be a virgin before we were married.  Making a commitment of lifelong sexual fidelity to each other without having any idea if we were sexually compatible?  How in the world would that make any sense?



So you won't answer the question?  No preference isn't an answer.  Not knowing the real number wasn't part of the question.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So you won't answer the question?  No preference isn't an answer.  Not knowing the real number wasn't part of the question.


I certainly did answer the question.  No preference _is _the honest answer.  Whether she was with 5 guys or 50 or some other number before we were married was and is of no concern to me whatsoever.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I certainly did answer the question.  No preference _is _the honest answer.  Whether she was with 5 guys or 50 or some other number before we were married was and is of no concern to me whatsoever.


Ok so you won't answer I got it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so you won't answer I got it.



I'm somewhat confused as to why you would keep saying this when I've just answered you twice.  Are you really incapable of believing that someone might not have a preference on the matter?  Here's a useful tip: different people have different preferences, beliefs, feelings, cultural programming, and so on.  If you insist on calling them liars when their preferences/beliefs/feelings/etc don't correspond with your own, then you are cutting yourself off from understanding huge aspects of the human condition - not to mention running the risk of pissing off all the people that you are calling liars.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 12, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> That wasn't my intent at all. The military culture regarding STD's is absolutely necessary. I was simply explaining why the attitude that ballen expressed is prevalent in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My bad.  Your use of the word ignorant rather than say, naive or inexperienced, is I guess what threw me off.



pgsmith said:


> In my opinion, sex education in schools should teach the science behind it. How it happens, various consequences that can occur. It is up to the parents to teach any moral or religious consequences. This way the school and the parents should be able to give the teenagers enough information to be able to make good decisions. By trying to teach sex education the way the original post spelled it out, you are leaving the the youth almost totally ignorant, and simply _hoping_ that they'll somehow come to the right decisions. Far better to teach them how to make good decisions than to just tell them what they should be doing. Of course, you could say the same thing of society as a whole.



Teaching the science of sex wouldn't be very sexy, would it?  :uhyeah:  But perhaps you are right, the schools should stop trying to teach sexual morals.  That is after all, what is being done for the most part:  Use protection, prevent STD and pregnancy- moral value taught, having premarital sex is OK if you don't get STDs or get pregnant.  Or, your body is your own, you can decide what you want to do.  Moral value taught, as a teenager, you don't have to follow your parent's nor religion's value standards.  

And of course, if you don't have to listen to your parents about sex, why should you have to listen about things like drug or alcohol use, or how to drive safely?


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not just the military ive heard it all my life and still do.  "Oh did you hear about so and so she such a slut".


Last time I heard anything like this was when I was in high school, and the truth is, chances are it was all crap.  Ballen, what kind of people do you surround yourself with that you would EVER hear this from anyone over 25 years old?[/quote]
There is a saying in police work to watch out for bagde bunnies or holster sniffers they are fun to play with but you dont end up with one.  You have never heard stuff like that before?  All things being equal would you prefer you wife to have been with 5 guys before you or 50?[/QUOTE]While the question was directed to Tony, since you chose to post it in the forum instead of a PM, I'll echo what Tony said.  I have never asked my wife, and at just this side of 20 years of happy marriage, don't care at all.  It could have been 5 or 50... or 0.


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 12, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> My bad. Your use of the word ignorant rather than say, naive or inexperienced, is I guess what threw me off.


  Either probably would have been a better choice. Although they all pretty much mean the same thing, I can see how ignorant would be considered more derogatory. In my head ignorance is not insulting, it simply means there is a lack of information.



oftheherd1 said:


> Teaching the science of sex wouldn't be very sexy, would it? :uhyeah: But perhaps you are right, the schools should stop trying to teach sexual morals. That is after all, what is being done for the most part: Use protection, prevent STD and pregnancy- moral value taught, having premarital sex is OK if you don't get STDs or get pregnant. Or, your body is your own, you can decide what you want to do. Moral value taught, as a teenager, you don't have to follow your parent's nor religion's value standards.
> 
> And of course, if you don't have to listen to your parents about sex, why should you have to listen about things like drug or alcohol use, or how to drive safely?



  I agree. The current leaders of our society are much more concerned with having followers than with educating. Science is scary since it advocates that people should consider the facts and think for themselves.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm somewhat confused as to why you would keep saying this when I've just answered you twice.  Are you really incapable of believing that someone might not have a preference on the matter?  Here's a useful tip: different people have different preferences, beliefs, feelings, cultural programming, and so on.  If you insist on calling them liars when their preferences/beliefs/feelings/etc don't correspond with your own, then you are cutting yourself off from understanding huge aspects of the human condition - not to mention running the risk of pissing off all the people that you are calling liars.



The question was simple A or B answer.  It was a hypothetical question would you prefer A or B if everything else was equal.  Simple question really I prefer A.  There is not C. I dont want to know answer.  Kinda like do you like pizza or burgers.  Yes you can like both but the question is which do you like better it requires a choice not an "I dont care".

And I wasnt calling you a lair.  I understand in your real life you didnt care to even ask.  Id guess because you know your wife and how she behaves and acts and was brought up yo already have some idea.  Thats why the question was hypothetical 

Also if a thread on the internet pisses you off you may need to step away from the computer and reevaluate your life


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> Last time I heard anything like this was when I was in high school, and the truth is, chances are it was all crap.  Ballen, what kind of people do you surround yourself with that you would EVER hear this from anyone over 25 years old?
> There is a saying in police work to watch out for bagde bunnies or holster sniffers they are fun to play with but you dont end up with one.  You have never heard stuff like that before?  All things being equal would you prefer you wife to have been with 5 guys before you or 50?While the question was directed to Tony, since you chose to post it in the forum instead of a PM, I'll echo what Tony said.  I have never asked my wife, and at just this side of 20 years of happy marriage, don't care at all.  It could have been 5 or 50... or 0.



Hard to see what your saying here I think the quote button got away from you.  
 As to what type of people I surround myself with Id say normal everyday people.  When someone sleeps around people notice and comment.  There is a female officer where I work that has had sex with at least 10 other officers.  People call her names all the time, nasty, slut, gross, come to mind.  To be fair the same is said about the guys as well.  Maybe its the heavy masculine job I have that this is normal locker room talk. Ive never worked in an office setting I know things are different in the office Politically correct settings.  

And again the question was Hypothetical I was not speaking about his wife specifically.  Nor yours. or anyone for that matter  That question is open to anyone if all things were the same and you know the answer to the number your spouse has been with would you prefer 50 or 5?  The Question wast do you want to know or do you know.  It was you DO know and what would you prefer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The question was simple A or B answer.  It was a hypothetical question would you prefer A or B if everything else was equal.  Simple question really I prefer A.  There is not C. I dont want to know answer.  Kinda like do you like pizza or burgers.  Yes you can like both but the question is which do you like better it requires a choice not an "I dont care".
> 
> And I wasnt calling you a lair.  I understand in your real life you didnt care to even ask.  Id guess because you know your wife and how she behaves and acts and was brought up yo already have some idea.  Thats why the question was hypothetical
> 
> Also if a thread on the internet pisses you off you may need to step away from the computer and reevaluate your life



You can ask that someone answer A or B, but if neither is true, then refusing to say A or B isn't refusing to answer - it's refusing to lie. I swept my apartment the other day. Suppose I were to ask you whether you preferred that I had swept the kitchen first or the living room? The honest answer (unless you are a very strange individual) is that you don't give a damn what order I swept my apartment in. You've got your own life and I really doubt that you care about the details of how I clean my living space. If I accused you of evading the question because you didn't have a preference, you'd probably wonder what was wrong with me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> You can ask that someone answer A or B, but if neither is true, then refusing to say A or B isn't refusing to answer - it's refusing to lie. I swept my apartment the other day. Suppose I were to ask you whether you preferred that I had swept the kitchen first or the living room? The honest answer (unless you are a very strange individual) is that you don't give a damn what order I swept my apartment in. You've got your own life and I really doubt that you care about the details of how I clean my living space. If I accused you of evading the question because you didn't have a preference, you'd probably wonder what was wrong with me.


Ok so you wont answer the question I guess there is nothing left to discuss  I can only assume the answer is 5 but that goes against your PC belief that "it doesnt matter" so you wont answer. Good Day sir


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so you wont answer the question I guess there is nothing left to discuss



I did answer the question, repeatedly.  I just didn't answer it the way you wanted me to.

Here's a question for you.  Which is Hulk Hogan - is he a) a woman or b) a midget?  Please bear in mind that the only two acceptable answers are a or b.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I did answer the question, repeatedly.  I just didn't answer it the way you wanted me to.
> 
> Here's a question for you.  Which is Hulk Hogan - is he a) a woman or b) a midget?  Please bear in mind that the only two acceptable answers are a or b.



B. duh


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Or is it A.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I just didn't answer it .



Fixed it for you


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2013)

*How about getting back to the topic folks, and dropping the heat a few notches? K?  Thanks.*


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2013)

It's called a false dilemma, Ballen.

For what it's worth, I have always thought that the guys who want an inexperienced woman are the guys who are insecure and afraid of comparison.  

Personally, I have always preferred women who know what they're doing.  But, frankly, I married my wife because she's my favorite person in the world, and her sexual history was irrelevant.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tames D (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Hard to see what your saying here I think the quote button got away from you.
> As to what type of people I surround myself with Id say normal everyday people.  When someone sleeps around people notice and comment.  There is a female officer where I work that has had sex with at least 10 other officers.  People call her names all the time, nasty, slut, gross, come to mind.  To be fair the same is said about the guys as well.  Maybe its the heavy masculine job I have that this is normal locker room talk. Ive never worked in an office setting I know things are different in the office Politically correct settings.
> 
> And again the question was Hypothetical I was not speaking about his wife specifically.  Nor yours. or anyone for that matter  That question is open to anyone if all things were the same and you know the answer to the number your spouse has been with would you prefer 50 or 5?  The Question wast do you want to know or do you know.  It was you DO know and what would you prefer.



So it's safe to say your wife was a virgin when you married her? And you as well?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> It's called a false dilemma, Ballen.


Not a false dilemma at all just a simple question and not a hard one unless you cant be intellectually honest because it goes against your position


> For what it's worth, I have always thought that the guys who want an inexperienced woman are the guys who are insecure and afraid of comparison.
> 
> Personally, I have always preferred women who know what they're doing.  But, frankly, I married my wife because she's my favorite person in the world, and her sexual history was irrelevant.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Has nothing to do with experienced partner or not and everything to do with Risky behavior.  Someone that sleeps with say 40 or 50 people by the time they are say 30 #1 have a higher risk of having something I dont want and #2 If someones sleeping around that much there is something mentally or emotionally troubling that person


Im not sure why your trying to pretend that type of behavior is normal and safe because its neither


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tames D said:


> So it's safe to say your wife was a virgin when you married her? And you as well?



No not at all I never once said anything about Virgins.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 12, 2013)

I knew you would have a comback.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not a false dilemma at all just a simple question and not a hard one unless you cant be intellectually honest because it goes against your position


no.  It's the very definition of a false dilemma.  That's not opinion.  It is a fact that your question was a false dilemma.  





> Has nothing to do with experienced partner or not and everything to do with Risky behavior.  Someone that sleeps with say 40 or 50 people by the time they are say 30 #1 have a higher risk of having something I dont want and #2 If someones sleeping around that much there is something mentally or emotionally troubling that person
> 
> 
> Im not sure why your trying to pretend that type of behavior is normal and safe because its neither


I'm not sure how we got to 40 or 50 partners.  You have a knack for extremism.

So, let's say a guy has had sex with 50 women.  Unweddable?  Mentally unstable?

Personally, I think its case by case.  I can see a guy being mentally unstable.  I can also, just as easily, imagine a guy who's had sex with one person who is mentally unstable. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No not at all I never once said anything about Virgins.



LOL, we were talking about people having premarital relations being used toothbrushes and chewed gum...

Which you turned in to ho to housewife.....

Apparently you didn't mind your wife wasn't pristine, neither did she care about your experience. 
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

You are busted.


----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2013)

The question in the OP is really about taking a real world look, instead of being unrealistic.  The chances of keeping teenagers (some teenagers) from having sex is zero.  What's the goal?  Is the goal to keep some girls from reporting that they were raped because they feel dirty?  Is the goal to ensure that some girls and boys won't use protection when (not if) they have sex?  Is the goal to ensure that some of those girls and boys not only contract but knowingly or unknowingly spread STDs?

What an odd world some of the folks on this board live in.  

Kids are stupid.  All of them, even the ones brought up well.  They are, each and every one of them, incomplete adults.  Some of the more sanctimonious on these boards have even admitted to doing dumb things in their youth, but for whatever reason, fail to understand that they were lucky, not smart.  Lucky they didn't get caught, or that they didn't get the girl pregnant, or lucky they didn't accidentally kill themselves or the friends they endangered.  What is now, in their adult lives, a good story, is really a bad story they were lucky to have emerged from relatively unscathed.

I've got LOTS of those stories, and so, perhaps, I'm sympathetic.  But, some of you who are the most holier than thou have hinted that you were stupid, too, and that you also did stupid things.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> The question in the OP is really about taking a real world look, instead of being unrealistic.  The chances of keeping teenagers (some teenagers) from having sex is zero.  What's the goal?  Is the goal to keep some girls from reporting that they were raped because they feel dirty?  Is the goal to ensure that some girls and boys won't use protection when (not if) they have sex?  Is the goal to ensure that some of those girls and boys not only contract but knowingly or unknowingly spread STDs?
> 
> What an odd world some of the folks on this board live in.
> 
> ...



I only see one person here playing the "holier than thou" card. I may have missed something. 
I'm not talking about you,Steve. I think you know who I'm referring to.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> no.  It's the very definition of a false dilemma.  That's not opinion.  It is a fact that your question was a false dilemma.


There is nothing false about it.  It was a question you can refuse to answer it if you want.  It is the internet after all I cant make you 



> I'm not sure how we got to 40 or 50 partners.  You have a knack for extremism.


That was the point.  Is there an extreme?  Some here dont think so.  They seem to believe that anything goes its all OK and I dont feel it is



> So, let's say a guy has had sex with 50 women.  Unweddable?  Mentally unstable?


I didnt say guys or girls were unweddable.  But yes anyone thats sleeping with that many people in a short amount of time has something going on.  Do you feel thats normal behavior?  I only used woman in my example because Im a guy.  But it goes for both


> Personally, I think its case by case.  I can see a guy being mentally unstable.  I can also, just as easily, imagine a guy who's had sex with one person who is mentally unstable.


True Im speaking in more general terms.  50 partners in a short time span in not safe behavior.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

granfire said:


> LOL, we were talking about people having premarital relations being used toothbrushes and chewed gum...


Actually I was talking about having many sex partners well above the norm as making people like chewed gum and un desirable.  I wasnt commenting about one or two or rape or normal behavior.  Everyone agreed that was stupid comparison for limited sex partners that was never in question.  The point I was making is there is a point where it is excessive and you do become less desirable 


> Which you turned in to ho to housewife.....


Which was the truth people to look at excessive partners in a neg way


> Apparently you didn't mind your wife wasn't pristine, neither did she care about your experience.
> Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> 
> You are busted.


I never claimed I was innocent so there was nothing to bust but keep tying detective your doing a fine job.  I was speaking about the perception in general.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I knew you would have a comback.



Kinda the point of a thread right to bounce thoughts and ideas back and forth?  You dont like my thoughts your free to ignore them


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 12, 2013)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to the original topic.  Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Remember to debate the post, not the poster.

Jks9199
Asst. Administrator
*


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> The question in the OP is really about taking a real world look, instead of being unrealistic.  The chances of keeping teenagers (some teenagers) from having sex is zero.  What's the goal?  Is the goal to keep some girls from reporting that they were raped because they feel dirty?  Is the goal to ensure that some girls and boys won't use protection when (not if) they have sex?  Is the goal to ensure that some of those girls and boys not only contract but knowingly or unknowingly spread STDs?


The goal should be to be honest with kids and give them all the tools including the only 100% effective way to not get an STD or baby from consensual sex which is to avoid it.  The truth would also include facts about STDs pregnancy and condoms.  Picking just one lesson or the other isnt effective.  


> What an odd world some of the folks on this board live in.


right back at ya my friend cheers :drinkbeer


> Kids are stupid.  All of them, even the ones brought up well.  They are, each and every one of them, incomplete adults.  Some of the more sanctimonious on these boards have even admitted to doing dumb things in their youth, but for whatever reason, fail to understand that they were lucky, not smart.  Lucky they didn't get caught, or that they didn't get the girl pregnant, or lucky they didn't accidentally kill themselves or the friends they endangered.  What is now, in their adult lives, a good story, is really a bad story they were lucky to have emerged from relatively unscathed.
> 
> I've got LOTS of those stories, and so, perhaps, I'm sympathetic.  But, some of you who are the most holier than thou have hinted that you were stupid, too, and that you also did stupid things.


Nothing to do with holier then thou and more to do with Ive already been there and done that got the scars and t-shirts to show it.  So why not use that experience to spare others.  Use that knowledge to come up with something better then what we have now.  Do you think whats going on now is working and cant be improved upon?


----------



## Tames D (Nov 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Kinda the point of a thread right to bounce thoughts and ideas back and forth?  You dont like my thoughts your free to ignore them



Why would I want to ignore your thoughts just because I don't like them? I like responding to nonsense.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The goal should be to be honest with kids and give them all the tools including the only 100% effective way to not get an STD or baby from consensual sex which is to avoid it.  The truth would also include facts about STDs pregnancy and condoms.  Picking just one lesson or the other isnt effective.



Comprehensive sex ed. should indeed include a discussion of abstinence...and contraception, and abortion, and social skills for navigating the kinds of situations kids find themselves in where they're feeling pressured to do certain things, and a sense of the range of typical, normal adult behavior (including differing sexualities), and hygiene, and what to do in the aftermath of a sexual assault, and just a host of things.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Comprehensive sex ed. should indeed include a discussion of abstinence...and contraception, and abortion, and social skills for navigating the kinds of situations kids find themselves in where they're feeling pressured to do certain things, and a sense of the range of typical, normal adult behavior (including differing sexualities), and hygiene, and what to do in the aftermath of a sexual assault, and just a host of things.



Do you think that instruction is most appropriately done by parents or by a school?


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Do you think that instruction is most appropriately done by parents or by a school?



Both.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 13, 2013)

I'd vote for both.

Lots of parents will do a terrible job (or no job at all) of teaching that stuff, so the schools may need to take up the slack.

Lots of schools will have a crappy sex-ed program, so the parents should do their best to teach what they can.

Bottom line - kids need to learn this material. The more sources they have for good information, the better.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Comprehensive sex ed. should indeed include a discussion of abstinence...and contraception, and abortion, and social skills for navigating the kinds of situations kids find themselves in where they're feeling pressured to do certain things, and a sense of the range of typical, normal adult behavior (including differing sexualities), and hygiene, and what to do in the aftermath of a sexual assault, and just a host of things.



I agree yet there are people on both sides that refuse to acknowledge that the other side needs to be taught.  Just as many will say no point in talking about abstinence because it doesnt work as there are people that say we shouldnt talk about condoms and birth control because we should be talking abstinence.  
I think we do need to push Abstinence harder on teens then we do but all aspects should be taught.

*Fact: Most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having sex*
  Nearly two thirds of sexually active teens state that they regret their initial sexual activity and wish they had waited until they were older before becoming sexually active.[2]

*
Fact: Sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide.*

  Sexuallyactive teens are less likely to be happy, more likely to be depressed, and more likely to attempt suicide. Teenage girls who are sexually active are three times more likely to be depressed and three times more likely to attempt suicide than girls who are not active. Teenage boys who are sexually active are more than twice as likely to be depressed and are almost ten times more likely to attempt suicide than boys who are not active.[3]
*
Fact:  education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity.
*
  There are currently ten evaluations showing that  education is effective in reducing teen sexual activity. Half of these evaluations have been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, "Not Me, Not Now" is a community-wide  program in Monroe County, New York. The program broadcasts pro-abstinence messages to teens through the mass media. The program has been successful in changing teen attitudes. The sexual activity rate of 15-year-olds across the county (as reported on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) dropped 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent. The pregnancy rate for girls aged 15 through 17 in the county fell by a statistically significant amount from 63.4 pregnancies per 1000 girls to 49.5 pregnancies per 1000.. The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County than in comparison counties and in upstate New  York in general, and the difference in the rate of decrease was statistically significant. [4]


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/03/facts-about-abstinence-education


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 13, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd vote for both.
> 
> Lots of parents will do a terrible job (or no job at all) of teaching that stuff, so the schools may need to take up the slack.
> 
> ...



Good thinking, has merit for sure.  Would you agree then that since schools don't normally teach it, and a lot of parents will do a lousy job of teaching religion, that the schools should take up the slack there as well?


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Good thinking, has merit for sure.  Would you agree then that since schools don't normally teach it, and a lot of parents will do a lousy job of teaching religion, that the schools should take up the slack there as well?



religion is an elective.
Not to mention comes in more flavors than Ben&Jerry's.


Not to mention religion seldom comes with a price tag for society - if you don't take the tax discounts for all the God Clubs into consideration.


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I agree yet there are people on both sides that refuse to acknowledge that the other side needs to be taught.  Just as many will say no point in talking about abstinence because it doesnt work as there are people that say we shouldnt talk about condoms and birth control because we should be talking abstinence.
> I think we do need to push Abstinence harder on teens then we do but all aspects should be taught.
> 
> *Fact: Most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having sex*
> Nearly two thirds of sexually active teens state that they regret their initial sexual activity and wish they had waited until they were older before becoming sexually active.[2]


All part of taking the mystique out of the act. The peer pressure, and the stigma. 
Not doing it because 'everybody is doing it' but being informed by knowledgeable people, not bombarded with BS.
*



			Fact: Sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Sexuallyactive teens are less likely to be happy, more likely to be depressed, and more likely to attempt suicide. Teenage girls who are sexually active are three times more likely to be depressed and three times more likely to attempt suicide than girls who are not active. Teenage boys who are sexually active are more than twice as likely to be depressed and are almost ten times more likely to attempt suicide than boys who are not active.[3]


Again...if you get bombarded with used toothbrush analogies and being a sinner, going to hell, all at a time when things go haywire anyhow....
But I would certainly prefer to see the base on which this study was conducted.
*



			Fact:  education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity.
		
Click to expand...

*


> There are currently ten evaluations showing that  education is effective in reducing teen sexual activity. Half of these evaluations have been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, "Not Me, Not Now" is a community-wide  program in Monroe County, New York. The program broadcasts pro-abstinence messages to teens through the mass media. The program has been successful in changing teen attitudes. The sexual activity rate of 15-year-olds across the county (as reported on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) dropped 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent. The pregnancy rate for girls aged 15 through 17 in the county fell by a statistically significant amount from 63.4 pregnancies per 1000 girls to 49.5 pregnancies per 1000.. The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County than in comparison counties and in upstate New  York in general, and the difference in the rate of decrease was statistically significant. [4]
> 
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/03/facts-about-abstinence-education




Half of these evaluations have been published in peer reviewed journals...what about the other half?

No doubt abstinence is ok. Not just for teens but for all ages, at the individual's discretion.
The message you are referring to - without having seen the actual PSA clips or billboards - are a far cry from making one think of themselves as a piece of refuse for having had sex. 
I am all for empowering kids to _think for themselves_ in these matters.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> religion is an elective.
> Not to mention comes in more flavors than Ben&Jerry's.



I don't know how it is where you are, and for that matter I don't know how it is where I live.  But where I live, when my kids were in the grade where sex-ed was given, it was an elective in that they had the option to opt out of the classes.

And while I will grant there are many "flavors" of religion, I would say there are the same on sex-ed:  Parents only to teach, abstinence, use protection, don't worry about protection as STD is treatable and abortion is available, teach only non-mechanical aspects, do it only with same sex partners if you want,  never do it with same-sex partners ...

Each of those "flavors" would have its only curriculum unique to the sex that would fit that "flavor/life-style" and perhaps some things in common.




granfire said:


> Not to mention religion seldom comes with a price tag for society - if you don't take the tax discounts for all the God Clubs into consideration.



I'm not quite sure what you mean here.  Do you mean following religions has no consequences for society?  Do you mean tax exemption for religious entities is wrong?


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The goal should be to be honest with kids and give them all the tools including the only 100% effective way to not get an STD or baby from consensual sex which is to avoid it.  The truth would also include facts about STDs pregnancy and condoms.  Picking just one lesson or the other isnt effective.


Agreed here.  I don't know about the entire country, but I know that my kids learned about the biology of sex, including the risks.  And abstinence was part of the conversation.  


> Nothing to do with holier then thou and more to do with Ive already been there and done that got the scars and t-shirts to show it.  So why not use that experience to spare others.  Use that knowledge to come up with something better then what we have now.  Do you think whats going on now is working and cant be improved upon?


I think that what's going on now is, in many places, better than what some people are advocating.  Ultimately, I think that the biology of sex is what needs to be taught in school, and the morality of sex should be left OUT of the schools.  It's simple. 



ballen0351 said:


> There is nothing false about it.  It was a question you can refuse to answer it if you want.  It is the internet after all I cant make you


Here's a question for you.  There is a logical fallacy that is easy to research and look up called a "False Dichotomy" or "False Dilemma."  You keep saying that your question isn't one, so you must surely be familiar with it.  How do you define "false dillemma?"  It's a question I'm betting you'll hedge and ultimately refuse to answer, although I hope you prove me wrong.


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Good thinking, has merit for sure.  Would you agree then that since schools don't normally teach it, and a lot of parents will do a lousy job of teaching religion, that the schools should take up the slack there as well?


Are you suggesting that schools advocate in favor of one religion over others?  Or just teach them all?  

I'm ALL for teaching religion in public schools, but I'd like to see a World Religions course that focuses on at least the big 5: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism, and probably should also include Atheism as a balance.   The idea being to share information and not advocate in favor of one over the other.  The concern would be that, in parts of our country, a class like this would be used to promote one religion over others. 

In the same way, I'm in favor of a sex ed course that teaches the biology of sex, including STDs, birth control and, of course, abstinence.  But, the concern I have would be the courses where abstinence is promoted, in the same way I would be concerned if HAVING sex were promoted.  In other words, I have a problem with a school teacher saying to my child, "I recommend that you have sex, and when you do, use a condom."  In the EXACT SAME WAY, I have a problem with a school teacher saying to my child, "I recommend that you do not have sex."  That's MY job, and my prerogative as a parent.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> here's a question for you.  There is a logical fallacy that is easy to research and look up called a "False Dichotomy" or "False Dilemma."  You keep saying that your question isn't one, so you must surely be familiar with it.  How do you define "false dillemma?"  It's a question I'm betting you'll hedge and ultimately refuse to answer, although I hope you prove me wrong.


The reason it didn't apply to my question was the way I purposely worded it.  The question wasn't do you want to know how many, do you care how many,  does it matter how many partners your spouse had.  It was all things being equal mean the same person would you prefer 5 prior sex partners or 50?  The question has no other possible answers.  You know the number so saying I don't want to know isn't possible.  and saying I don't care isn't an answer its a refusal to answer 


A fasle dilemma would be do you like eggs yes or no.  Well both I like omelets and over easy but I don't like scrambled.  So there are more answers then yes or no.


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 13, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know how it is where you are, and for that matter I don't know how it is where I live. But where I live, when my kids were in the grade where sex-ed was given, it was an elective in that they had the option to opt out of the classes.
> 
> And while I will grant there are many "flavors" of religion, I would say there are the same on sex-ed: Parents only to teach, abstinence, use protection, don't worry about protection as STD is treatable and abortion is available, teach only non-mechanical aspects, do it only with same sex partners if you want, never do it with same-sex partners ...
> 
> ...



  And therein lies the problem with our education system today. The education system should NOT be teaching "flavors" of anything, they should be teaching facts. If facts are presented, it is up to the parents to teach proper morals, religion, ideology. Those are things that I taught my children, and I didn't care for the schools attempts to counter my teaching.


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The reason it didn't apply to my question was the way I purposely worded it.  The question wasn't do you want to know how many, do you care how many,  does it matter how many partners your spouse had.  It was all things being equal mean the same person would you prefer 5 prior sex partners or 50?  The question has no other possible answers.  You know the number so saying I don't want to know isn't possible.  and saying I don't care isn't an answer its a refusal to answer
> 
> 
> A fasle dilemma would be do you like eggs yes or no.  Well both I like omelets and over easy but I don't like scrambled.  So there are more answers then yes or no.


Okay, thanks, ballen.  I appreciate your answer, and it sounds like we have a different understanding of what a false dillemma really is.  That makes sense. 

What makes your question a false dichotomy isn't the question itself.  It's your insistence that the only legitimate answers are one of two options you provide, and you disregarded any others.  For example, "Do you like eggs?" isn't a false dichotomy.  The question is, if genuine, a simple one to answer.  Possible answers would, as you say, include "yes," "no," or a variant of "it depends."   Limiting the answers to Yes or No is what makes it a false dilemma.  So, as you say, "Do you like eggs?"  Good.  "Do you like eggs?  Yes or no."  Bad.

In the same way, "Which would you prefer, a person with 5 prior sexual partners or 50?"  Fine.  "Which would you prefer, and you must choose one or the other."  False dilemma.

Make sense?


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 13, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> If you are right, (and I think you are) all of that is the parent's job.  So why are we inviting the schools in to it?



Because parents aren't/weren't.  If every parent taught their child about how/why their body is changing, what sex is, how to not get pregnant/STDs, what is consent, etc, sex ed wouldn't be necessary.  But they don't, and this stuff is absolutely vital information for every person to know.



> But a parent teaching (or school for that matter) abstinence, if followed, will prevent all that.  Why is a 'don't do it' program useless?



Because it _doesn't_ _work_.  Studies have shown that teens who are taught "abstinance only" have almost as much sex as teens who are taught about birth control, and are more likely to get pregnant and STDs, because they're not using protection properly.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> All things being equal would you prefer you wife to have been with 5 guys before you or 50?



Why would he care?  I've never asked Mr WaterGal how many women he slept with before we met, and I couldn't care less.  5, 50, what difference does it make if someone wants to commit to you?


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> And therein lies the problem with our education system today. The education system should NOT be teaching "flavors" of anything, they should be teaching facts. If facts are presented, it is up to the parents to teach proper morals, religion, ideology. Those are things that I taught my children, and I didn't care for the schools attempts to counter my teaching.


While schools should be teaching facts, certainly, we should be teaching skills.  Critical thinking, for example, is a skill that kids should be learning. 

I agree with the idea that the most successful people in business and technology are those who can rapidly learn, unlearn and relearn.  Learning, unlearning and relearning is a skill and kids should learn it.

So, schools should be teaching facts AND skills.   And in order to learn critical thinking and analysis skills, we have to challenge them with nuanced subject matter.  Philosophy, religion, politics and other subjects are, IMO, ideal because if you're doing it right, it forces kids to acknowledge that there are multiple sides to any issue.  

Schools should not advocate a particular position.  I would have a real problem with a school advocating one religion over another or one political position over another.  But I'd LOVE IT if they took a complex, nuanced issue (Such as, "Should sex ed be taught in schools?") and facilitated a discussion presenting multiple sides to the issue.  

One of the biggest problems I see with our education system now is that we don't seem to be emphasizing the skills aspect of the education and are focusing too much on facts.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> Okay, thanks, ballen.  I appreciate your answer, and it sounds like we have a different understanding of what a false dillemma really is.  That makes sense.
> 
> What makes your question a false dichotomy isn't the question itself.  It's your insistence that the only legitimate answers are one of two options you provide, and you disregarded any others.  For example, "Do you like eggs?" isn't a false dichotomy.  The question is, if genuine, a simple one to answer.  Possible answers would, as you say, include "yes," "no," or a variant of "it depends."   Limiting the answers to Yes or No is what makes it a false dilemma.  So, as you say, "Do you like eggs?"  Good.  "Do you like eggs?  Yes or no."  Bad.
> 
> ...


Except when given choice between possible anserwers not a yes or no question. Would you prefer closer to 5 or closer to 50.  You have a preference even if its slight if you thought about it for a second you could answer it.  Even if the preference is very slight like you don't really care but I choose A.  You refuse to answer because your answer would agree with my point that given the choice people would choose less then more if everything else were the same


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Why would he care?  I've never asked Mr WaterGal how many women he slept with before we met, and I couldn't care less.  5, 50, what difference does it make if someone wants to commit to you?


The question wasn't do you care how many the question was if they told you the number would you rather it be low or high?  If you and your husband were talking about the past and he said you know honey your number _____.  Would you rather hear 5 or 50 come out of his mouth.  Of he did give a really high number what would you think?  

Don't bother answering because I really don't care anymore.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Because parents aren't/weren't.  If every parent taught their child about how/why their body is changing, what sex is, how to not get pregnant/STDs, what is consent, etc, sex ed wouldn't be necessary.  But they don't, and this stuff is absolutely vital information for every person to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it _doesn't_ _work_.  Studies have shown that teens who are taught "abstinance only" have almost as much sex as teens who are taught about birth control, and are more likely to get pregnant and STDs, because they're not using protection properly.


It does work look at the study I posted from heritage foundation about s county that started a huge don't do it campaign.  Pregnancy and teen sex rates went way down


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> It does work look at the study I posted from heritage foundation about s county that started a huge don't do it campaign.  Pregnancy and teen sex rates went way down



the campaign did not seem to liken the kids to refuse if they did though, it's a different energy all together, much more positive IMO. Don't do it is in itself not a bad idea. But it has to be in context. You tell kids what happens - and not with the intend to gross them out, because eventually we need them to go on and have sex and kids, but here is how it work, this is what can happen. The chances of X, Y or Z are So-and-so %, meaning the failure rate is such. 
The not doing it becomes an informed choice, but no better or more socially acceptable than the alternative (hopefully equally informed and accordingly prepared).
Sex isn't immoral.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> the campaign did not seem to liken the kids to refuse if they did though, it's a different energy all together, much more positive IMO. Don't do it is in itself not a bad idea. But it has to be in context. You tell kids what happens - and not with the intend to gross them out, because eventually we need them to go on and have sex and kids, but here is how it work, this is what can happen. The chances of X, Y or Z are So-and-so %, meaning the failure rate is such.
> The not doing it becomes an informed choice, but no better or more socially acceptable than the alternative (hopefully equally informed and accordingly prepared).
> Sex isn't immoral.


Of course you need more then "don't do it kid". Its an entire campaign but she was just brushing it off as useless and its not.  It can be effective if done right.  That countybseems to have ffigured something out that's working


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Of course you need more then "don't do it kid". Its an entire campaign but she was just brushing it off as useless and its not.  It can be effective if done right.  That countybseems to have ffigured something out that's working



So in the end you agree with me. 
Just say that I'm right. 

Now, was this so difficult?!


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> So in the end you agree with me.
> Just say that I'm right.
> 
> Now, was this so difficult?!


Or you agree with me so you say I'm right.


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Or you agree with me so you say I'm right.



I said it first

Nice try, Honey...but I win this round!


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Except when given choice between possible anserwers not a yes or no question. Would you prefer closer to 5 or closer to 50.  You have a preference even if its slight if you thought about it for a second you could answer it.  Even if the preference is very slight like you don't really care but I choose A.  You refuse to answer because your answer would agree with my point that given the choice people would choose less then more if everything else were the same



You think I'm sharing my opinions, but the definition of a "false dilemma" is not my opinion.  It's not subjective.  Anyone other than you would look at your question and see that it is clearly a logical fallacy.  You're just being obstinate and, in my opinion, it doesn't reflect well on you.  I thought you genuinely didn't understand, but it's clear to me now that you're just effing with people in order to be argumentative.  So, there it is.  I sincerely wish it were otherwise.

And for what it's worth, I've already said that I prefer women who know what they're doing.  I've also said that I think the entire foundation of the preference of some men to want a woman who has few previous partners is insecurity and a fear of comparison.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Comprehensive sex ed. should indeed include a discussion of abstinence...and contraception, and abortion, and social skills for navigating the kinds of situations kids find themselves in where they're feeling pressured to do certain things, and a sense of the range of typical, normal adult behavior (including differing sexualities), and hygiene, and what to do in the aftermath of a sexual assault, and just a host of things.


It might also be nice to point out that if you are known for being promiscuous, people will think less of you. Male or female.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 13, 2013)

Big Don said:


> It might also be nice to point out that if you are known for being promiscuous, people will think less of you. Male or female.



SOME people will think less of you. Just as SOME people will think less of you for any number of stupid reasons. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> I said it first
> 
> Nice try, Honey...but I win this round!



Curse you and your little dog too.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> You think I'm sharing mbpinions, but the definition of a "false dilemma" is not my opinion.  It's not subjective.  Anyone other than you would look at your question and see that it is clearly a logical fallacy.  You're just being obstinate and, in my opinion, it doesn't reflect well on you.  I thought you genuinely didn't understand, but it's clear to me now that you're just effing with people in order to be argumentative.  So, there it is.  I sincerely wish it were otherwise.


So ignore me then if it bothers you.  


> And for what it's worth, I've already said that I prefer women who know what they're doing.  I've also said that I think the entire foundation of the preference of some men to want a woman who has few previous partners is insecurity and a fear of comparison.



So you do have an opinion but just a little bit ago you said you have none.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> SOME people will think less of you. Just as SOME people will think less of you for any number of stupid reasons.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.


Not just some.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not just some.



Most.


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Most.



Nope, not most, just some.


----------



## granfire (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Curse you and your little dog too.



[yt]aP3gzee1cps [/yt]

she's all scawed now! :lfao:


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So ignore me then if it bothers you.


Why is that your go to?  It's like you think that it excuses you somehow from engaging in an honest discussion.


> So you do have an opinion but just a little bit ago you said you have none.


I have a lot of opinions, and unlike you, I distinguish them from fact.  It's a genuine shame that you can't seem to do the same because I enjoy discussing things with people who have different ideas than I do.  But, it has to be an honest discussion.  You like to play games and score points.  Too bad.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Not just some.



Yes, just some. I certainly won't. I frankly care more about a monkey farting than I do who sleeps with whom, unless it involves children or animals.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> Why is that your go to?  It's like you think that it excuses you somehow from engaging in an honest discussion.
> I have a lot of opinions, and unlike you, I distinguish them from fact.  It's a genuine shame that you can't seem to do the same because I enjoy discussing things with people who have different ideas than I do.  But, it has to be an honest discussion.  You like to play games and score points.  Too bad.



Well said. And yes, it is too bad. Some people always have to be right.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes, just some. I certainly won't. I frankly care more about a monkey farting than I do who sleeps with whom, unless it involves children or animals.


If people were being honest its much more then you think.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> Why is that your go to?  It's like you think that it excuses you somehow from engaging in an honest discussion.


Its not a go too but if your going to cry about my post then don't read them.  You don't like what I say don't read it.  You think I'm playing games don't read it.  


> I have a lot of opinions, and unlike you, I distinguish them from fact.  It's a genuine shame that you can't seem to do the same because I enjoy discussing things with people who have different ideas than I do.  But, it has to be an honest discussion.  You like to play games and score points.  Too bad.



Im the only one being honest here.  Everyone else is playing the PC role and avoiding a simple question.  


Here is a simple question do you think there is a problem with excess numbers of partners?  If so what is excessive?


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

My brother married a stripper.  She was a stripper when he met her, at least, and I don't know for sure, but I would bet she was pretty promiscuous.  He's been married to her for almost 15 years and they have 5 kids together.  I'm pretty sure she has had a lot of sex, and yet she's a pretty damned awesome person.  But, according to ballen, we all secretly agree with him.


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If people were being honest its much more then you think.


Are you really so insecure?  I bet you'd measure up just fine, if you could get over the anxiety of being compared to other men, ballen.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not a go too but if your going to cry about my post then don't read them.  You don't like what I say don't read it.  You think I'm playing games don't read it.
> 
> 
> *Im the only one being honest here. * Everyone else is playing the PC role and avoiding a simple question.
> ...



I think I have been honest here as well. And I think some of these other people here have expressed honesty also. Why do you think you are the only honest person on this thread? Very curious.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> Nope, not most, just some.



So, you have a lot of respect for Kim Kardashian, Heidi Fleiss, Monica Lewinski, etc? You know, people who are only famous because of who they slept with.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If people were being honest its much more then you think.



Or, possibly, you're just wrong about how judgemental people are. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> Are you really so insecure?  I bet you'd measure up just fine, if you could get over the anxiety of being compared to other men, ballen.



Has nothing to do with that.  Has everything to do with risky behavior and mental status of the person.  Sure some people are just popular but I've met lots of easy girls.  There was some deep other reason they behaved that way.  Its not normal behavior for a woman to go into a Marine Barrack and do the things I've seen them do.  same with guys when we would go out looking for woman we treated them poorly and basically used them and rolled out and thought it was funny.  Thats not normal healthy behavior.  But it was acceptable because we were marines and we were young, dumb , and full of .......well you the idea.  That is the behavior we need to address start being real about it and saying its not "ok" or who cares or I don't want to know.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Or, possibly, you're just wrong about how judgemental people are.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.


I hope so but I doubt it


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 13, 2013)

Big Don said:


> So, you have a lot of respect for Kim Kardashian, Heidi Fleiss, Monica Lewinski, etc? You know, people who are only famous because of who they slept with.



Not necessarily. My opinion of them is based on something other than their sex lives. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Tames D said:


> I think I have been honest here as well. And I think some of these other people here have expressed honesty also. Why do you think you are the only honest person on this thread? Very curious.



You have not been asked anything to be honest about.  All you have done is drive by sniping.  


So I'll ask you.  Is there a such thing as too many partners and if so how many?  If some one told you a number is there any number that you would say "wow that's bad"?


----------



## Tames D (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You have not been asked anything to be honest about.  All you have done is drive by sniping.
> 
> 
> So I'll ask you.  Is there a such thing as too many partners and if so how many?  If some one told you a number is there any number that you would say "wow that's bad"?



Your wrong. I have been honest about every post I have made. And to answer your stupid question...No there is no such thing as too many partners. Sexual relations is not a bad thing. It's what people do and are interested in. It's a natural human response. You seem to think if people have sex more than a few times with different partners they are whores or sluts. How many sexual partners have you had? Are you a slut?

And the drive by sniping thing...Who the hell do you think you are?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 13, 2013)

Tames D said:


> . I have been honest about every post I have made. And to answer your stupid question...No there is no such thing as too many partners. Sexual relations is not a bad thing. It's what people do and are interested in. It's a natural human response. You seem to think if people have sex more than a few times with different partners they are whores or sluts. How many sexual partners have you had? Are you a slut?


I've had too many I can't honestly give a number because I lost count along time ago.  Like I said when I was a marine it was like a game to us to sleep with as many woman as possible.  Its was reckless stupid and I was very lucky.  But it was what we were supposed to do.  Or at least I thought.  That's the point its not smart or healthy or safe. I lied cheated treated woman like objects and I was wrong and regret it.  If we as a society don't start thinking that behavior is not acceptable we won't stop.



> And the drive by sniping thing...Who the hell do you think you are?



Like i said......


----------



## Steve (Nov 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've had too many I can't honestly give a number because I lost count along time ago.  Like I said when I was a marine it was like a game to us to sleep with as many woman as possible.  Its was reckless stupid and I was very lucky.  But it was what we were supposed to do.  Or at least I thought.  That's the point its not smart or healthy or safe. I lied cheated treated woman like objects and I was wrong and regret it.  If we as a society don't start thinking that behavior is not acceptable we won't stop.


Wait.  So... weren't you raised better?  Didn't your parents raise you to have a moral compass?  Are you saying you made mistakes as a child?  Wow...  dang.  I don't know what to say.  I'm... actually not surprised.  That's how most kids are.  And I would be willing to bet that your parents taught you better than to have unprotected sex.  I would even bet that you knew that abstinence was a foolproof way to prevent STDs.  Even a marine is smart enough to know that.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I've had too many I can't honestly give a number because I lost count along time ago.  Like I said when I was a marine it was like a game to us to sleep with as many woman as possible.  Its was reckless stupid and I was very lucky.  But it was what we were supposed to do.  Or at least I thought.  That's the point its not smart or healthy or safe. I lied cheated treated woman like objects and I was wrong and regret it.  If we as a society don't start thinking that behavior is not acceptable we won't stop.
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said......



Your a hypocrite.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Wait.  So... weren't you raised better?  Didn't your parents raise you to have a moral compass?  Are you saying you made mistakes as a child?  Wow...  dang.  I don't know what to say.  I'm... actually not surprised.  That's how most kids are.  And I would be willing to bet that your parents taught you better than to have unprotected sex.  I would even bet that you knew that abstinence was a foolproof way to prevent STDs.  Even a marine is smart enough to know that.


No actually I wasn't I never saw my dad he worked 3 jobs and my mom was a drunk.  I never once had the "talk" with my parents.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 14, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Your a hypocrite.



No I grew up made mistakes and learned from them.  But good shot sniper


----------



## Tames D (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No I grew up made mistakes and learned from them.  But good shot sniper



Damn good shot. Thank you. I got to hand it to you... you always have a comeback, even if it is false. You are never wrong.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 14, 2013)

Tames D said:


> Damn good shot. Thank you. I got to hand it to you... you always have a comeback, even if it is false.



Nothing false about it.  I call it like I see it.  Are you exactly how you were at 19 or have you grown up and looked back and said damn that was stupid.  Its not a hypocrite to evolve your beliefs over time.  To recognize a problem and look for ways to fix them.  If we can change out attitudes away from anything goes who cares to a more safe and less risky behavior then that's good.right?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm sure they'd sing a different tune should their mothers, sisters and daughters sleep with dozens of guys...


----------



## Tames D (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing false about it.  I call it like I see it.  Are you exactly how you were at 19 or have you grown up and looked back and said damn that was stupid.  Its not a hypocrite to evolve your beliefs over time.  To recognize a problem and look for ways to fix them.  If we can change out attitudes away from anything goes who cares to a more safe and less risky behavior then that's good.right?



I understand what you are saying, but I'd think your attitude would be different towards others and less judgmental. Just trying to understand you.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing false about it.  I call it like I see it.  Are you exactly how you were at 19 or have you grown up and looked back and said damn that was stupid.  Its not a hypocrite to evolve your beliefs over time.  To recognize a problem and look for ways to fix them.  If we can change out attitudes away from anything goes who cares to a more safe and less risky behavior then that's good.right?



And I also call it like I see it. No, I'm nothing like I was when I was 19. At that time in my life I didn't care about anyone but myself. It was all about me. I changed alot. I have a family and responsibility. I have people that depend on me for support (my family) and people that depend on me for their livelihood (employees). 
Sometimes it's overwhelming but I will never walk away from this responsibility like the 19 year old me would have done. But the point I'm trying to make is that I don't judge people for their circumstances, because I've been there. Instead I help them. I'm not perfect and I know I can be an a hole as people here know. But I think in your case, you judge people while you came from the same background as them. What does it matter that you and I were not angels when we were young. It's all about being more understanding and less judgemental.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 14, 2013)

Tames D said:


> And I also call it like I see it. No, I'm nothing like I was when I was 19. At that time in my life I didn't care about anyone but myself. It was all about me. I changed alot. I have a family and responsibility. I have people that depend on me for support (my family) and people that depend on me for their livelihood (employees).
> Sometimes it's overwhelming but I will never walk away from this responsibility like the 19 year old me would have done. But the point I'm trying to make is that I don't judge people for their circumstances, because I've been there. Instead I help them. I'm not perfect and I know I can be an a hole as people here know. But I think in your case, you judge people while you came from the same background as them. What does it matter that you and I were not angels when we were young. It's all about being more understanding and less judgemental.



I'm not judging people.  I'm judging the behavior.  If we can be honest and agree sleeping around like dogs isn't the best behavior and drop this PC oh its none of my concern.  We can start to change the attitude of what's OK in society.  We start being honest and say no its not OK to have excessive partners by the time your 25.  You as a person are more valuable then some dudes tally on the bed post.  Or you don't need to sleep with new girls every night to prove your a man. Or in some places I work its expected for you to have at least one kid by 16 or something is wrong with you.  We can't change the culture if you cant even admit its a problem.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> I'm sure they'd sing a different tune should their mothers, sisters and daughters sleep with dozens of guys...



That's what I'm getting at.  I would never want my daughters to meet a guy like I was back then.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The question wasn't do you care how many the question was if they told you the number would you rather it be low or high?  If you and your husband were talking about the past and he said you know honey your number _____.  Would you rather hear 5 or 50 come out of his mouth.  Of he did give a really high number what would you think?
> 
> Don't bother answering because I really don't care anymore.



You don't care because you're unwilling to accept a different answer from your own preconception.

I know that I would rather hear "some" than "none".  My experience is that experienced partners are better in bed.  And I wouldn't care if he said a high number.  He lived for 31 years before I ever met him.  What he did then was 1) his business and 2) in the past. I do think it probably was quite a bit more than 5, but less than 50 - just like me.  And that's fine.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That's what I'm getting at.  I would never want my daughters to meet a guy like I was back then.


I wouldn't either, but getting back to the original topic, if my daughter is ever seduced by a guy like you, I would hope she knows about STDs and birth control, and doesn't feel like a used up tooth brush or chewed gum.  

You've made it clear that you think the number of sexual partners a person has had is important, and that the more sexual partners someone has had, the less desirable that person is as a mate.  All of this is fine.  I mean, this is your opinion.  

I think it's great that you're beginning to moderate your tone and return to some semblance of rational discussion.  But here's the real issue I have with your message.  You've also made it clear that you just cannot believe anyone would disagree with your opinion, even though I and several others have said so very clearly.  You have accused us of lying, of evading a direct question and of pretending to disagree with you.  But, you have yet to acknowledge that there are people in this country who just don't think sex is that big a deal.

Pregnancy is a big deal.  STDs are a big deal.  Rape is a big deal.  Treating women like used up tooth brushes is a big deal.  But sex?  Not a big deal, particularly between consenting adults.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> It does work look at the study I posted from heritage foundation about s county that started a huge don't do it campaign.  Pregnancy and teen sex rates went way down



The Heritage Foundation is not an unbiased source, and one single county is just one data point.  Also, the teen pregnancy rate has been declining pretty steadily since the 80s across the board.

Congress commissoned a study in 2007 about federally-funded abstinence-only education, and found that teens educated that way were just as likely to have sex, started having sex at the same age and had as many sexual partners as kids who were taught about birth control.  Here's an article from Fox News about it, so you don't have to worry about liberal bias:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/13/abstinence-programs-not-effective-study-finds/ 

States that rely mainly on abstinence-only education or no sex ed tend to have the highest teen pregnancy rates, but admittedly that may be due to socioeconomic factors rather than being _caused_ by the abstinence-only education.

I double-checked, and the study I was thinking of was actually about teens that take virginity pledges, who are just as likely as peers from similar backgrounds to have sex, but less likely to use contraception.  http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/  That study also found that abstinence-only programs these students get tell them that condoms don't work.


----------



## Steve (Nov 14, 2013)

Here are a few questions for you, Ballen.  It sounds like you were quite the rapscallion in your youth.  

Does your wife know you were so promiscuous?  If so, why would she marry you when you were a self described slut?  

Was your wife also a slut?  If not, all things being equal (in other words, she is the same person you fell in love with), if your wife had an equivalent sexual history as you in her youth, would you still have married her, or would she have been chewed gum?


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> So, you have a lot of respect for Kim Kardashian, Heidi Fleiss, Monica Lewinski, etc? You know, people who are only famous because of who they slept with.



My lack of respect for Kim Kardashian has nothing to do with her sexual activity (not even sure who she slept with), and entirely because she's nonsense reality-show famous for nothing.  I don't know who Heidi Fleiss is, and as for Monica Lewinski, her sin was sleeping with a married man.  Cheating is unethical because it's a betrayal of the other spouse, not because it's sex.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No I grew up made mistakes and learned from them.



Do you think you're a less desirable man now because of your past?  Because, from what you say, you're no different than the women you're judging.


----------



## WaterGal (Nov 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> I'm sure they'd sing a different tune should their mothers, sisters and daughters sleep with dozens of guys...



If my mom told me she'd gone out and slept with a dozen guys since my dad died, I'd be happy for her, as long as she was being safe and enjoyed herself.  As far as I know, she hasn't been on one date, and it's been 7 years. I wish she'd go out and try to meet someone else.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 14, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Because parents aren't/weren't.  If every parent taught their child about how/why their body is changing, what sex is, how to not get pregnant/STDs, what is consent, etc, sex ed wouldn't be necessary.  But they don't, and this stuff is absolutely vital information for every person to know.



I suspect many parents don't discuss such things in a timely manner, what ever that might be.  What time/age do you think that should be?

But you imply that a majority of parents don't discuss that with their kids, ever.  How can you be sure?  Do you and Mr. WaterGal have children of a age to discuss that; have you or Mr. WaterGal discussed it with your children?




WaterGal said:


> doesn't[/I] _work_.  Studies have shown that teens who are taught "abstinance only" have almost as much sex as teens who are taught about birth control, and are more likely to get pregnant and STDs, because they're not using protection properly.



Do the studies look at school teaching only, or also parental teaching.  Is it a failure of the method, or of the teaching?  I haven't read any of those studies, so I must admit, I don't know.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 14, 2013)

granfire said:


> the campaign did not seem to liken the kids to refuse if they did though, it's a different energy all together, much more positive IMO. Don't do it is in itself not a bad idea. But it has to be in context. You tell kids what happens - and not with the intend to gross them out, because eventually we need them to go on and have sex and kids, but here is how it work, this is what can happen. The chances of X, Y or Z are So-and-so %, meaning the failure rate is such.
> The not doing it becomes an informed choice, but no better or more socially acceptable than the alternative (hopefully equally informed and accordingly prepared).
> Sex isn't immoral.



That is a good point, and in line with your original post.  That has been a part of thinking in our western society for a long time.  If that is, you are referring to rape/sexual assault, it should not be so.  If you are referring to simply making a decision to have a lot of sex with different persons, then you have to examine the sexual mores (real or not) if the society.  These days we would not think that life style akin to say theft, robbery or other crimes.  But they once would have easily been equated.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 14, 2013)

Thread locked, pending staff review.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------

