Sex - and the Single Adult

[michaeledward]

I've been watching this for a couple of days.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

It seems the United States government is spending money to promote 'Abstinence Only' education to adults ... aged 19 to 29.



First they came for the gays ... and I was not gay, so I said nothing.

 

[Lisa]

I've been watching this for a couple of days.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

It seems the United States government is spending money to promote 'Abstinence Only' education to adults ... aged 19 to 29.



First they came for the gays ... and I was not gay, so I said nothing.

I didn't know Rev. Niemoller wrote that line.

Interesting article. Somewhat a waste of money IMO. Adults will do as they wish. Focus on the children and allow them to grow up with the idea of abstinence. I would think their money would be better spent there.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

hooooookaaaaayyyyyy.....

that's just.....just.....

i don't think there's a word in the english language for what that is. if there were, it would describe what you'd feel like if you found george orwell in an adult book store....

whoah

 

[morph4me]

It would probably be easier and cheaper to subsidize single women who don't have kids Any single woman between the ages of 20 -29 who doesn't get pregnant gets a couple of grand a year.

Who are the people who come up with this stuff??

 

[Rich Parsons]

I've been watching this for a couple of days.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

It seems the United States government is spending money to promote 'Abstinence Only' education to adults ... aged 19 to 29.



First they came for the gays ... and I was not gay, so I said nothing.

Ok, so I openly admit I abstain as it is what I want at the moment.

But this, is not what I think is right. This is not where I think our moeny should be spent.

Education on Sex, and relationships and such should be where we concentrate our efforts.

To me it us just another religious idea creeping into doctrine and or law.

I abstain for many reason. The first being a partner that I find attractive. The second is not to risk health issues. But, my choice comes from education and conscious choice not someone's moral perspective of their life.

These are the same people that told a friend of mine he had to get married to a woman that was living with him. If he did not they would kick him out. Well they scheduled for a few months out for a wedding cruise. Well that was not quick enough for them. So they decided to get married sooner, and then the church told them they could not fit them in, they would have to go to a sister church. They did. He still got kicked out. Just short of three years later she wanted to move out and asked for a divorce. They were both happy until they got married. Now neither is happy.

 

[Ping898]

Yeah this whole thing pisses me off. I don't need the government telling me not to have sex until I am married, cause you know when I get a divorce I would just be a single mom anyways....And anyone that doesn't know where babies come from by 19 or 20, has bigger issues than the government can solve. I would think the money would be better spent helping to bridge the medicare or social security gap or giving some vehicle in Iraq some armor...but ya know that is just me....

 

[Xue Sheng]

So does this mean they are advocating single adults over 29 have all the sex they want???

Ok this is getting just a bit silly.

 

[Ping898]

So does this mean they are advocating single adults over 29 have all the sex they want???

Naw...just means after 29 they don't care if your have a kid outside marriage...I think they have given up on women over 29 of ever marrying...

 

[SFC JeffJ]

What a waste of our money.

 

[arnisador]

What a waste of our money.

Yup.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm so glad I just turned 30...

 

[Kacey]

Sexual activity between consenting adults is a moral issue. As a taxpayer, I have no problem with the government making information about all forms of birth control - including abstinence - and their failure rates available to all people. Choosing one form of birth control over another, when demographic data proves that is the least-used method (even if it is the most effective) shows short-sightedness and a concentration on the morality of a minority while ignoring the reality of the majority, and is a poor way to make decisions for individuals; for governments, it is idiotic... so what else is new?

 

[donna]

Here in Australia we have the opposite insanity. Our government pays mothers, married or not,( regardless of age), $4000 baby bonus per child they have. This will increase to $5000 in 2008. As you can imagine we are seeing children of 14 or 15 having babies just to get the money. Single parents are doing the same as are a lot of people in financial difficulty. It is supposed to be helping our population growth?

 

[Rich Parsons]

An article about education on Sex: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061102/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_sex

 

[michaeledward]

So, you're a single adult, and as one fellow poster put it ... the nanny state ... is encouraging you to live a less complete human existance.

What about the other side of the argument. Let's suppose you are a single adult woman, and you experience an unintended pregnancy. (as the other article states - Abstinence pledges break more easily than latex condoms). We could expect the nanny state to give accurate information, couldn't we?

Nope.

It seems that government funded (Bush administration Compassion Capital Fund) pregnancy resource centers are going to disperse 'medically dubius advice'.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3842

That's right, our government is paying ideological christian organizations to spread disinformation. If you terminate a pregnancy, you are at great risk of suicide, cancer, or psycological trauma.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Michael brings up a great point. There is a big difference in a political leader being guided by his religious faith and one who tries to make into law what he believes it's tenants are.

Jeff

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Ok, so I openly admit I abstain as it is what I want at the moment.

But this, is not what I think is right. This is not where I think our moeny should be spent.

Education on Sex, and relationships and such should be where we concentrate our efforts.

To me it us just another religious idea creeping into doctrine and or law.

I abstain for many reason. The first being a partner that I find attractive. The second is not to risk health issues. But, my choice comes from education and conscious choice not someone's moral perspective of their life.

These are the same people that told a friend of mine he had to get married to a woman that was living with him. If he did not they would kick him out. Well they scheduled for a few months out for a wedding cruise. Well that was not quick enough for them. So they decided to get married sooner, and then the church told them they could not fit them in, they would have to go to a sister church. They did. He still got kicked out. Just short of three years later she wanted to move out and asked for a divorce. They were both happy until they got married. Now neither is happy.

My abstinence is more circumstantial than by choice, but present nevertheless. And absolutely not the province to roam of any governmental or religious organization, or quasi-amalgamation of either of the two.

Dave

 

[mrhnau]

Michael brings up a great point. There is a big difference in a political leader being guided by his religious faith and one who tries to make into law what he believes it's tenants are.

Jeff

however, much of what has been formulated as law has started out as religious tenants. Like it or not, much of what we have as law is based on the judeo-christian faith (or perhaps the better phrase would be the judeo-christian synagogues/churches over the past couple of hundred years).

 

[SFC JeffJ]

however, much of what has been formulated as law has started out as religious tenants. Like it or not, much of what we have as law is based on the judeo-christian faith (or perhaps the better phrase would be the judeo-christian synagogues/churches over the past couple of hundred years).

I certainly can't disagree with you on that. I do think it needs to change though.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I believe I read once that we (the USA) were the most religiously based modern society/government on the planet. By comparison to Europe, Russia, China and Japan

I will have to look to see if I can find where I read that.