Used up Tooth brush and chewed gum...

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Both.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.
is wrong?

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]

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?