Guns, Smoking, Drinking, and Sex

[BCPVP]

An interesting quote from The Federalist Patriot (a conservative journal):

"[N]o big deal. By definition, that's what a 'major social norm' is: no big deal. But in fact it is a big deal—whether the grown-ups in their lives are prepared to say so or not—when kids too young to lawfully buy a pack of cigarettes are routinely engaging in sexual activity that most of them don't yet have the maturity or understanding to handle. In its potential to inflict internal damage or cause lasting pain, sex far surpasses tobacco. But while kids are warned repeatedly and stridently about the dangers of smoking, school-age sex is widely regarded as inevitable. The same people who enforce 'zero-tolerance' strictures when it comes to guns and knives push a very different message when it comes to sex: Keep it 'safe' and legal, and you'll hear no complaints from us... Shouldn't those charged with the education of teenagers be pushing back against the relentless sexualization of the culture instead of knuckling under to it? With sex bombarding them everywhere they turn, don't kids need more than ever to be taught that sex is for grown-ups?... There is something awfully sad and strange about a culture in which teenage sex is condoned so long as it is 'safe,' while teenage smoking is denounced as categorically wrong. Sex has become a mere issue of health and the law, while morality is reserved for tobacco." —Jeff Jacoby

Does he have a point? If not, why not?

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
In its potential to inflict internal damage or cause lasting pain, sex far surpasses tobacco.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fallacy. Maybe if he said unprotected sex with multiple partners I would buy it. Conservatives are so stupid when it comes to sex education. They think that if you just tell people to have sex then everybody will abstain. Sex is completely different from alcohol and tobacco because among other things, humans have a natural sex drive, whereas urges to smoke and drink are more products of societal conditioning.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting quote from The Federalist Patriot (a conservative journal):

"[N]o big deal. By definition, that's what a 'major social norm' is: no big deal. But in fact it is a big deal—whether the grown-ups in their lives are prepared to say so or not—when kids too young to lawfully buy a pack of cigarettes are routinely engaging in sexual activity that most of them don't yet have the maturity or understanding to handle. In its potential to inflict internal damage or cause lasting pain, sex far surpasses tobacco. But while kids are warned repeatedly and stridently about the dangers of smoking, school-age sex is widely regarded as inevitable. The same people who enforce 'zero-tolerance' strictures when it comes to guns and knives push a very different message when it comes to sex: Keep it 'safe' and legal, and you'll hear no complaints from us... Shouldn't those charged with the education of teenagers be pushing back against the relentless sexualization of the culture instead of knuckling under to it? With sex bombarding them everywhere they turn, don't kids need more than ever to be taught that sex is for grown-ups?... There is something awfully sad and strange about a culture in which teenage sex is condoned so long as it is 'safe,' while teenage smoking is denounced as categorically wrong. Sex has become a mere issue of health and the law, while morality is reserved for tobacco." —Jeff Jacoby

Does he have a point? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3826281&an=0&page=0# Post3826281) may help explain why his point is rather silly, IMO.

I'll never understand why the right-wing, ideology of the Über Patriot and "These Colors Don't Run" Macho Men alike, continues to fight its war on horny-ness. Someone needs to explain this to me.

[hmkpoker]

Maybe the parents should just have a healthy talk about the birds and the bees with their kids, and the government should [censored] off.

[ QUOTE ]
In its potential to inflict internal damage or cause lasting pain, sex far surpasses tobacco.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? How many people die a year from tobacco? How many people are addicted to tobacco? This statement is absolutely ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
But while kids are warned repeatedly and stridently about the dangers of smoking, school-age sex is widely regarded as inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell is wrong with this guy? You can't stop two teenagers from having sex, but you can stop a kid from buying cigarettes with age restrictions. And it's not like kid's aren't warned about pregnancy and STDs throughout their life. Since two kids that want to screw are going to do it regardless might as well tell them the safest way to do it. Telling them not to have sex, or making a law, won't help a goddamn thing.

[ QUOTE ]
The same people who enforce 'zero-tolerance' strictures when it comes to guns and knives push a very different message when it comes to sex: Keep it 'safe' and legal, and you'll hear no complaints from us

[/ QUOTE ]

This guys a [censored] lunatic. Does he actually wonder why we don't lump guns, knives and sex into one category?

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives are so stupid...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are simply brilliant making a comment like that, aren't you? It's going to immediately bring everyone around to your way of thinking, isn't it? It's just so enlightening. It certainly won't offend anyone, will it?

So, that makes you, uh, well maybe your brilliant mind can figure it out.

[ QUOTE ]
This post may help explain why his point is rather silly, IMO.

I'll never understand why the right-wing, ideology of the Über Patriot and "These Colors Don't Run" Macho Men alike, continues to fight its war on horny-ness. Someone needs to explain this to me.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lighten up. Jeeze. Mr. Clinton set himself up for ridicule. The man from Arkansas tracked pig sh*t onto the carpet in the Oval Office. He earned every damned sex joke he's ever the buttend of.

The ideology of which you speak is not a Standard followed by everyone calling themselves Conservative.

And you'll never understand the morality issue that seems to be behind a lot of folks feelings about sex. You don't want to. It goes against what you want out of life.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the parents should just have a healthy talk about the birds and the bees with their kids, and the government should [censored] off.

[/ QUOTE ]

By [censored] off, I'm assuming you mean forcibly sterilize them?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Lighten up. Jeeze. Mr. Clinton set himself up for ridicule. The man from Arkansas tracked pig sh*t onto the carpet in the Oval Office. He earned every damned sex joke he's ever the buttend of.

The ideology of which you speak is not a Standard followed by everyone calling themselves Conservative.

And you'll never understand the morality issue that seems to be behind a lot of folks feelings about sex. You don't want to. It goes against what you want out of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No comprende, Senor. I realize that's a response to my post, but it doesn't seem to address anything I said and contains a rather strange rant about President Clinton. Perhaps you intended it for someone else.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if he said unprotected sex with multiple partners I would buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think this is common?

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives are so stupid when it comes to sex education. They think that if you just tell people to have sex then everybody will abstain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since we're "so stupid", perhaps you can help me understand what you mean by these two sentences, since they don't make sense to my stupid conservative brain.

[ QUOTE ]
Sex is completely different from alcohol and tobacco because among other things, humans have a natural sex drive, whereas urges to smoke and drink are more products of societal conditioning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured "biological reasons" would be one of the first answers. On the flip side, tobacco and alcohol can be phyiscally addicting and there can be quite a lot of societal pressure to engage in either of the two (especially in the later teen years). So sex drives are natural. How does that increase/decrease the need for sex education as opposed to other possibly unhealthy activities?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the parents should just have a healthy talk about the birds and the bees with their kids, and the government should [censored] off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of all the responses, I like this one the best. It seems like the most consistent if you're not going to have the government mandate education in drinking and shooting.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What? How many people die a year from tobacco?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would venture a guess that most people who die from smoking were exposed to that hazard for a long span of time. Think of it this way: which has a greater risk smoking one cigarette or having sex with one HIV pos. person?

[ QUOTE ]
Since two kids that want to screw are going to do it regardless might as well tell them the safest way to do it. Telling them not to have sex, or making a law, won't help a goddamn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point. I can say the same thing about cigarettes. Underage kids can find a way to get them so we might as well tell kids how to do so safely, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Telling them not to have sex, or making a law, won't help a goddamn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling them not to smoke, or making a law, won't help a goddamn thing. At least, it won't if you're sending mixed messages like "you shouldn't do this, but if you're going to here's how..."

[ QUOTE ]
This guys a [censored] lunatic. Does he actually wonder why we don't lump guns, knives and sex into one category?

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell me then, oh wise one, what is the reason?

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting quote from The Federalist Patriot (a conservative journal):

"[N]o big deal. By definition, that's what a 'major social norm' is: no big deal. But in fact it is a big deal—whether the grown-ups in their lives are prepared to say so or not—when kids too young to lawfully buy a pack of cigarettes are routinely engaging in sexual activity that most of them don't yet have the maturity or understanding to handle. In its potential to inflict internal damage or cause lasting pain, sex far surpasses tobacco. But while kids are warned repeatedly and stridently about the dangers of smoking, school-age sex is widely regarded as inevitable. The same people who enforce 'zero-tolerance' strictures when it comes to guns and knives push a very different message when it comes to sex: Keep it 'safe' and legal, and you'll hear no complaints from us... Shouldn't those charged with the education of teenagers be pushing back against the relentless sexualization of the culture instead of knuckling under to it? With sex bombarding them everywhere they turn, don't kids need more than ever to be taught that sex is for grown-ups?... There is something awfully sad and strange about a culture in which teenage sex is condoned so long as it is 'safe,' while teenage smoking is denounced as categorically wrong. Sex has become a mere issue of health and the law, while morality is reserved for tobacco." —Jeff Jacoby

Does he have a point? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is my issue with it. The thing that has changed in our society is not so much that children are having sex, but that they are being more upfront about it. I personally know of family members of mine who are in their late 60's, and have been married for 50 years...due to a hushed-up, unwanted pregnancy.

Also...something that has changed is that people are getting married later in life than ever before, so the prospect of telling a child that he must abstain until marriage is no longer the difference between waiting from ages 17 to 22, but is the difference between ages 17 to 30.

Frankly, I am a 26-year-old who was raised in a very fundamental Christian environment. Despite being attractive and personable, I made the decision to wait until marriage to have sex. It is only now, after watching my brother's first marriage collapse in part because he wanted to get married only to have sex, and because I now feel like an outcast, that I regret my decision to wait.

I am putting myself at risk for flames, insults, whatever for admitting that I am still a virgin, and not because I can't get a girl. The constant drumming of "abstain, abstain" has certainly done its job...I have passed up opportunities to have sex before...but given that I spend long months without any sort of physical interaction, am consistently frustrated, feel like a freak, and generally have to constantly fight off feelings of perversion and inadequacy, I now wonder if the strategy of my upbringing was the right one.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the responses, I like this one the best. It seems like the most consistent if you're not going to have the government mandate education in drinking and shooting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why thank you /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It seems you're a conservative fellow, so while we're on the topic, I thought I'd ask the following:

Conservatives often emphasize the value of "personal responsibility." (This is one of the things I like about conservative philosophy) However, they are often the outspoken ones when it comes to social regulation (anti-drug, anti-sex, anti-abortion, pro-censorship, etc)

Is it politically inconsistent to promote the idea of accountability while supporting the removal of priviledges that we are to be held accountable for? (Americans are quick to cheerlead for freedom without realizing that with freedom comes some risk and danger.)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it politically inconsistent to promote the idea of accountability while supporting the removal of priviledges that we are to be held accountable for?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that it can be consistent if you don't go the gov't route (passing a law). But the gov't then needs to at least be neutral regarding the topic. While abortion is an exception for me (because I think most of them are murder and not "choice" and hence deserving of legislation against), things like drugs I would want the gov't to stay out of. I regret that some conservatives abandon their principals when it comes to things like that. Must just be my libertarian streak...

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
marriage is no longer the difference between waiting from ages 17 to 22, but is the difference between ages 17 to 30.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point! Never thought of that before.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I am a 26-year-old who was raised in a very fundamental Christian environment. Despite being attractive and personable, I made the decision to wait until marriage to have sex. It is only now, after watching my brother's first marriage collapse in part because he wanted to get married only to have sex, and because I now feel like an outcast, that I regret my decision to wait.

I am putting myself at risk for flames, insults, whatever for admitting that I am still a virgin, and not because I can't get a girl. The constant drumming of "abstain, abstain" has certainly done its job...I have passed up opportunities to have sex before...but given that I spend long months without any sort of physical interaction, am consistently frustrated, feel like a freak, and generally have to constantly fight off feelings of perversion and inadequacy, I now wonder if the strategy of my upbringing was the right one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm socially pretty liberal, so I guess you can imagine what my generic response would be. (Not knowing you, I won't have the audacity to suggest what you should do with your sex life)

Nevertheless, I applaud you for having the gall to post this. I think you made an excellent point, and I sincerely hope that the people who read it have the common decency NOT to flame someone for this.

[hmkpoker]

Excellent. You do conservatives some justice.

Personally I'm pro-abortion, but I can understand the conservative stance on it much moreso than censorship, drugs, and sex.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives are so stupid...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are simply brilliant making a comment like that, aren't you? It's going to immediately bring everyone around to your way of thinking, isn't it? It's just so enlightening. It certainly won't offend anyone, will it?

So, that makes you, uh, well maybe your brilliant mind can figure it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abstinence only approaches, primarily advocated by conservative, religious groups are bad ideas because they argue for extreme measures.

Saying not to have sex in order to prevent AIDS/STDs is like saying we should ban automobiles in order to prevent accident-related deaths. Sure it solves the problem, but at great costs. I realize that every time I drive in my car (have sex) I have x chance of dying (getting an STD) but I personally decide that the gains from driving my car exceed the harms of doing so. Wearing a seat belt (using a condom) and driving safely seem to be more realistic alternatives.

The only reason why this is a bad analogy is because if used properly condoms are nearly virtually certain of preventing the spread of disease whereas wearing a seat belt while driving like a maniac or being in the wrong place at the wrong time is still dangerous.

[ QUOTE ]
Nevertheless, I applaud you for having the gall to post this. I think you made an excellent point, and I sincerely hope that the people who read it have the common decency NOT to flame someone for this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Rather than gall, I'd say coffee's got a lot of guts, balls, chutzpah.

And I admire guys who stand up and say things about themselves that the stereotypical male cringes at.

nh to you both

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

I am putting myself at risk for flames, insults, whatever for admitting that I am still a virgin, and not because I can't get a girl. The constant drumming of "abstain, abstain" has certainly done its job...I have passed up opportunities to have sex before...but given that I spend long months without any sort of physical interaction, am consistently frustrated, feel like a freak, and generally have to constantly fight off feelings of perversion and inadequacy, I now wonder if the strategy of my upbringing was the right one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo...coffee.

I was a virgin up until I met my wife. It is still the safest way not to get a STD and that is irrefutable. And whether people want to admit it or not, there is something to be said for looking into your spouses eyes and knowing that they are the only one you have been with...

BTW, flame away if you feel the need.../images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Gryph

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting quote from The Federalist Patriot (a conservative journal):

"[N]o big deal. By definition, that's what a 'major social norm' is: no big deal. But in fact it is a big deal—whether the grown-ups in their lives are prepared to say so or not—when kids too young to lawfully buy a pack of cigarettes are routinely engaging in sexual activity that most of them don't yet have the maturity or understanding to handle. In its potential to inflict internal damage or cause lasting pain, sex far surpasses tobacco. But while kids are warned repeatedly and stridently about the dangers of smoking, school-age sex is widely regarded as inevitable. The same people who enforce 'zero-tolerance' strictures when it comes to guns and knives push a very different message when it comes to sex: Keep it 'safe' and legal, and you'll hear no complaints from us... Shouldn't those charged with the education of teenagers be pushing back against the relentless sexualization of the culture instead of knuckling under to it? With sex bombarding them everywhere they turn, don't kids need more than ever to be taught that sex is for grown-ups?... There is something awfully sad and strange about a culture in which teenage sex is condoned so long as it is 'safe,' while teenage smoking is denounced as categorically wrong. Sex has become a mere issue of health and the law, while morality is reserved for tobacco." —Jeff Jacoby

Does he have a point? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if he does, it has nothing to do with government.

natedogg

[RacersEdge]

No. Sex and smoking??

One is a natural human activity, the other is not.

[ QUOTE ]
Guns, Smoking, Drinking, and Sex

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's bringing the chips?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Sex and smoking??

One is a natural human activity, the other is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the cowardly way out, imo. Both are choices you can make. You can choose to have sex and you can choose to smoke.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. Sex and smoking??

One is a natural human activity, the other is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the cowardly way out, imo. Both are choices you can make. You can choose to have sex and you can choose to smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your response is more of a "cowardly way out" to be honest. You're right that they're both choices you can make, but there are important differences (and similarities, to be fair).

Here is the main difference that I see. My body tells me that I want to have sex, whether I've chosen to do it before or not. It certainly did before my first time, and it certainly does still. With smoking, I've never had any desire to try it. I never have, and I likely never will.

No matter how much you try to suppress it, kids are going to have sex. As long as it's done responsibly, I don't see any problem with that.

[BCPVP]

Guys, I understand the biological drive. But when coupled with the societal pressure to have sex, any will they might have is pretty much overriden, especially if the message they recieve from parents/teachers is "hey, as long as it's 'safe', go ahead." I think his point was, "Hey what if these kids are having sex more often because of society's willingness to excuse it?"

[ QUOTE ]
My body tells me that I want to have sex, whether I've chosen to do it before or not. It certainly did before my first time, and it certainly does still. With smoking, I've never had any desire to try it. I never have, and I likely never will.

[/ QUOTE ]
When my body tells me, "You have to piss." I don't just drop my pants and start going wherever I am, even though there is a strong biological urge to do so. Why? Because society has placed a fairly strong taboo on peeing in public. There's no push in society to excuse urinating in public, even though that's a biological urge that we all feel regardless of age or sex. My point is biological urges can be resisted if society is willing to discourage it. But if it's not or is sending mixed signals, then the biological urge will often trump societial pressure.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
When my body tells me, "You have to piss." I don't just drop my pants and start going wherever I am, even though there is a strong biological urge to do so. Why? Because society has placed a fairly strong taboo on peeing in public.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, If your a teen you should only be having sex in doors and smoking should only be done outdoors.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting quote from The Federalist Patriot (a conservative journal):

[/ QUOTE ]Uh oh.

OK, fair warning, go ahead.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a big deal ... when kids too young to lawfully buy a pack of cigarettes are routinely engaging in sexual activity that most of them don't yet have the maturity or understanding to handle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biologically speaking, humans are said to reach their sexual peak when they are teenagers. This pretty much puts to rest all idiotic arguments made by various strains of conservatism (religious nuts, uptight pols, sociopathic social commentators, et al) against teenage sex.

Them young 'uns gonna be screwing their heads off, whether folks like MMMMMM like it or not.

[jt1]

Sex with a condom is safe. If the male uses a condom that fits him, puts it on right and the woman is on the pill then sex is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% safe. So from a society point of view, I'd rather have adults telling kids how to have safe sex than ignoring the subject and just preaching abstinence.

You social conservatives: If you want to have a society where kids don't have sex then I suggest we ban sex and sex talk from all of our media outlets and criminalize the act for unmarried couples. Because in our current society where sex is everywhere, just teaching abstinence will not only be a waste of time but a waste of an opportunity to show these kids how not get an STD or an unwanted pregnancy. The fact is you can't get rid of teenage sex unless you ban sexual content in the media and criminalize pre-marital sex. And I think that is what your politicians and intellectuals know but don't have the balls to publicly say. A legitimate question to the social conservatives: Would you support them if they did come out and say it?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting quote from The Federalist Patriot (a conservative journal):

[/ QUOTE ]Uh oh.

OK, fair warning, go ahead.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a big deal ... when kids too young to lawfully buy a pack of cigarettes are routinely engaging in sexual activity that most of them don't yet have the maturity or understanding to handle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biologically speaking, humans are said to reach their sexual peak when they are teenagers. This pretty much puts to rest all idiotic arguments made by various strains of conservatism (religious nuts, uptight pols, sociopathic social commentators, et al) against teenage sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
Stop being dense, Cyrus. You know what he meant. If I say to someone, "You're not being very mature..." I'm not questioning their physical development.

And I'd love a little more elaboration on how teenagers being at a "sexual peak" invalidates any argument against all teenage sex. You don't have to go to indepth. You know, just an actual argument...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love a little more elaboration on how teenagers being at a "sexual peak" invalidates any argument against all teenage sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have to start reading more carefully. Conservatives would want, in general, teenagers to abstain sexually. I submit that this is an impossibility, in the physical sense. (And I am not going to provide evidence for this argument!)

I did not say anything about "all teenage sex", and I don't know what you mean by "all". I will simplify this further: Sexual education and guidance is a good thing; it helps teenagers orient themselves and provides them with more clarity in their choices. Those who argue against teenagers having sex ought to have their heads examined -- or learn a bit about testosterones and oestrogones.

Stopping "all" teenage sex that takes place outside "relationships" or marriage, as the likes of MMMMMM are wishing for, is literally a perversion.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives would want, in general, teenagers to abstain sexually. I submit that this is an impossibility, in the physical sense. (And I am not going to provide evidence for this argument!)

[/ QUOTE ]
With that attitude, which is shared by many, you are correct. That's my point. The attitude of permissiveness is part of the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
I did not say anything about "all teenage sex", and I don't know what you mean by "all".

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know what the meaning of the word "is" is?

[ QUOTE ]
Stopping "all" teenage sex that takes place outside "relationships" or marriage, as the likes of MMMMMM are wishing for, is literally a perversion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know who is advocating that we can possibly stop all teenage sex from occurring. I certainly am not.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Getting] teenagers to abstain sexually ... is an impossibility, in the physical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's my point. The attitude of permissiveness is part of the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I do not claim that this is a matter of "attitude" or "social policy" or "culture"! I claim that it is a physical impossibility. Just like passing legislation or having as a social custom that forbids people to pee. (What you call "permissiveness" is the social more that accepts this truth.)

And, as I said, "I am not going to provide evidence for this argument"!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But I do not claim that this is a matter of "attitude" or "social policy" or "culture"! I claim that it is a physical impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's physically impossible not to have sex until you're an adult? Surely this isn't what you're trying to say...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It's physically impossible not to have sex until you're an adult?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not talking about individuals, but, rather, of humanity. (With PVN around, I'm scared to use words such as "humanity" or "society"!)

Whilst you, or me (I'm just sayin'), could resist sexual temptation until we are inside holy matrimony (ah, not to each other, I hasten to clarify), I submit that trying to have humanity doing this is a physical impossibility.

I would NOT wager against a specific individual abstaining from sex until he is no longer a teenager -- because I'd probably lose same way I'd lose (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0929712722/103-3435710-2496666?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance) if I'd wager against a man getting woman's breasts. But I would wager serious money that sexual abstinence as conservatives idealise it has never been achieved in History, no matter how strict or religious the society was.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not talking about individuals, but, rather, of humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about "humanity". I'm talking more about American society, something I have far more control over than "humanity".

Think of it almost like "ending world poverty". A very difficult/impossible task, but if you work at it on smaller levels, you can improve it. Any conservative arguing for world-wide teenager abstinence occurring anytime soon needs their head checked.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about "humanity". I'm talking more about American society.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm with ya...


[ QUOTE ]
Any conservative arguing for world-wide teenager abstinence occurring anytime soon needs their head checked.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, MI Magree Mabout Mthat Mmost Mcertainly ! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

...Now how about that occuring in American society any time soon ?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Now how about that occuring in American society any time soon ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Soon, no. Especially not with the permissive attitude that it sounds like you as well as many others share.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now how about that occuring in American society any time soon ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Soon, no. Especially not with the permissive attitude that it sounds like you as well as many others share.

[/ QUOTE ]And the attitude of 70-80% of high schoolers in America. (okay, maybe less, but that's a pretty good representation of my high school).

[lastchance]

As an addenum: Read OOT.

[jt1]

If you don't believe that pre-marital sex is Wrong then you must believe that whoever wants to have sex should be able to have it: Let the kids, themselves, figure out how complex, painful, and rewarding sexual relationships really are. Then through experience they'll make better decisions over time. Ofcourse, since sex can be dangerous, society should be protected from this learning curve.

If you do believe that pre-marital sex is Wrong then you must believe that schools, churches and government should do whatever it can to limit the activity.

I personally don't know of any reason to believe that pre-marital sex is Wrong.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If you do believe that pre-marital sex is Wrong then you must believe that schools, churches and government should do whatever it can to limit the activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe something is wrong, then feel free to use the school YOU own and the church that YOU run in an attempt to limit it. I don't believe for one minute that you "must believe" that the government should do "whatever it can" to make everyone behave like YOU want them to.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe something is wrong, then feel free to use the school YOU own and the church that YOU run in an attempt to limit it. I don't believe for one minute that you "must believe" that the government should do "whatever it can" to make everyone behave like YOU want them to.


[/ QUOTE ]


Jesus said that it's better to gorge out your own eye then follow it into temptation. Presumbably gorging out other peoples eyes would be better for them in the long run than letting them go into temptation.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said that it's better to gorge out your own eye then follow it into temptation. Presumbably gorging out other peoples eyes would be better for them in the long run than letting them go into temptation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Invade them, convert them to christianity?

Seriously. If you want to subject yourself to a theocracy, and let someone else tell you want to do, great. Have fun.
Just don't force anyone else to join up.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously. If you want to subject yourself to a theocracy, and let someone else tell you want to do, great. Have fun.
Just don't force anyone else to join up.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my original post, at the very end, I explain where I stand. I took the opposing side in my next post to illustate the dangerous ground social conservatives tread.

Christian Conservatives, feel free to explain why I'm just engaging in old fashioned slippery slope illogic.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since two kids that want to screw are going to do it regardless might as well tell them the safest way to do it. Telling them not to have sex, or making a law, won't help a goddamn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point. I can say the same thing about cigarettes. Underage kids can find a way to get them so we might as well tell kids how to do so safely, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Telling them not to have sex, or making a law, won't help a goddamn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Telling them not to smoke, or making a law, won't help a goddamn thing. At least, it won't if you're sending mixed messages like "you shouldn't do this, but if you're going to here's how..."



[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my. Ever actually think about the crap you are posting? Safe sex is achievable with education but safe smoking is NOT. Sex is a natural urge, cigs are man-made drugs. These views are not a product of our society, these are facts. Your comparision is so far off. Your comparison about pissing anywhere is EVEN WORSE as one poster illuminated well. These are the signs of an ideologue, not a reasoner.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
You're missing the point. I can say the same thing about cigarettes. Underage kids can find a way to get them so we might as well tell kids how to do so safely, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you really post this? This was an accident, right? A weird 1 in a million thing that this statement appeared as a post in this thread under your name. I'm giving you the benefit the doubt on this one.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is biological urges can be resisted if society is willing to discourage it. But if it's not or is sending mixed signals, then the biological urge will often trump societial pressure.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit more reasonable. However, if pissing in public weren't a crime, people would be doing it. Believe me, I lived in Africa for a while and after a few months even I was pissing in the streets. Police officers piss in the street over there. And if pissing in the street was decriminalized here, in about 20 years, wherever there wasn't a toilet within 2 minutes, there'd be pissing. Go to a park even today, crime or not, people are outside pissing. Why? Because there are no toilets at the park and people can't hold it in forever. So my point is twofold, 1)to significantly reduce pre-marital sex you would have to make it a crime, enforce it, and regulate the entertainment industry and probably regulate girl/boy interactions as well. I don't think it's plausible. This is just an issue that preachers and politicians use to get people on their side.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if pissing in public weren't a crime, people would be doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree in the sense that a significant portion of society would piss in the street.

[ QUOTE ]
Believe me, I lived in Africa for a while and after a few months even I was pissing in the streets.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's all well and good but unless you haven't noticed, America is not Africa. The culture and social norms can be completely different.

[ QUOTE ]
So my point is twofold, 1)to significantly reduce pre-marital sex you would have to make it a crime, enforce it, and regulate the entertainment industry and probably regulate girl/boy interactions as well. I don't think it's plausible. This is just an issue that preachers and politicians use to get people on their side.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about pre-marital sex, I'm talking about pre-adult sex. And often pre-adult sex can be illegal (statutory rape, etc), yet that isn't stopping it.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, if pissing in public weren't a crime, people would be doing it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I disagree in the sense that a significant portion of society would piss in the street.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about my point about pissing in the park.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So my point is twofold, 1)to significantly reduce pre-marital sex you would have to make it a crime, enforce it, and regulate the entertainment industry and probably regulate girl/boy interactions as well. I don't think it's plausible. This is just an issue that preachers and politicians use to get people on their side.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not talking about pre-marital sex, I'm talking about pre-adult sex. And often pre-adult sex can be illegal (statutory rape, etc), yet that isn't stopping it.


[/ QUOTE ]



I think pre-1960's teenage sex was much more uncommon. Girls didn't want to get a reputation and so demanded marriage b4 they agreed to it. But that was during the televisions infancy. And since TV learned that sex sells, they have been pushing the envelope ever since. As Americans have gotten more used to where the envelope is, so have sexual permissiveness changed. The only solution is to regulate the entertainment industry. Good luck!

[InchoateHand]

What I don't get is why conservatives like this gentleman think society is somehow "more" sexualized now than it was in some mythical puritanical past. Thanks to the internet and drugs, humans are having less sex than ever before.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
What I don't get is why conservatives like this gentleman think society is somehow "more" sexualized now than it was in some mythical puritanical past. Thanks to the internet and drugs, humans are having less sex than ever before.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. In American history, at least, kids and non-married adults are having a lot more sex than ever before. In other cultures including Renaissance and midevil Europe then yes you are right, but not here in America.

So kids and non-married adults are having a lot more sex. The only way to reverse the trend is to pass an amendment giving congress the authority to regulate cable TV, cinema and the internet. And if you don't do that then you better start teaching these kids how to have sex safely or we'll be in STD, unwanted pregnancy central.

[InchoateHand]

[ QUOTE ]
In American history, at least, kids and non-married adults are having a lot more sex than ever before. In other cultures including Renaissance and midevil Europe then yes you are right, but not here in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Care to back that up?

I'll give you a hint though, you are wrong.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What about my point about pissing in the park.

[/ QUOTE ]
An outlier. I have already agreed that it would be impossible to extinguish all underage sex. Just as it would be impossible to extinguish all pissing in public.

[ QUOTE ]
The only solution is to regulate the entertainment industry.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. See I can make declarative statements without proof too!

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
No it's not. See I can make declarative statements without proof too!


[/ QUOTE ]

I did back my declarative statements up. I said that kids are having more sex than they did back in the 50's when pre-maritax sex was severely frowned upon and when the entertainment industry was in its infancy. I then said that as the industry exploded, it learned that sex sold. Then the 60's happened and every premise was re-thought. So by 1970 you had sex everywhere and a culture of permissiveness. How do you propose to change the culture without changing the entertainment industry? The way I see even if a charasmatic figure comes around preaching against kids having sex, there will still be the enterainment industry selling sex. Because sex will always sell.

Well, you are right. It isn't impossibe. The charismatic figure may be smart enough, charasmatic enough to accomplish it, but refusing to teach safe sex won't help matters any.



As for my statement that kids are having more sex than before, I don't have the facts to back it up. I could very well be wrong. I just remember some things I've read over the years that have led me to believe that I'm right. Feel free to list your facts. I've got nothing against learning something new.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if pissing in public weren't a crime, people would be doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no public streets or parks, you couldn't piss in public. You'd always be on someone's property, and they'd set the rules regarding where you could piss.

[mmcd]

Why are certain segments of the population so quick to categorize anything fun as being bad. They just can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that a great many people would rather spend their free time smoking, drinking, gambling, using drugs, and [censored] than reading the bible and going to church.

[BCPVP]

I'm not saying any of those are necessarily* bad. My point has been that a worthy goal for society would be to not excuse sexual behavior among minors and that that attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

*Smoking I could call "bad" if it is done enough to become addicted. I don't smoke, won't smoke, and find smoking disgusting. But I don't think smoking should be banned.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying any of those are necessarily* bad. My point has been that a worthy goal for society would be to not excuse sexual behavior among minors and that that attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who decided that 18 should be the minimum age for sexual activity? Certainly not nature. I can think of a number of "worthy goals for society". Interjecting itself into 16 year olds' sex lives isn't one of them.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Who decided that 18 should be the minimum age for sexual activity?

[/ QUOTE ]
"We" did.

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of a number of "worthy goals for society". Interjecting itself into 16 year olds' sex lives isn't one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good for you.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who decided that 18 should be the minimum age for sexual activity?

[/ QUOTE ]
"We" did.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK Big Brother.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Them young 'uns gonna be screwing their heads off, whether folks like MMMMMM like it or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Cyrus, I don't care whether they do or not. 'Tis strange that you would suppose that I do so care, though.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Stopping "all" teenage sex that takes place outside "relationships" or marriage, as the likes of MMMMMM are wishing for, is literally a perversion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not "wishing for" that, and I remain baffled at your interpretation. In that past thread, I think I wrote in essence that, if more would confine their sexual activities to relations with a single long-term partner (or no partner at all at times), that such practice would greatly reduce the transmission of AIDs and other STDs. And indeed it would, and more reliably so than condoms.

[Cyrus]

I can't waste my time trying to figure out this latest escapade of yours. FWIW, you are on record as supporting positions on teenage sex, sex outside marriage and sex outside "serious relationships" that have you, in my book, pegged as a serious, extreme prude.

You now wish to dispute that. Fine. I do not intend to engage in yet another of those MMMMMM-fests of distortion, denial and pedantry. Have at it, if you want, you're on your own.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't waste my time trying to figure out this latest escapade of yours. FWIW, you are on record as supporting positions on teenage sex, sex outside marriage and sex outside "serious relationships" that have you, in my book, pegged as a serious, extreme prude.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Your book" is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
You now wish to dispute that. Fine. I do not intend to engage in yet another of those MMMMMM-fests of distortion, denial and pedantry. Have at it, if you want, you're on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is your distorted interpretation of my position that is causing the difference of opinion. You have a great Cyrusical tendency, manifested here yet again, to "read into" things much beyond their plain meaning. I tried my best to clarify my position for you in the original thread...but the ironic thing is, that it DIDN'T NEED any clarification on its own merits--except for those who insist on reading into things things that are not there. Since however you mischaracterized my position in the present thread I felt obligated to point it out once again.