• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nonsense. Please provide evidence for these claims. The only biological danger of promiscuity is STDs. That in itself is not something to take lightly, but don't spread myths about sex - it only serves to scare, misinform and confuse those who have little experience with it.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1579707,00.html
That info links an STD which results in cervical cancer, it's an article on the mandatory vaccination controversy for HPV in young girls.

Here's an excerpt from one source:
Having sexual intercourse with multiple partners increases the risk of pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and resulting damage to reproductive health. Other studies have shown that girls are starting to have sex at younger ages, and an earlier start to sexual intercourse often leads to multiple sexual partner behavior.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/teens/a/blhbns040205.htm

Outside of all the Medical risks, this in an in depth study by physicians on multiple partner activity - I propose that these issues TURN INTO MEDICAL ISSUES, ie. pregnancies - abortions or giving birth and mental health:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/451/27/

This link goes to a PDF (I tried to get html, but it's only in PDF - sorry) on BV where double the ratio of women who get BV had multiple partners:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...al+partners&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Factors that increase the risk of becoming infected with a sexually transmitted disease, such as genital warts include:
  • Having multiple sex partners.
http://health.msn.com/encyclopedia/healthtopics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100061497
  • (I didn't add the others becuz it lists multiple partners and that's the issue here)
  • Examples of high-risk sexual behavior include:
    • Unprotected intercourse without male or female condom use, except in a long-term, single-partner (monogamous) relationship.
    • Unprotected mouth-to-genital contact, except in a long-term monogamous relationship.
    • Early sexual activity, especially before age 18.
    • Having multiple sex partners.
    • Having a high-risk partner (one who has multiple sex partners or other risk factors).
    • Having anal sex or a partner who does, except in a long-term, single-partner (monogamous) relationship.
    • Having sex with a partner who injects or has ever injected drugs.
    • Exchange of sex (sex work) for drugs or money.
High-Risk Sexual Behavior
spacer.gif
About 15% of hepatitis C infections are transmitted through sexual intercourse. Sexual transmission of hepatitis C is not as common as transmission of hepatitis B through this route. However, high-risk sexual behavior is associated with increased risk of getting hepatitis C. Risk factors for sexual transmission of hepatitis C include:
  • Multiple sex partners
  • Prostitute use
  • Traumatic sex (inadequate vaginal lubrication may increase the risk of exposure to infected blood)
  • Sexual intercourse during menstruation
http://www.allabouthepatitisc.com/readytolearn/about/risk_factors/high_risk.jsp

There's alot of studies done on the medical dangers of multiple partner sex and it's considered "HIGH RISK" behaviour and dangerous.

To close, it's when these STD's aren't treated or detected, they do worse physical damage and sometimes cause life-threatening trouble.

But they do claim that the HPV does cause cervical cancer and that's what I was referring to - I had heard it on the news last year and was fuzzy on the details of it all; you can do your own search on HPV and see for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Hnefi

Regular Member
Jan 22, 2007
344
25
Sweden
✟15,623.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Every single one of your links and quotes actually support my point: the only biological danger of promiscuity is STDs. You don't get cancer or sterility just from having many partners, which is what your original post very strongly implied. Getting pregnant is not a biological danger; if it's a danger at all, it's a social or economical one and has nothing to do with your claim which I responded to.

You can get cancer or sterility from certain STDs, but there are effective ways to protect yourself from those STDs even while having as many partners as you like.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Every single one of your links and quotes actually support my point: the only biological danger of promiscuity is STDs. You don't get cancer or sterility just from having many partners, which is what your original post very strongly implied.

You can get cancer or sterility from certain STDs, but there are effective ways to protect yourself from those STDs even while having as many partners as you like.
*my bold emphasis added*

It didn't "very strongly" imply or state anything! If you read it again, you'll see I had added questions marks & the statements were vague & sketchy (ON PURPOSE):
Originally Posted by Nadiine
As I understand it, studies have shown that having multiple partners actually produces a certain cancer or something in females.
Also I think it lends to women becoming sterile???
*(my red emphasis added)
I vaguely remembered hearing about cervical cancer on the news and the risk multiple partners in girls presented... that was what I remembered.

And since many girls Have been and ARE harmed physically by STD's which lead to reproductive damage or cervical cancer, IT GOES TO SAY THAT ABSTINANCE WOULD KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING ALMOST EVERY TIME.

That doesn't even touch the MENTAL health issues - of girls who get pregnant having emotional crisis' - as they get abortions and have to deal with that trauma (which is documented as causing heavy depression and guilt) -

the lists are numerous, and the sources I quoted it all from ARE SECULAR.
The fact is, it's NOT healthy, it's risky. The point goes to prove that abstinance is healthier and safer both emotionally/mentally and physically.

I'd also like to make one last point, people from Ancient cultures DIDN'T HAVE THESE "PROTECTIONS" (condoms, IUD's, birth control pills, foams) that modern technology has produced to try to allow people to SIN in unwed sex.
What did THEY do 70 years ago to protect themselves from Pregnancy!???
I only know of 2 things which are natural ways... & neither are close to being failproof!

PS: maybe someone should do some research on when the rise of STD's actually started climbing. As I view the lists, it seems it started after the late 60's and kept increasing ever since. (the FREE LOVE generation).
Hmmmm. ???
 
Upvote 0

Hnefi

Regular Member
Jan 22, 2007
344
25
Sweden
✟15,623.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It didn't "VERY STRONGLY" state anything! If you read it again, you'll see I had added questions marks & the comments were vague & sketchy (ON PURPOSE).
And I didn't say you very strongly stated anything. I said your post very strongly implied that having multiple sex partners by itself leads to sterility and/or cancer.
I vaguely remembered hearing about cervical cancer and the risk multiple partners in girls presented... that was what I remembered.

And since many girls Have been and ARE harmed physically by STD's which lead to reproductive damage or cancer, IT GOES TO SAY, ABSTINANCE WOULD KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING 100% OF THE TIME.
But people can protect themselves from STDs very effectively without sticking to abstinence. A properly informed and careful man or woman can have an active sex life with many partners without running a very high risk of contracting STDs. Also, most STDs can be treated very effectively, but one must be ready to admit that one has contracted it before being able to seek treatment. People who try to be abstinent tend to have a harder time with this step than those who treat their sexuality as a natural thing to be enjoyed.

Abstinence, meanwhile, is a concept with a notoriously bad track record - it just doesn't work in practice. The sexual desire of young people is simply too strong to subdue with flimsy moral preaching and the result tends to be increased teen pregnancy and STD rates. It is much more effective to be honest and state risks and rewards of all available options and highlight the simple fact that it is up to each individual if, when, how and with whom they want to have sex.
That doesn't even touch the MENTAL health issues - of girls who get pregnant having emotional crisis' - as they get abortions and have to deal with that trauma (which is documented as causing heavy depression and guilt) -
Avoiding pregnancies is even easier than avoiding STDs. But this has nothing to do with your original claim and is a completely different discussion.
the lists are numerous, and the sources I quoted it all from ARE SECULAR.
The fact is, it's NOT healthy, it's risky. The point goes to prove that abstinance is healthier and safer both emotionally/mentally and physically.
Simply untrue. Abstinence leads to increased sexual tension, which in extreme cases can lead to sexual deviancy. Do you think it's a coincidence that so many cases of paedophilia occur in organisations where abstinence is strongly promoted? As every man knows, the longer you go without sexual release, the stronger the urge to have sex gets - and the wilder the fantasies and desires associated with it. A healthy sex life with regular intercourse (or masturbation) prevents that. I do understand that it works somewhat differently for women, though.
I'd also like to make one last point, people from Ancient cultures DIDN'T HAVE THESE "PROTECTIONS" (condoms, IUD's, birth control pills, foams) that modern technology has produced to try to allow people to SIN in open sex.
What did THEY do 70 years ago to protect themselves from Pregnancy!???
What's your point? Ancient people didn't have antibiotics either, so they died from simple things like the flu. We don't, because we have the means to protect ourselves. We must realize that our situation - in this matter and in almost every other - is different from theirs, and behave accordingly. Ancient peoples also generally didn't avoid having lots of children. Unfortunately, a lot of children died at a very young age as a consequence of that (in combination with limited resources, obviously).
I only know of 2 things which are natural ways... & neither are close to being failproof!
Neither is abstinence, in practice, because teenagers will have sex regardless of what you tell them.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And I didn't say you very strongly stated anything. I said your post very strongly implied that having multiple sex partners by itself leads to sterility and/or cancer.
oh boy - neither my statements or implications were strong at all. If that's very strong, then I'd hate to see very strong. :doh:

But people can protect themselves from STDs very effectively without sticking to abstinence. A properly informed and careful man or woman can have an active sex life with many partners without running a very high risk of contracting STDs. Also, most STDs can be treated very effectively, but one must be ready to admit that one has contracted it before being able to seek treatment. People who try to be abstinent tend to have a harder time with this step than those who treat their sexuality as a natural thing to be enjoyed.
And this is the righteous lifestyle that God promotes? That if you live that way (without having to use modern advanced technology or being treated by a Dr. when you get the STD that you'de end up Dead or seriously harmed) it brings you physical harm just by having NATURAL SEX as God designates and by His design????

Abstinence, meanwhile, is a concept with a notoriously bad track record - it just doesn't work in practice.
So now you're trying to tell me that PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE PREMARITAL SEX ARE IN DANGER? ^_^
I assure you, I'd much rather have some unfullfilled urges than to have a list of sexual partners I scored and having constant fear of pregnancy at any time, the relational pressures of breaking up after being sexually bonded together, being on the Pill (which gynocologists are speaking out on being unsafe for women in long term use), chronic guilt & feeling used or cheap... etc etc.

I lived the lifestyle you're promoting here! I had multiple partners over a span of 14 yrs., I lived with 2 of them as well.
The "fun" was only temporary, the majority of it caused me alot of emotional pain, anguish and hangups that today affect me in many ways.

So I'm not speaking out of an ignorant 'stuffy, prim & proper' position, I was a party girl; and had both serious relationships & brief ones (like 1 nite).

The sexual desire of young people is simply too strong to subdue with flimsy moral preaching and the result tends to be increased teen pregnancy and STD rates.
Had you stopped to ask WHY THE DESIRES ARE SO STRONG TODAY THAT they're 'out of self control'?
LOOK AT THE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENT we're saturated with daily!

You have kids on the web who click a link and go right to hardcore PORN, they see porn & sexual images in nearly ALL entertainment venues today,
the pop culture (britney spears, Aguillara, Madonna, and many other celebs) is OOZING w/ sexuality & inuendo.
You have 13 year old little girls at a Britney Spears concert watching her girate in see-through/skimpy outfits w/ male dancers groping her... then wonder why girls are exploring sex more aggressively. :help:

Have you wondered why the stats on girls show that a large percentage have EATING DISORDERS and body dismorphia issues???
MEDIA/ENTERTAINMENT portrays what girls should like, and it's to be rail thin with fake boobs and wear sexually suggestive clothes which then attracts the boys.
THOSE are the ones that get the attn, not the regular girls.

You're ignoring the lewd society we're in to claim that the sexual desires are beyond our self control and are naturally that overpowering. I say, FALSE!.
I say, it's not natural, it's being CREATED in an overly sexually charged environment.
THAT PLAYS A LARGE PART IN CREATING SEXUALLY OVERCHARGED PEOPLE as they view it and it has its effect.
Our culture is producing basic sex addicts that are preoccupied with it.

You're basically saying this: "since God created us with a sexual desire, then we HAVE to obey our desires becuz they exist in us naturally". We're no more in control of ourselves than an Animal in heat.
In Christianity, this is called being CARNAL and sensual - people who obey their lusts without exercising self control.

GOD'S Word says:
1Cr 7:9But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn {with passion.}

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Gal 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

The truth is, following God comes with a price; it's called DYING TO SELF to glorify God who holds man to a higher standard than staying in bondage to his own carnal lusts and natural desires.

It is much more effective to be honest and state risks and rewards of all available options and highlight the simple fact that it is up to each individual if, when, how and with whom they want to have sex.
Honest? Try TRUTH of God. Just becuz a desire exists, doesn't mean we're to follow in obeying it for gratification.

Simply untrue. Abstinence leads to increased sexual tension, which in extreme cases can lead to sexual deviancy. Do you think it's a coincidence that so many cases of paedophilia occur in organisations where abstinence is strongly promoted? As every man knows, the longer you go without sexual release, the stronger the urge to have sex gets - and the wilder the fantasies and desires associated with it. A healthy sex life with regular intercourse (or masturbation) prevents that. I do understand that it works somewhat differently for women, though.

What's your point? Ancient people didn't have antibiotics either, so they died from simple things like the flu. We don't, because we have the means to protect ourselves. We must realize that our situation - in this matter and in almost every other - is different from theirs, and behave accordingly.

Neither is abstinence, in practice, because teenagers will have sex regardless of what you tell them.

Sorry, this is all biased propaganda imo.

You're making excuses to sin based on the fact that people have natural desires.
Paul covered this, IF YOU BURN IN LUST and lack any self control & HAVE to sex w/ others, then get married & do it within God's boundaries to keep from living in sin.

Lastly, you ignore one significant fact in God's ordinance of sexual union - THE ACT MAKES THE 2 PEOPLE "ONE"... in Genesis, God ordained Adam and Eve to become ONE together.
(Mt. 19:4-6)

Anyone you have illicit sex with you're becoming "ONE" - which creates the marital unit!
You are permantently marrying in God's eyes when you have sex - that is the union. To have sex with more than one person, is to commit adultery against the first person you were ONE (married to in God's eyes) with.

1Cr 6:16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body {with her?} For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." 1Cr 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit {with Him.} 1Cr 6:18 Flee immorality. Every {other} sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 1Cr 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 1Cr 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

*prostitute/harlot Greek definition:
1) a woman who sells her body for sexual uses
a) a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain
b) any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust
(the key here is that unwed sex is already defilement, she's defiling herself FOR the specific gain - and gain absolutely includes the gaining of self gratification/ not just material payments)

And let's not forget, the women in the biblical Jewish culture were to remain VIRGINS until marriage... another example of why your promotion of unwed sex doesn't work. IF premarital sex were God's righteous design and plan, THE VIRGINITY ISSUE of Jewish women wouldn't be any issue at all - they could have sex w/ whoever they wanted.

In closing, IF AND SINCE THE SEX ACT ITSELF IS WHAT CONSTITUTES MARRIAGE IN GOD'S EYES (making them ONE unit which is the marriage covenant; binding them together until death), THEN EACH TIME A NEW PARTNER IS TAKEN ON, THEY COMMIT ADULTERY!
Hbr 13:4Marriage 1062 is to be held in honor 5093 among 1722 all 3956, and the marriage bed 2845 is to be undefiled 283; for fornicators 4205 and adulterers 3432 God 2316 will judge 2919.

Either way you look at this, your promotion of unwed sex violates scripture in several ways.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And I didn't say you very strongly stated anything. I said your post very strongly implied that having multiple sex partners by itself leads to sterility and/or cancer.

Well to be gramatically accurate, you inferred meaning into the statement. In order for meaning to be implied, it has to be intended by the speaker which they have said they did not intend. And common courtesy suggests that you should take them at their word when they said that they did not intend the meaning that you heard.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
TBH I find the objections to the analogy to be quite silly. Same for the mention of abstinence only. The person in the OP never says that they want only abstinence to be taught, just that they believe that it should be more strongly emphasized, which I entirely agree with. The fact of the matter is that in many school sex ed classes, abstinence is not portrayed as the best course of action and is not emphasized as the only 100% effective way to prevent STDs.
 
Upvote 0

Hnefi

Regular Member
Jan 22, 2007
344
25
Sweden
✟15,623.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
oh boy - neither my statements or implications were strong at all. If that's very strong, then I'd hate to see very strong. :doh:

Whether a post "strongly implies" something has nothing to do with tone, but rather with content. What you said had basically the meaning - implication - of "if you have many sexual partners, you run a high risk of getting cancer or becoming sterile regardless of STDs".
And this is the righteous lifestyle that God promotes? That if you live that way (without having to use modern advanced technology or being treated by a Dr. when you get the STD that you'de end up Dead or seriously harmed) it brings you physical harm just by having NATURAL SEX as God designates and by His design????

You might not have noticed my faith icon. For me, the issue of sex has no religious relevance. It is simply a matter of what is sensible and enjoyable. When it comes to this particular discussion, I only entered it because your original statements were rather misleading. I don't care about any moral arguments regarding sex you might have because to me, sex is amoral and solely the business of the individual. The only thing others should do is make sure the individual is properly informed.
So now you're trying to tell me that PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE PREMARITAL SEX ARE IN DANGER? ^_^
I assure you, I'd much rather have some unfullfilled urges than to have a list of sexual partners I scored and having constant fear of pregnancy at any time, the relational pressures of breaking up after being sexually bonded together, being on the Pill (which gynocologists are speaking out on being unsafe for women in long term use), chronic guilt & feeling used or cheap... etc etc.

No, at least not in the danger you're talking about. I'm saying that trying to promote abstinence will fail, because a large portion of people - particularily teenagers - will simply not adhere to strict abstinence. Therefore, it is ineffective. Now, if an individual chooses abstinence, that's really none of my business, but it should be the result of an informed choice and not misinformation about the consequences of sex.
I lived the lifestyle you're promoting here! I had multiple partners over a span of 14 yrs., I lived with 2 of them as well.
The "fun" was only temporary, the majority of it caused me alot of emotional pain, anguish and hangups that today affect me in many ways.

So I'm not speaking out of an ignorant 'stuffy, prim & proper' position, I was a party girl; and had both serious relationships & brief ones (like 1 nite).

Great, then you've experienced both sides and chose one. I'm happy for you. But that does not change that your original statement was wrong.
Had you stopped to ask WHY THE DESIRES ARE SO STRONG TODAY THAT they're 'out of self control'?
LOOK AT THE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENT we're saturated with daily!

Nonsense. The desires have always been strong. Do you really believe that the reason nuns got pregnant in medieval times was due to demonic visits? Or that the tunnels dug between the bedrooms of certain European monasteries, castles etc were used for transporting cheese?
You have kids on the web who click a link and go right to hardcore PORN, they see porn & sexual images in nearly ALL entertainment venues today,
the pop culture (britney spears, Aguillara, Madonna, and many other celebs) is OOZING w/ sexuality & inuendo.
You have 13 year old little girls at a Britney Spears concert watching her girate in see-through/skimpy outfits w/ male dancers groping her... then wonder why girls are exploring sex more aggressively. :help:

All the more reason to make sure that young people today are properly informed about sex and what it entails. Here in Sweden, one of the most sexually liberal countries you'll find today, the average age for the first sexual encounter is 17 (legal age is 15). STDs and teen pregnancies are a small problem here, and yet we are surrounded by sexual advertising and the like. The reason for this is a decent sexual education.
Have you wondered why the stats on girls show that a large percentage have EATING DISORDERS and body dismorphia issues???
MEDIA/ENTERTAINMENT portrays what girls should like, and it's to be rail thin with fake boobs and wear sexually suggestive clothes which then attracts the boys.
THOSE are the ones that get the attn, not the regular girls.

Yes, that's horrible. Something needs to be done. Spreading misinformation about sex isn't going to do it, though.
You're ignoring the lewd society we're in to claim that the sexual desires are beyond our self control and are naturally that overpowering. I say, FALSE!.
I say, it's not natural, it's being CREATED in an overly sexually charged environment.
THAT PLAYS A LARGE PART IN CREATING SEXUALLY OVERCHARGED PEOPLE as they view it and it has its effect.
Our culture is producing basic sex addicts that are preoccupied with it.

Nonsense. You are making stuff up. There have always been peeping toms, adulterers, paedophiles and the like. I have not seen any credible research that these phenomena are any more prevalent today than in ancient cities - if anything, the opposite seems to be true, though it is difficult to say.

I'm going to ignore all the religious rambling, because it's all beside the point. I challenged a specific claim you made and instead of defending it, you've started preaching. I am not interested in debating the morality of sex in relation to god, I only wished to challenge a falsehood I see repeated too many times: that having many sexual partners is automatically harmful, regardless of the STDs one might get from a one-night stand.
 
Upvote 0

Hnefi

Regular Member
Jan 22, 2007
344
25
Sweden
✟15,623.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well to be gramatically accurate, you inferred meaning into the statement. In order for meaning to be implied, it has to be intended by the speaker which they have said they did not intend. And common courtesy suggests that you should take them at their word when they said that they did not intend the meaning that you heard.
You have a point. I might have overreacted due to the rather rambling and not entirely coherent response I got.

Apologies to Nadiine, but please word yourself more carefully - I don't think my interpretation of your original statement was particularily far-fetched, so chances are similar mistakes will be made in the future.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You have a point. I might have overreacted due to the rather rambling and not entirely coherent response I got.

Apologies to Nadiine, but please word yourself more carefully - I don't think my interpretation of your original statement was particularily far-fetched, so chances are similar mistakes will be made in the future.

For the record, I saw basically the same meaning that you did in that post, but being that I'm much closer to her position than you are, I also noticed the qualifiers that she included and assumed that she did not mean that it was multiple partners that caused the disease.

But aside from that, it is undeniable fact that the more partners you have the greater the risk of contracting that, or any other STD is, regardless of wether or not you use protection. And the great danger with HPV is that is most often has no symptoms so someone who has it is not necessarily going to be being more careful about transmission.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For the record, I saw basically the same meaning that you did in that post, but being that I'm much closer to her position than you are, I also noticed the qualifiers that she included and assumed that she did not mean that it was multiple partners that caused the disease.

But aside from that, it is undeniable fact that the more partners you have the greater the risk of contracting that, or any other STD is, regardless of wether or not you use protection. And the great danger with HPV is that is most often has no symptoms so someone who has it is not necessarily going to be being more careful about transmission.
K, you guys did see an implication - but again if you read my post, it alludes to the cancer part, and then I add "or something"... to say, it causes cancer OR SOMETHING. I gave an "out" as to it possibly even being something else.

Her issue was that I emphatically made a 'very strong' implication. Adding "or something" isn't very strong, it's very WEAK and iffy.

I think you can see by my post style that I have no problem making emphatic or strong statements :p When I make one, I stand by it, and I don't make them unless I'm sure first. (then I'll gladly apologize if I was wrong)

That post was sketchy and vague using vague terminology - "I think", "or something" and ending in a question mark as if to ASK not make emphatic claim.

I was more submitting what I recall hearing on the next last year, but only remembered brief parts of it.
I have no problem that the implication was made, just the assertion that I was emphatically and wrongly passing false information which I was not.

I hope that clears this up.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I hope that clears this up.

No clearing necessary in my case. I understood what you meant from the beginning, I was just saying that the meaning that the other person took from your words was a reasonable(although ultimately wrong) conclusion, based on the actual words on the screen.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Neither is abstinence, in practice, because teenagers will have sex regardless of what you tell them.
In practice, safe sex techniques aren't totally effective either becuase first, they are not 100% effective and second, they are not always used, even by the teens that get the information. So to say that abstinence is ineffective because it isn't always done, one must also say that safe sex preactices are also not effective because they aren't always done.
 
Upvote 0

Hnefi

Regular Member
Jan 22, 2007
344
25
Sweden
✟15,623.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
In practice, safe sex techniques aren't totally effective either becuase first, they are not 100% effective and second, they are not always used, even by the teens that get the information. So to say that abstinence is ineffective because it isn't always done, one must also say that safe sex preactices are also not effective because they aren't always done.
True. But you'll note that I pointed out the limited effectiveness of abstinence specifically in response to the claim that it's 100% effective. The truth is that there is no 100% effective policy on the matter and there can never be, but complete and honest information about all alternatives is as effective as it gets.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
True. But you'll note that I pointed out the limited effectiveness of abstinence specifically in response to the claim that it's 100% effective. The truth is that there is no 100% effective policy on the matter and there can never be, but complete and honest information about all alternatives is as effective as it gets.


I think that a big part of the point in the OP is that all alternatives are not completely and honestly portrayed. Abstinence is mentioned, but if the parental attitude in the example is any indication, it's made fun of.

As for effectiveness, when practiced completely by the book, abstinence is 100% effective. The same cannot be said about any safe sex practice.
 
Upvote 0

Hnefi

Regular Member
Jan 22, 2007
344
25
Sweden
✟15,623.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think that a big part of the point in the OP is that all alternatives are not completely and honestly portrayed. Abstinence is mentioned, but if the parental attitude in the example is any indication, it's made fun of.
True enough. Regardless of what ones attitute towards sex is, it should not be ridiculed.
As for effectiveness, when practiced completely by the book, abstinence is 100% effective. The same cannot be said about any safe sex practice.
No offense, but that's an argument I most commonly hear in defense of communism. One must see to reality, not the dreamworld of perfect scenarios. Also note that it CAN be said about certain safe sex practices - penetration is far from the only option.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No offense, but that's an argument I most commonly hear in defense of communism. One must see to reality, not the dreamworld of perfect scenarios. Also note that it CAN be said about certain safe sex practices - penetration is far from the only option.

The only dreamworld scenario is one which insists on teaching only abstinence, which is nothing close to what I'm suggesting. And when I say that abstinence is 100% effective, I'm talking not as a matter of teaching policy but as a matter of the individual involved. Abstinence itself as applied to an individual is 100% effective. Teaching only about abstinence is obviously not effective in terms of solving the problem. But I do absolutely believe that it would have a positive effect on the problem if abstinence were treated much differently than it currently is.
 
Upvote 0

MewtwoX

Veteran
Dec 11, 2005
1,402
73
38
Ontario, Canada
✟17,246.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
TBH I find the objections to the analogy to be quite silly. Same for the mention of abstinence only. The person in the OP never says that they want only abstinence to be taught, just that they believe that it should be more strongly emphasized, which I entirely agree with. The fact of the matter is that in many school sex ed classes, abstinence is not portrayed as the best course of action and is not emphasized as the only 100% effective way to prevent STDs.

While it is true that Abstinence can be more effective at reducing risks of STD infection, Abstinence eductation has little effect on STD rates.

That's why they aren't emphasized in classes.

For example:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-13-abstinence-study_N.htm
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
58
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
While it is true that Abstinence can be more effective at reducing risks of STD infection, Abstinence eductation has little effect on STD rates.

That's why they aren't emphasized in classes.

For example:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-13-abstinence-study_N.htm


I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION.

I'm talking about simply presenting abstinence as what it is. The only way to be 100% safe from an STD and an attainable but not necessarily easy goal. IMO, there are a lot of kids that engage in sex largely because they are hammered with the message that not doing it is impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No clearing necessary in my case. I understood what you meant from the beginning, I was just saying that the meaning that the other person took from your words was a reasonable(although ultimately wrong) conclusion, based on the actual words on the screen.
Gotcha (agreed) - thanks chaz. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.