Child Summit: US, Vatican, and Several Middle Eastern Countries Demand Abstinence
 

At the Child Summit, up came the topic of Sexual Education. The US, Vatican, and several other countries demanded abstinence, which went against the views of Canada and most of Europe (there was another country, but I forgot what it was.) I guess they don't want us to explore ANY part of our bodies now, do they? ;) I think this is completely stupid. This abstinence is just a policy for Conservative Right-Wingers. What's your opinion?

Re: Child Summit: US, Vatican, and Several Middle Eastern Countries Demand Abstinence
 

I think it's a policy of conservative religious people.

Yes, I think it's completely stupid, too. Nuff said ^_^


- TyA

Re: Child Summit: US, Vatican, and Several Middle Eastern Countries Demand Abstinence
 

1. When you told me this on MSN earlier I misread that and I thought you meant preists. Ugh. They actually want people to abstain from sex? Are they just going to tell people not to have sex in SE or were they planning on a law?

2. That's basically the same as my opinion.

I don't understand, Rach; the first part of your post seems to imply that abstinence would be a good thing, but is unenforceable, but the second half says that the whole thing is silly...

I agree with the second half of Rach's post...

Damn. Can't the priests and authority just go and get rid of the whole everyone else can get it on and get married but not priests, no nooky for those holy people" and throw it out the window. And yeah, abstinence is excellent, but everybody will tell you to **** off royally if you think that people shouldn't be able to bang like crazed chimps before people to get married. Well, at least The Vatican didn't ppiss off the gay people, funny hat wearing hheads would have rolle dif they even went iinto the whole morality of homosexuality thing. Political suicide. The Vatican is essentially useless if I do so so myself. No matter what they do or say they are damned if they do and damned if they don't They serve no religious purpose and run contrary to the Bible. Abstinence I am for, Roman Catholic relativism and waffling is what I am against. You can't enforce abstinence, it is between you and God. You can' lock people up and enforce your will on them. But premarital sex is bad the whole hog. No ifs ands or buts. Damn, this is a complicated issue.

Why?

Could someone point out to me exactly what is wrong with sex, that abstinence would be the best policy?

In fact, forget it, if we continue on this line of reasoning, this topic will turn into a clone of the Sex Ed discussion in the Morality topic... If you want to see my views on this subject, go there. If you don't want to see my views on the subject, then I think you probably need to hear them the most... :D

Don't "duh" me... And I told you to ignore that post, and read the one in the Morality topic instead... :p ;)

[*phew* I think I managed to get out of having to think of a comeback there... :D]

Ah well, your answer would have applied to me as well...

Hey, get this, the town I live in has the highest teen pregnency, and chlamedia [major sp] rate in the entire county! gosh, it sure is great to live here. ....
Don't worry, I have yet to get an STD, or "knock any one up"....

:D

So you think sex should only be used for procreation and never recreation?

So you don't mind sex as long as it's safe? That's sensible.

Safe sex is basicly impossbile unless you use a trash bag for a condom or something. And STDS are asymtamatic, which sucks, and anyways who wants to go around with blisters all over their genitals*shudders* Yea....

I think you'll find that condoms make far better condoms than trash bags...

Condoms still only lower your chances of STDs, etc... They dont prevent anything fully, and anyway, phsysical contact is enough for STDs, so kinda its not really safe at all in the beginning. Ack, I find myself actualy using the stuff we had to listen to some guy talk about. Bah.

I should point out that the success rate for condoms is close to 100%. I mean really close. Closer to 100% than 99%, anyway. And no, Physical Contact can't transmit STDs, because they wouldn't be STDs then, would they? ;)

Even if its not "official" sex, they can still be transmitted. Skin contact is enough, one girl had nevere had, er, 'Official" sex and still got herpes or something. And oral contact with the sexal area can like give you mouth sores and such. It doesn't have to be "official".

Ugh, what a stupid idea. Total abstinence just wouldn't work... Any one who wants this has a screwed up way of thinking... Way too conservative... Practicing safe sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STD's is good, but total abstinence is incredibly stupid. *shakes head*

Herpes - the same virus that causes chickenpox and shingles. And I don't think many six-year-olds get chickenpox from having unprotected sex... ;)

I think that as people are going to want to go to bed together no matter what anyone says, it's better to advise and teach about the use of protection. (Or else pay the consequences - it's their own fault, after all. They're the ones that are going to have to humbly slink off to the doctors and ask for help when they get something nasty... ;) I'd say that was lesson enough. :))

Preaching abstinence is like trying to stop an entire nation from eating junk-food - while there's a small minority who don't indulge in it, the vast majority will just carry on regardless.

Condoms don't prevent the transmission of pubic mites, also known as crabs. I guess they make up the 0.05%. ;)

The success rate of condoms is quite low actually. It offers little to damn near no protection against many diseases, such as HTP, syphilis etc. The rate of sexually transmitted diseases is at an all time high, near freaking epidemic proportions. And aabout every ten percent of the time, impregnation occurs even if a condom is used. So common sense would tell us that condoms, which were invented during Lincoln's presidency, are not some magic bullet that can make premarital sex "safe"

Safer.

(pardon the spam)


- TyA

They can't make any sex entierly 'safe' but they do a good job of stopping certain STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

Likening Sex to Junk Food... Well, that's one way to look at it, I suppose... ;)

Have you skimped your research or are you just making up your statistics?

And in what way does sex suddenly become "safe" once you are married?

Sex is not really safe after yoru married, but Dan, condoms do NOT take it down to very little. There is still a decent chance that STDs and pregnancies can occur. Like I said, you'd need a trash bag to protect yourself completely. Or just not have sex;)

I'm gonna assume you were joking about using a trash bag, since they are quite obviously not even airtight...

The fact is that the Condom is the most effective method of contraception yet known, and enjoys an almost 100% success rate. That at least is a fact. STDs that can be transmitted in other ways apart from sex are excluded from the statistics, for obvious reasons...

Ah, you mean just by touching, that would explain it:fuzblink: Because thers alot of crappy STDs that are spread by touching, and its like a condom isn't like tights or something;) I understnad:o

STD - Sexually Transmitted Disease. It's obviously not an STD if it's only touching...

*sigh* This is one case Morgan where you don't take something compeltely literal. Like I said, it doesn't have to be "official" sex. In fact I know of one case where a person was misled by that (besides the person mentioned in one of my above posts). It doesn't matter that it says "sexualy", that may still cover (and often does) include touching. But I'm sure you have nothing to worry about;)