Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • get a lot of teenage weddings. Of course, they likely aren't going to fund marriage counseling and daycare for all the babies...or even education for that matter. But, for the unthinking who want or need to be told what to do, it's certainly a winning strategy since not having sex is an effective method of contraception.

    Good thing they're not Catholic as the pope issued an encyclical a few years back telling widows [ mind not widowers ] that sex with another husband was amoral. It seems like religions go

    • But not only. Advocating chastity as the only contraception method leads as well to delegitimize delivering information about sex to teenagers. That's a sure way to spread unwanted pregnancies, abortions and sexual diseases. And of course all this craze about sex being bad is just going to give another boost to an already too powerful porn industry. Not mentioning prostitution. Even Paul was saying that chastity can't be enforced on everyone.

      In most civilizations that have a rule of no-sex-before-marriage,

      • Yes, people can go too far to extremes, but consider this gem from the article: "During the last few years Planned Parenthood itself has been forced to mention abstinence as a strategy for avoiding pregnancy and disease." Oh my gosh, you mean you can avoid pregnancy and STDs by avoiding SEX? What will they think of next? I can't even imagine what kind of warped logic it takes for anyone to find it remarkable that Planned Parenthood would mention abstinence.

        There is plenty of room for middle ground. It's stupid to not teach kids about sex; it's stupid to not teach them about abstinence.

        I will teach "abstinence-only" to my child. That is, I will teach her that the only reasonable course of action is to save sex for marriage. However, she will also know a lot more about sex than most kids her age, who do get taught about sex at school (just as she will know a lot more about most things); she will be taught how sex works and that it's a wonderful thing, to be saved for marriage.

        The problem with most "abstinence-only" education is not that it doesn't work -- as this article says, it does, to some degree -- but that when it doesn't work, the consequences may be great, when the kids are not educated about sex. And my problem with educating about sex is that it is fundamentally wrong for any adult who isn't my child's parent to teach my child about sex. Say what you want about your own kids, but your filthy little mind won't be inflicting itself on her, unless you want your filthy little ass kicked. Pervert. Ha-ha only serious.

        It's not that I hate sex. It's that I don't trust other people's ideas about sex, and on this planet, the parents get to make those sorts of judgments, because they are the ones who make those sorts of judgments every day. That's what it means to be a parent. And if you think I am being unreasonable, answer this honestly: would YOU want ME teaching YOUR kids about sex? I thought not.
        • The problem with abstinence-only education is that it leads children to avoid speaking and asking questions to their parents, who (in an ideal world) should be the primary and only teachers and authorities for that kind of private and intimate thing. (And you seem to agree with me on this point. Schools are just an expedient.) And usually abstinence-only education means no education about sex at all. (At least that's how it works in the Catholic families in southern Europe.) And without family or schools, t
          • The problem with abstinence-only education is that it leads children to avoid speaking and asking questions to their parents

            Not always, no. That is dependent on the parents.

            And usually abstinence-only education means no education about sex at all.

            The fault of the parents.

            And I think we agree on this, but the problem is that I see no logical line from "the parents are shirking their responsibility" to "therefore the government should do it." It's the wrong direction. When people are not required to
        • > It's not that I hate sex. It's that I don't trust other people's
          > ideas about sex, and on this planet, the parents get to make those
          > sorts of judgments, because they are the ones who make those sorts
          > of judgments every day. That's what it means to be a parent. And
          > if you think I am being unreasonable, answer this honestly: would
          > YOU want ME teaching YOUR kids about sex? I thought not.

          The thing I find galling about the billboard is that it is exactly
          what you're complaining about:
          • I am not in favor of the billboard. However, the reason it exists, the reason why people push for such things, is out of reactionary tendencies to the last few decades of things swinging the other way. Simply saying the billboard is wrong doesn't do much, if anything, to solve the problem.