Virginity Pledge, Smirginity Pledge!
9 May 2006 by Lya Kahlo
Found here: Pandagon
Like Tbogg says, lying about sex is as American as baseball and apple pie. A quick perusal of the culture of virginity fetishism will tell you that it’s a system where there’s a great deal of incentive to lie and not really much incentive to tell the truth. After all, if you pledge to stay a virgin, you get a lot of attention and some nice jewelry and if that pledge is a lie, it’s not like anyone is going to finding out you’re fucking on the sly. But on top of that, a recent study shows that the main issue with virginity pledges is they are easily made but also easily broken.
So easily broken that according to A recent study:
“Recanting virginity pledges: The analysis also found that 52 percent of adolescent virginity pledgers in the 1995 survey disavowed the virginity pledge at the next survey a year later. Additionally, 73 percent of virginity pledgers from the first survey who subsequently reported sexual intercourse denied in the second survey that they had ever pledged.”
Again, no big surprise. Virginity pledges are a front-loaded incentive campaign without any back end enforcement. Generally speaking, if you bait someone with a bunch of goodies, you have to be able to hold them accountable for their promise when they try to weasel out of it later. Like, you know, the way credit card companies work. But there’s no real incentive to stick to the pledge once taken.Luckily, your average wingnut isn’t weighed down with common sense or willingness to look at the facts. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women of America has looked at the facts and decided they’re wrong because she have even better “facts”.
Here’s some “facts” from Concerned Women of America (read: Stepford Wives of the GOP):
This new finding by Harvard is misleading and deceptive.
Ironically, this statement that the study is misleading and deceptive is in itself a misleading and deceptive statement. The study isn’t deceptive nor is it misleading. It’s just inconvienent, which is another ball game altogether.
Here’s some more “facts”:
Those who have committed to saving sex for marriage are to be congratulated and encouraged, said Dr. Janice Crouse, CWAs Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
Even if you assume, which I most definitely do not, that there’s a good reason to wait to have sex until you get sucked into a legal contract that’s hard to get out of, this still isn’t a logical statement that Crouse is making. Her desire to congratulate the minority of people who wait until marriage to have sex doesn’t magic the rest of us back to virginity anymore than my desire to congratulate people who never picked up smoking to begin with magics the nicotine out of cigarettes.
Time for more “facts”:
This study is in direct contradiction with the trends we have been seeing in recent years both teen pregnancies and teen abortions are down, and evidence indicates these trends are related to increased abstinence among teens.
Except Abstinence wasn’t a factor in the change in the pregnancy and abortion rate, actually. Apparently, the growth in injectable hormonal birth control had a lot more to do with it, which makes sense because it’s probably the best way to prevent pregnancy without having devices around that could be seen by a parent.
But, that doesn’t stop th Stepford Wives from lying.
Lie #1:
“Those who make virginity pledges have shown greater resolve to save sex for marriage. At the same time, those who have not made a conscious decision to abstain from sex are more likely to engage in premarital sexual activity.”
In other words, girls who don’t want to wait for marriage are less resolved to wait for marriage than those who want to wait for marriage. Or, since we are discussing lying here–girls who don’t care what you think about their sex life are less likely to tell you what you want to hear than girls who are afraid you’ll think they’re sluts.
Crouse must have been a great mom if her idea of proof you’re not lying is that the lie she heard sounded better than the truth.
Lie #2:
“Abstinence education is the only effective tool for teaching young men and women the dangers of promiscuous behavior.”
Actually, darlin’, it’s the only effective way to ensure you get pregnant teens.
Ah, no wonder they don’t care that the kids taking virginity pledges are lying or will lie about it later. They have no qualms about lying themselves. The most effective programs for spreading information on the dangers of promiscious behavior have got to be the ones that dramatically slowed down the HIV transmission rate in the 80s and 90s–you know, the ones where a combination of warnings about sleeping with people you don’t know well and education about condom usage were employed? That’s not abstinence-only and it worked.*
Lie #3:
“Pre-marital sex, especially with multiple partners, greatly increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies.”
This statement is self-evidently false. The wedding ring doesn’t actually decrease your fertility and therefore has no effect whatsoever on your possibility of getting pregnant if you don’t use contraception.
cont:
“Not to mention the emotional impact of sexual intimacy.”
Not to mention my fabulous recipe for queso. CWA mentions this but has nothing to say about it, I notice. Typical conservative weasel words–an attempt to imply that you can’t love someone if you ever touch a cock, but without coming out and saying it because straightforward language increases the chance that people will realize how stupid your beliefs really are.
Lie #4:
“The Harvard report is wrong.”
Evidence to contradict the Harvard report should look something like this: “We have studies showing that kids stick to the virginity pledges because we secretly followed them with a camera to demonstrate that they do.” Or some other way to demonstrate that they have counterevidence that kids are telling the truth in the face of actual evidence that kids are lying.
So, evidence number #1 that Harvard’s report is wrong:
“I know numerous couples who have saved sex for their wedding night.”A few couples have told Crouse they waited and that means that a study showing most people don’t isn’t true. Because a few couples Crouse knows=most people in America.
Evidence #2 that the Harvard report is wrong:
“Research is clear that it is the best recipe for marital happiness and well-being.”This works in the same way that when I say, “Research shows that pink unicorns cheer people up,” means that everyone has a pet pink unicorn.
Evidence #3 that the Harvard report is wrong:
“Abstinence-until-marriage is a beautiful promise that should be encouraged and promoted.”Again, I disagree with her assertion that abstaining from sex is so great, but even if you agree, her point makes no sense. “Eating 5 servings of vegetables a day is good for you and should be promoted,” isn’t evidence that people actually eat 5 servings a day. Saying that it would be nice if it rained today won’t make it rain today.
Abstinence works and condoms work to slow down disease transmission, but both methods only work if they are used properly. Comprehensive sex education is like giving kids a seat belt and telling them to drive safe, whereas abstinence-only is like telling them to drive safe and then praying really hard they don’t get into a crash. The problem is that inconvienent studies show that prayer doesn’t work very well either.
*Which reminds me of something else that bugs the ever-living shit out of me about abstinence-only education. It’s the dictionary definition of heteronormative. Telling people to wait until marriage is a prettified way of telling gays and lesbians they can never have sex at all.
My favorite comment on the article:
“My girlfriend astutely pointed out that, psychologically, virginity pledges made by tweens are just as likely to backfire as to accomplish anything. After all, being a teenager is all about rebellion and carving out an identity for yourself that isn’t an extension of your parents’ will. What better way to do so than to break that stupid virginity pledge you made to your dad when you were twelve and didn’t have any idea what you were saying? ”
Here’s the thing, fundies and their Stepford Wives – PEOPLE WILL HAVE SEX WHETHER YOU WANT THEM TOO OR NOT. Now, I know this is painful for your pure and moral ears to hear, but the truth must be faced. People are going to get it on. Teenagers are going to get it on. So which is perferrable to you – A) a pledge given too early for the child to know what they are pledging too, and in the presence of a parent that they do not wish to disappoint that is discarded – or better yet, loopholes are found (like oral or anal sex instead of vaginal – well it’s maintains virginity, doesn’t it? Crafty kids you got there) – the instant Daddy isn’t around. Or, B) comprehensive logical education that teaches kids about the dangers along side the ways to prevent them so that they are armed with the information of how to protect themselves, instead of paying meaningless lipservice to unrealistic and childish ideals?
I know what you’re going to pick. You don’t like education, (sex, scientific or anything else non-biblical) and that’s OK. Just please teach your kids to use computers so that they don’t mess up my 2 a.m. order at McDonald’s, K?
calling comedy ringtone qaeda is alallstate ct torringtonringtones message 3585i text nokia alltelusb drive ringtone ampdringtones alley oop57777 ringtonesallerigic harrington rods to reaction3g forfree ringtones Map
9 May 2006, on 9:05 am
What’s also funny, is that teens that take these pledges are more likely to try oral sex and anal sex because, as long as it isn’t vaginal, they’re still a virgin, right?
Unfortunately, STDs are still transmitted either way because the kids are also the least likely to use any form of protection. Truly a sad state of denial.
9 May 2006, on 10:10 am
While these nitwits fret over this sort of nonsense… it has been reported that the US has the second highest incidence of infant mortality in the developed world. Where is all the outrage from the “pro life” folks?
9 May 2006, on 10:19 am
“it has been reported that the US has the second highest incidence of infant mortality in the developed world. Where is all the outrage from the “pro life” folks? ”
Well, see, you’re over estimating how Pro they are about life. See, they only care UNTIL you’re born. These were born infants, so they don’t matter anymore.
“pro-life” motto is “Once you are born, fuck you.”
9 May 2006, on 10:46 am
“Lie #4:
‘The Harvard report is wrong.’”
That part bugged me the most and I’m glad the time was taken to dismantle this well-reasoned argument. I also noticed on the CWA site that some of the “Dr.” Crouse worked for the Beverly LaHaye institute. I did a little poking around and wasn’t surprised to learn she’s married to Tim LaHaye. Great, we’ve got a power couple with one telling us good girls don’t (thereby leaving them open for unplanned preganancies, STDs, guilt over something as natural as sex, and a healthy dose of homophobia) and the other co-authoring a bunch of crappy books which are basically one protracted Pascal’s Wager argument.
9 May 2006, on 10:49 am
Franky said: “What’s also funny, is that teens that take these pledges are more likely to try oral sex and anal sex because, as long as it isn’t vaginal, they’re still a virgin, right?
Unfortunately, STDs are still transmitted either way because the kids are also the least likely to use any form of protection. Truly a sad state of denial.”
I remember a buddy of mine in high school was dating a girl who wanted to remain “abstinent.” She prescribed to the notion Franky describes. We were all surprised at the stuff this Mormon girl was willing to do with our friend until he told us that she considered anything other than vaginal intercourse to be preserving her virginity. The funny thing is, while they were having this wild sex life as teenagers(with her remaining “pure” no less), chances are she’s probably married now and bored out of her mind with nothing but the missionary.
9 May 2006, on 11:10 am
Hey Lya: That was me with the pic.
9 May 2006, on 11:22 am
Bob rocks the roof off.
9 May 2006, on 11:33 am
I appreciate that you take the time out of your day to write a blog about hating God
. Sadly, I know Christians who spend less time than you thinking about and talking about God, and I am glad that you do your research when talking about these things. I hope I am not being offensive by saying this, but most of the things that you speak of are actually good examples of why this country could use some more morality. You mention that kids who take virginity pledges turn around and have sex a year or less after they make them. Why do you think that is? Is it because of Christianity and the stupid virginity pledges, or is it because America’s culture has a tendency to push someone into a sexual relationship? When you watch tv, go on the internet, walk down the street, or go just about anywhere, you will probably see A. A scantily clad woman B. an advertisement that “sells” sex or C. T.V. shows that show no repurcussions from having sexual intercourse. These T.V. shows are probably the most note worthy, since (if I am wrong about this show me otherwise) teenage girls are much more prone to watch these shows. When it comes to the “Pro-Life” issue I totally agree that nothing seems to be coming out of that. The question once again is why? Because this country won’t allow it. For Lie #3, I believe unintended pregancies is actually right on key. When someone has pre-marital sex, I can be almost certain is not for a baby. It is for pleasure. In the end though, your right. Children should most definitly be educated about sex, not just take some virginity pledges and assume everything is ok. Yet your wrong about the fact that Christians don’t want this. I’m a Christian and I would want my kids to have sexual education. Christians who do not want their kids in sex education are making a personal choice, not a “Christan choice” based some a “Christan ideal”. There is nothing in the bible that says “You cannot teach children about sex”. In fact, The Bible is not some ANTI-SEX conditioning machine. The only thing The Bible says is that you should not have pre-martial sex, which arguably could mean that we SHOULD educate our children so that they will know exactly what pre-martial sex is.
9 May 2006, on 11:40 am
“I appreciate that you take the time out of your day to write a blog about hating God”
I appreciate that you DIDN’T take the time out of your day to read the site before saying something this ill-informed. You can’t hate what doesn’t exist. But thank you for showing us that xians lie with no guilt at all.
“Sadly, I know Christians who spend less time than you thinking about and talking about God,”
Which is why they still believe it.
“I hope I am not being offensive by saying this, but most of the things that you speak of are actually good examples of why this country could use some more morality.”
Care to expand? Care to cite SPECIFIC examples of what we say that lacks “morality”. Care to define what you consider to be “morality”? If not, I can only assume you’re a liar.
“You mention that kids who take virginity pledges turn around and have sex a year or less after they make them. Why do you think that is? Is it because of Christianity and the stupid virginity pledges, or is it because America’s culture has a tendency to push someone into a sexual relationship? When you watch tv, go on the internet, walk down the street, or go just about anywhere, you will probably see . . . . ”
Missing the point, as usual. Society reflects that which we want. They show what sells. Humans want sex. Therefore, sex sells. By denying a child the education about something they will undeniably want, you’re setting them up for failure. If these are such “moral” parents, why are they allowing them to watch dirty dirty t.v.?
“When it comes to the “Pro-Life” issue I totally agree that nothing seems to be coming out of that. The question once again is why? Because this country won’t allow it.”
And why is that? Could it be perhaps that the pro-life platform is misgynistic and the country doesn’t like that?
“Yet your wrong about the fact that Christians don’t want this. I’m a Christian and I would want my kids to have sexual education. Christians who do not want their kids in sex education are making a personal choice, not a “Christan choice” based some a “Christan ideal”.”
Then you are not the ones we’re talking to. Why is this confusing?
[snip pointless bible babbling]
9 May 2006, on 11:40 am
Nice post. I’d commented elsewhere on some earlier stuff on this (Many who pledge abstinence at risk for STDs).
Turns out Boys pledging virginity until marriage were four times more likely to have had anal sex than virgin boys who didn’t pledge. And overall, purity pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens who have remained abstinent but not as part of a pledge. All of which kind of explains why teens who pledged abstinence get STDs just as much as their non-virgin peers.
Two questions: (1) Can this be made into a selling point to the boys? Sign the pledge and increase your chances for assfucking by a factor of four! (2) Are we assuming the boys with the extra assfucking aren’t, you know, bottoms?
9 May 2006, on 12:08 pm
Zach, as Lya said, sex is a primal urge. It is a biological imperative. People want to fuck and most people like to fuck. Society does not cause sex, society responds to our desire for sex. Advertisers also push food on us, and guess what, we all need to eat as well. It isn’t the liberal media’s fault, just that food is important. So is sex. But like eating, there are safe and informed ways of having sex. What the people Lya cited wanted to do is keep people as scared and uninformed as possible so they can control them by redirecting their basic urges. When people learn to fear and mistrust themselves, it is easier to manipulate them. That is what groups like the CWA or the Beverly LaHaye Institute do.
9 May 2006, on 12:09 pm
Ron: “Two questions: (1) Can this be made into a selling point to the boys? Sign the pledge and increase your chances for assfucking by a factor of four! (2) Are we assuming the boys with the extra assfucking aren’t, you know, bottoms?”
They’re bottoms for the lord! Ramen!!
9 May 2006, on 12:13 pm
Looks like Ron’s trying to up the hits again…
Lya: Glad you liked the pic!
9 May 2006, on 12:16 pm
Are we assuming the boys with the extra assfucking aren’t, you know, bottoms?
My thought exactly. How vague, I wonder, was the question?
9 May 2006, on 12:30 pm
“I appreciate that you DIDN’T take the time out of your day to read the site before saying something this ill-informed. You can’t hate what doesn’t exist.”
Sorry, but doesn’t this contradict what your blog name is? “God is for suckers” would state that there is a God and the is for suckers. I apologize for my use of the word Hate.
“But thank you for showing us that xians lie with no guilt at all.”
Sorry. I don’t see any lies in my first statement. Misinterpretation and assumption is the error that I made. Where did you get this idea that I lie without feeling guilt?
“Which is why they still believe it.”
Actually, I know more people who actually become more solidified in their faith the more they learn about it. Also, I was just stating the fact that you spend quite a lot of time writing about God, and you even responded to my comment within minutes. Thanks
“Care to expand? Care to cite SPECIFIC examples of what we say that lacks “morality”. Care to define what you consider to be “morality”? If not, I can only assume you’re a liar.”
Again, this liar buisness! Tell you what, give me your definition of morality so I can bring forth examples. If I give you examples of what I believe to be immoral you may not think the same.
“Missing the point, as usual. Society reflects that which we want. They show what sells. Humans want sex. Therefore, sex sells. By denying a child the education about something they will undeniably want, you’re setting them up for failure.”
First, society does NOT reflect that which we want. It reflects whatever the inner desires of the Upper class are. If you don’t believe me, just take a sociology class and you will see for yourself. Your right about one thing though. Humans want sex. Yet what is the absolute purpose of sex? To make children, right? Pleasure is the only other thing derived from sex, so we play on that pleasure to sell things. I told you I agree with the idea that we should educate our children.
“If these are such “moral” parents, why are they allowing them to watch dirty dirty t.v.?”
Your just proving that T.V. is dirty, and that parents should not let their children watch it. Are you saying that T.V. is immoral? If you are, you just provided me with an example.
“And why is that? Could it be perhaps that the pro-life platform is misgynistic and the country doesn’t like that?”
The country doesn’t like losing the ability to abort the things that they created.
“Yet your wrong about the fact that Christians don’t want this. I’m a Christian and I would want my kids to have sexual education. Christians who do not want their kids in sex education are making a personal choice, not a “Christan choice” based some a “Christan ideal”.
Who are you talking to then? I’m slightly confused
“[snip pointless bible babbling]”
I didn’t snip any of your information.
9 May 2006, on 12:59 pm
“Sorry, but doesn’t this contradict what your blog name is?” I apologize for my use of the word Hate.”
So you judge a book by its cover then? That’s not exactly a solid platform to begin with, is it.
“God is for suckers” would state that there is a God and the is for suckers. ”
Interesting. I never considered that it could be misunderstood in this way. But, I didn’t pick the title. I’m not the creator of this blog. And, since you’ve already clearly categorized yourself as the “atheists just hate god” fallacy-loving type, I guess that how you would take it.
For me, that title is crystal clear – the entire notion of, the worship of, the religions of god are for suckers.
“Sorry. I don’t see any lies in my first statement. Misinterpretation and assumption is the error that I made.”
You’re right about your error, but, add to that the arrogant assumption that you statement was correct, makes it a lie.
“Where did you get this idea that I lie without feeling guilt?”
The smiley face.
“Actually, I know more people who actually become more solidified in their faith the more they learn about it. ”
Subjective. But, even it’s it’s true I bet they spend a lot of time studying only that which supports it. Not that which refutes it.
“Also, I was just stating the fact that you spend quite a lot of time writing about God, and you even responded to my comment within minutes. Thanks ”
I’m a mod. I saw it in the queue.
“Again, this liar buisness!”
I call a spade, a spade.
“Tell you what, give me your definition of morality so I can bring forth examples.”
Evasion. YOU said it, YOU provide the definition. Back up what you say. It’s not my job to form you arugment for you.
“If I give you examples of what I believe to be immoral you may not think the same.”
Maybe, maybe not.
“First, society does NOT reflect that which we want. It reflects whatever the inner desires of the Upper class are.”
BULLSHIT. Given the examples that King listed – sex and food – are you seriously trying to argue that poor people don’t want to eat or have sex?
” If you don’t believe me, just take a sociology class and you will see for yourself.’
Three years of study in college. Nice try though.
” Yet what is the absolute purpose of sex? To make children, right?”
Yep, you’re certianly a christian. No, that’s not right.
“Pleasure is the only other thing derived from sex,”
Also not right. Goodness.
“Your just proving that T.V. is dirty,”
No, I’m not. I’m mocking your assessment of television.
“and that parents should not let their children watch it.”
Parents should be paying attention to what their children watch if they don’t want their kids exposed to what offends the parents. And, some t.v. is clearly not intended for children.
” Are you saying that T.V. is immoral? If you are, you just provided me with an example. ”
T.v. is not immoral. Bitching about it while not paying attention to what your kids watch, is.
“The country doesn’t like losing the ability to abort the things that they created. ”
Thank you for showing us exactly how much you dislike women who have sex. This country doesn’t like the Forced Breeding Program you clearly support. This country doesn’t like ignorant yahoos who value potential life more than existing life. Nice try though.
“Who are you talking to then? I’m slightly confused”
Those that are against sex ed, clearly.
“I didn’t snip any of your information. ”
I didn’t say anything irrelevant.
9 May 2006, on 1:58 pm
“God is for Suckers!” means we acknowledge the existence of God and think he is for suckers? That’s… Amazing. Only someone who has never even contemplated the idea that there are other ways of looking at the world besides through the Xian lens would say something like that.
Yes, Xians! Get it through you skulls once and for all. There are people who don’t believe what you believe. Hell, aside from we atheists and agnostics, there is even a world of other religions that don’t believe what you believe: Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Neo-Pagans, Rosicrucians, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Rastifarians… It goes on an on.
So let’s remove the arrogant assumption that when someone says the word “god” they mean your Judeo-Christian sky god. They could be referring to Zeus or Odin. Or Oludmare, the prime god in Yoruban myth. Get off your high Yaweh horse.
Now that that assumption is removed, we are left with the definitions of the word “god” in English (if you have any books in your house besides the Bible — say, a dictionary, you can have fun and look this up yourself):
1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.
So we’ll take all of those meanings except the last two weird ones and say, that’s what we are talking about. Yes, one would assume that what the phrase “god is for suckers” literally means is that there is a god, and he is for suckers. But one would be an idiot to make that assumption, especially since it is clear the site is written by and for atheists.
So let’s go look up the word “atheist”:
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Well. That was easy.
“So these atheists… They don’t believe in god/gods at all. So when they say ‘God is for Suckers!’ they must mean… Oh, I get it. I’m a sucker for believing in God.”
See how much fun thinking can be when you don’t interpret everything literally?
Besides “Religion is for Suckers” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
9 May 2006, on 2:01 pm
You know how xians say that homosexuality is unnatural? Wouldn’t abstinence be unnatural if your natural mature state is one in which you can mate all year ’round?
There was a recent opinion in my local newspaper that was praising a Missouri bill to get Planned Parenthood out of sex ed in the schools.
Here’s how he closed it: “Scripture is truth.”
Suffice to say, they won’t print my reply. They never print my reply when it is a direct challenge to religion.
9 May 2006, on 2:11 pm
“Suffice to say, they won’t print my reply. They never print my reply when it is a direct challenge to religion. ”
Or a direct challenge to their willful ignorance. Notice how Zach completely ignore the links provided and instead blames t.v. for socieitial ills. If what will actually fix the problem isn’t biblical, it’s not right. Damn the evidence to the contrary.
9 May 2006, on 2:51 pm
“But like eating, there are safe and informed ways of having sex. What the people Lya cited wanted to do is keep people as scared and uninformed as possible so they can control them by redirecting their basic urges. When people learn to fear and mistrust themselves, it is easier to manipulate them. ”
Well said, King. Prezactly what I’m trying to get at. And I’m glad you said “But like eating, there are safe and informed ways of having sex”. Apparently, some dipshit trolls are trying to accuse us of promoting promiscuity rather than what we’re clearly supporting – responsibility to reality, and not some childish (and painfully prude) dreams of celibacy for all who aren’t straight married middle aged xians.
9 May 2006, on 3:29 pm
If you don’t believe me, just take a sociology class and you will see for yourself.
I took some sociology classes in college, and you are full of shit.
You should try some anthropology courses, so you can see how your religion follows the same patterns as the religions of hunter/gatherers.
9 May 2006, on 3:33 pm
Zach,
How do you get through life, being so willfully ignorant?
9 May 2006, on 4:01 pm
This was a very saddening article in regards to Dr. Janice Crouse and her ingorant statements. As for these virginity pledges this crap was tried on me when I was a teenager and still in church. I was one of two actual virgins in the youth group. I did not take the pledge and neither did the other virgin, however the non-virgins after confessing of their caranl sins all became new virgins. I was one until I was nineteen(my mother use to run a daycare out of our house and my sister and I were her helpers after school so that was enough birth control for both of us).
Zach says
The only thing The Bible says is that you should not have pre-martial sex, which arguably could mean that we SHOULD educate our children so that they will know exactly what pre-martial sex is.
When I was still a virgin I went looking to the bible for this whole ban on premarital sex stuff. I only found out that you cannot have sex with your father, mother, brother, sister, aunts uncles and so forth. I never saw the one that read thou shalt not have sex with thy girl/boyfriend. I must have missed it and the bible is full of premarital sex David did it, Soloman did it, and so too did Samson.
As a side comment I watched this program on Logo about homosexual behavior in nature. There was this part about these primates, I do not know if they where apes or monkeys that get it on all the time. Males do it with males, females with females, males with females and so on. I mention this because the xians seem to believe that we came from monkeys and apes so the next logical step is to start marrying them, banning the premarital sex these primates practice, not to mention the same sex play they do.
People are animals, sometimes intelligent but not so much in big groups. People will do what some mammals and most primates in nature do have sex wether they are married or not. People in general need to get over the whole sex is bad because as far as I see it it is just nature.
Sorry for the long post everyone.
9 May 2006, on 4:09 pm
Hey, when is the monthly GifS! oil orgy? Last time we got so tied up with hating God and praying to Satan that I only got to sleep with half the people there. Will we be sacrificing another BattleCry member again, or will we simply destroy their faith?
9 May 2006, on 4:10 pm
Oh no! Did that go out on the public GifS’s web site! Quick, delete it before the Christians figure out what we’re truly up to!!
9 May 2006, on 4:21 pm
“Or a direct challenge to their willful ignorance. Notice how Zach completely ignore the links provided and instead blames t.v. for socieitial ills. If what will actually fix the problem isn’t biblical, it’s not right. Damn the evidence to the contrary.”
Yeah. I f’ing hate that.
But as I read through the above posts, I realize something though. Zach is right when it says the Bible says not to have premarital sex. Actually, it says that a women who isn’t a virgin on her wedding night is to be stoned to death.
“Apparently, some dipshit trolls are trying to accuse us of promoting promiscuity rather than what we’re clearly supporting – responsibility to reality, and not some childish (and painfully prude) dreams of celibacy for all who aren’t straight married middle aged xians.”
You know, there was yet another letter to the editor in my local paper saying that proper sex ed promotes promescuity (which I think I spelt wrong). I sent a reply saying otherwise, and that it actually does the opposite, but it too wasn’t printed. I’ve sent at least twenty letters, and only two have been printed. Man, it feels like my journalism class where I had two of five articles printed everyone else had four of five.
9 May 2006, on 4:44 pm
P.C.: As a side comment I watched this program on Logo about homosexual behavior in nature. There was this part about these primates, I do not know if they where apes or monkeys that get it on all the time. Males do it with males, females with females, males with females and so on.
I think they might be the Bonobos, our closest genetic cousins.
Matt, don’t give up; keep sending those letters! You never know when the right one will get through…
9 May 2006, on 4:50 pm
Yes, it is the bonobo (formerly known as the pygmy chimpanzee) that you are discussing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/demonicmales.htm
According to the authors of Demonic Males, bonobos are the Barry Whites of the primate world, dedicating their lives to peace, love and, above all, sex. “Bonobos use sex for much more than making babies,” the authors note. “They have sex as a way of making friends. They have sex to calm someone who is tense. They have sex as a way to reconcile after aggression.” Like the members of some adventurous free love commune of the 1960s, bonobos have frequent homosexual sex and condone sex between adults and children. When a bonobo group meets a group of unknown bonobos, they generally mate and socialize with them rather than try to kill them.
Dolphins also have sex purely for pleasure, and also engage in homosexual sex quite frequently.
9 May 2006, on 5:41 pm
And what about these moralists in South Carolina looking to ban sex toys?
http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=85915§ion=faithvalues
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas all have laws that forbid their sale.
So not only do these Xian scum tell you when you can make love to another human being, they want to deny you the right to any pleasure from your own body, period. As the sex toy bans prove, if they could legislate against premarital sex, they would. Now tell me this is about serving the greater society. What the fuck does someone owning a vibrator have to do with ANYTHING other than that person’s private life?
Of course, the guy is a fucking Republican. The so-called party of small, uninvasive government.
9 May 2006, on 5:42 pm
I love little surveys like this. Let’s get real here for a moment though. How many young people lie about their sex lives? For that matter, how many people [period] lie about their sex lives?
Umm… would that be… damn close to EVERYONE?
No one wants to be viewed as a prude if they’re trying to be cool. And, let’s face it. When you’re a teen [especially] you better be cool or you are totally f*cked (and not in the good way). High school is just about the most elitist, vicious, spirit-crushing institution man has ever created. So, in today’s “cool” scene, if you are a virgin, you are NOT cool. And, if you admit being a virgin, you may be running the risk of having your ass kicked on a daily basis. So, OF COURSE THEY LIE ABOUT IT!
Then, there are the holy-holy types who say “Oh! Of course I AM a virgin.” 10-bucks says a whole lot of them are lying, too. They lie because they don’t want their fundie parents to kick their ass on a daily basis. They are TOTALLY lying to themselves if they think oral and anal sex isn’t “Sex.” Give me a f*cking break! Of course it’s sex! Here’s how I count it. Penile penetration = sex. Oral, anal vaginal… if there’s a penis in there, you ain’t a virgin honey. Conversely, if you stick your d*ck in someone else, you ain’t a virgin either.
Now, lesbians… I guess by my own definitions, technically, they could be virgins forever if they wanted. So, they must be the truly pure ones.
9 May 2006, on 6:25 pm
I’ve already chimed in on the abstinence-only education issue in my own newspaper. Not only did they print it, but I’m well known by the editorial staff for my, erm… “style.”
http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php/module/Issue/action/Article/article_id/3668
9 May 2006, on 7:05 pm
Really nice analysis.
I don’t see what the hang-up is about sex. It’s simply a social activity. I suppose I see things like Dr. Kinsey did – Humans are animals and animals copulate. Waiting until marriage is a bunch of bullshit; as long as contraceptives are used, there’s no reason at all to wait.
And I despise the way the religious right is trying to shoehorn abstinence-only education into public schools. It’s religious dogma, pure and simple. It also fundamentally undermines bodily sovereignty and tramples on freedom of choice.
Teens ought to be taught that sex is a normal social activity that animals engage in. And, since diseases are present, contraception is a must. That’s it. No reason to tie all this imaginary baggage to it.
9 May 2006, on 9:04 pm
FrancestheMagnificent:
I don’t see what the hang-up is about sex.
It’s a Judaic atavism from the bibble.
I’ve always maintained that the sexual taboos of Leviticus were a social device for a nomadic tribe. This also extends to the underlying current of ‘pure bloodlines’ that the Israelites had a hang-up about.
It has been observed, that health is inextricably linked to morals. & it takes no PH.D to see that promiscuity (both back then as well as now) leaves an individual open to disease. Of course, we’re in the 21st CE now, in a bustling civilization. Education should be the keynote on the subject, not some ancient taboo about virginity.
9 May 2006, on 9:09 pm
Lya:
I saw (I think it was on 60 Minutes) on a news show, where they did a piece on ‘Abstinence Now’. It was indoctrination: ‘Take this ring, give yourself to christ, be abstinent!’ The show found an 88% failure rate. Not only that, they’d stump on the negatives of contraception, propound complete lies about contraception (it doesn’t work! It doesn’t work at all! That sort of thing). AN was government funded. I say ‘was’, because it’s now defunct.
It surprises me to no end that these religious hillbillies have so much say & pull in today’s society. It shouldn’t, but it does.
9 May 2006, on 10:07 pm
Julie, totally awesome letter to the editor. The abstinence idea is complete religious bullshit. It doesn’t work, and that has been proven scientifically.
9 May 2006, on 10:20 pm
Last year PBS/POV had a show “The edcuation of Shelby Knox” where in Lubbock Tx. they went to the “abstinence-only education ” and it was a
total failure. They ended up with highest rates of STD’s, AIDS and teen pregnancies.I am not sure if this is the same show “Relucant Atheist” is refering to, but their failure rate was 85% And the “youth
pastor” also proclamed that condoms did not work to protect you from
STD’s, AIDS, or pregnancies.
9 May 2006, on 10:20 pm
Ok, huge pet peeve. Zach, there is a difference between your and you’re. Learn it.
“First, society does NOT reflect that which we want. It reflects whatever the inner desires of the Upper class are.”
Christian logic FTW!!!
10 May 2006, on 8:32 am
Pledges taken by kids who are too young to know what they’re getting into are null and void in the rest of the civilized world, except in Christian Land. That’s why we have Sunday School. The entire purpose of Sunday School and youth group is to get kids to take pledges–the whole get down on your knees, Christian Incantation to Jesus–that they don’t understand. Who does? It’s not between the child and God. It’s an act to perform in front of Mommy and Daddy, like being in a school play, so Mmmy and Daddy can feel proud. Same goes with the virginity pledge. No one believes it but stupid, stupid, Mommy and Daddy.
10 May 2006, on 8:36 am
I had to skip through the comments, because even what I was seeing as I zipped down to the bottom of the page was beginning to piss me off…
I just want to say thanks for the abstinence vs. education post. Seriously well done. I mean I am endlessly amazed at what idiots believe about sex, and the ways they choose to deal (or fail to deal) with it. My parents pretty much opted for the “You don’t tell us, we won’t ask,” approach. That worked for me, ’cause I was a clever kid that went to a progressive school that taught us all that un-godly condom wearing stuff. But I cringe to think about kids being brought up with this abstinence bullshit.
I particularly like the part where kids are unable to deal with the emotional issues. Hell, most adults are still unable to deal with their emotional issues. Married or not. What a joke.
But thanks. Good post.
10 May 2006, on 10:06 am
It’s an act to perform in front of Mommy and Daddy, like being in a school play, so Mmmy and Daddy can feel proud. Same goes with the virginity pledge. No one believes it but stupid, stupid, Mommy and Daddy.
They also do this with the D.A.R.E program. Kids are taught about all the different illegal drugs out there and they get a bumper sticker and t-shirt and since the D.A.R.E. program has been introduced into the schools in our town, you have all these people driving around with these bumper stickers saying “My kid is a graduate of D.A.R.E.” while possession of illegal drug arrests have been steadily rising.
Another example of playing mom and dad for a fool is farther back in time. I was a teenager and going to a Baptist church. I was actually raised Lutheran M.S. but my mother was trying to find herself after my grandmother died and she got us all to go to this Baptist church. I was part of the youth group and had a blast. Meetings were hosted by parents who believed their kids were so good and wholesome xian kids and talked amongst themselves about how proud they are that their kids weren’t like those awful unsaved heathen kids who ran around “whoring” and drinking, etc. Well…on the way to and from youth meetings we would pile in cars and whoop it up…the drivers driving like maniacs. Then we would get to the house where the meeting was being held and pretend to be good little servants for the lawd….then some would sneak off to their cars with their girlfriends/boyfriends and steam up the windows. There were several girls of that church who got pregnant in those two years. Some kids would bring flasks to youth meetings and get drunk and act all crazy and the parents thought they were oh,so funny. So, when I hear people say how “good” their kids are because they belong to such a “wholesome” church group, I am thinking how naiive that parent really is.
10 May 2006, on 11:14 am
A political cartoon that sum all this up nicely:
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=7275
I saw another one a while back. It was four frames of a teenaged girl.
Basically , she talked about how sex ed shouldn’t be in schools but the bible should be etc etc. The last frame showed her whole body. She’s very pregnant and the caption reads: “at least, that’s what I want for my kid.”
That sums it up nice I tired googling for it. Can’t find it.
10 May 2006, on 2:19 pm
First of all, I will admit I did not read everything, and there is no need to insult me on this because i’m only attempting to explain my point of view, not disprove or prove anything. A person can be “pro-life” without being religious. The idea that it is okay to decide what life we allow and don’t allow frightens me in terms of its future implications for our society more than for moral reasons. If we decide that a fetus is alive, but that it is okay for a woman to decide that she does not want it… then where do we draw the line later? What happens to the elderly or the handicapped in a society where human life becomes negotiable? where productivity becomes the main focus? i dont know about you, but when i’m elderly i dont want to have to worry about being eradicated because i’m no longer considered useful and my life is unimportant. For me it is more about what is at the base of these issues, and to me, it is the value of human life.. and when we scientifically create new life or eradicate it and then decide that’s alright… that presents certain ideas that live on, and which to me (and maybe only to me) seems to be that life is important only when its considered “useful” and that bothers me. and not just on a christian level.And one reason people advocate abstinence is to keep from having high infant mortality rates. That just seems obvious to me… if you only have sex when you are in an economic and emotional state to have a child, then the baby should live to be a healthy person unless disease or some other unfortunate circumstance happens. Perhaps it is true that some pro-life advocates are not concerned with this mortality rate, but people should not assume that being prolife has no basis in just simple reasoning and only in religion.
Furthermore, not all Christians neglect science or history, some of them (like myself) are very open to hearing scientific or historical evidence supporting OR NEGATING our beliefs, I would rather not believe blindly in something that has no basis… and please don’t respond by saying that it has no basis unless you can show me that it isnt real anymore than i can show you that it is. Also not all christians force their beliefs on politics (i dont know if anyone here believes this, i would just like to mention that). I do not care if gay people marry or adopt children or things like that. My motto is live and let live… so i’m not sure why some christians and some atheists feel the need to be so insulting to people on the other side.
I’m not trying to be insulting, I have no more right to insult you for your thoughts than you do for mine, so i dont understand why some of these posts have to be so defensive and rude. an effective argument can be made on reason alone and can disregard hurt feelings or an attempt for insult.
10 May 2006, on 2:34 pm
“First of all, I will admit I did not read everything, and there is no need to insult me on this because i’m only attempting to explain my point of view, not disprove or prove anything.”
Honesty is always the best policy. Those who get insulted are those who lie.
“A person can be “pro-life” without being religious.”
Who said they can’t? There’s a well known internet atheist who is very pro-life.
“The idea that it is okay to decide what life we allow and don’t allow frightens me in terms of its future implications for our society more than for moral reasons.”
What about lowering the status of living people to beneath that of non-existant people? That scares me a hell of a lot more.
“If we decide that a fetus is alive, but that it is okay for a woman to decide that she does not want it… then where do we draw the line later?”
That’s absurd and you know it. Murder laws already exist.
“What happens to the elderly or the handicapped in a society where human life becomes negotiable?”
Irrelevant to the discussion about abortion. But while we’re on the subject, did you think Terri Schiavo should have been kept like she was?
“ where productivity becomes the main focus?”
Strawman. “Productivity” has nothing to do with being pro-choice.
“i dont know about you, but when i’m elderly i dont want to have to worry about being eradicated because i’m no longer considered useful and my life is unimportant.”
What does this have to do with abortion?
“that presents certain ideas that live on, and which to me (and maybe only to me) seems to be that life is important only when its considered “useful” and that bothers me.”
Srawman.
“And one reason people advocate abstinence is to keep from having high infant mortality rates. That just seems obvious to me”
It’s obvious you’re not paying attention. Infant Mortality rates in the US second highest in developed world but since you’re clearly pro-life are you trying to suggest that abortion is equal to infanticide?
“ Perhaps it is true that some pro-life advocates are not concerned with this mortality rate, but people should not assume that being prolife has no basis in just simple reasoning and only in religion.”
Strawman. No one did. We’re talking about xians here because the story is about purity pledges.
“Furthermore, not all Christians neglect science or history, some of them (like myself) are very open to hearing scientific or historical evidence supporting OR NEGATING our beliefs, I would rather not believe blindly in something that has no basis…”
SO you’re religious why? And again, strawman. No one said they were mutually exclusive.
“and please don’t respond by saying that it has no basis unless you can show me that it isnt real anymore than i can show you that it is.”
Sure right after you prove to me that there isn’t a million dollars buried in my back yard. The onus is on YOU as the believer to prove it. Not on us.
“ I do not care if gay people marry or adopt children or things like that. My motto is live and let live”
Then you are not the type we are talking about.
“so i’m not sure why some christians and some atheists feel the need to be so insulting to people on the other side.”
haven’t been online long, have you.
“ so i dont understand why some of these posts have to be so defensive and rude.”
Obvisously. You clearly admitted you haven’t read everything here, so of course you don’t understand.
“an effective argument can be made on reason alone and can disregard hurt feelings or an attempt for insult.”
Definitely.
10 May 2006, on 2:40 pm
Also I would like to add, as a virgin, I would not make a virginity pledge to anyone except to myself, and I make that pledge because I have been educated about the dangers of STDs and teen pregnancy as well as the fact that i disapprove of being used by someone for sex. I do not use my virginity to try to obtain things from people or to manipulate them, I use it simply as a means of respecting myself and understanding that if someone else respects me, they will wait until I am ready. Also, even with all this research, no one can deny that the best way to prevent STDS, pregnancy, and the emotional issues that can follow sex is to remain abstinent. I understand that making virginity pledges and with no information about sex is silly and to expect it to be a reliable way of maintaining virginity is ridiculous, but to slander someone for making a personal pledge is strange to me. People make new years resolutions and break them all the time, the point is they are trying to do something for themselves that they believe is good for them. Yes, sex is healthy and natural and it is a part of life, but i do not understand (and maybe that is just ignorance on my part) how anyone can argue against abstinence until a person is ready, which to me is what these pledges are about. I can understand that the idea that they are to remain virgins untill marriage based on uneducated religious belief is ridiculous, but this article seems to suggest much more than that and borders on insult, which is no way to make a valid, serious argument.
10 May 2006, on 2:45 pm
“as well as the fact that i disapprove of being used by someone for sex.”
UP until this point I was fully with you. This part though, leads me to a question – are you talking about any sex berfore marriage, or just one night stand type sex? Exactly when is someone “used” by someone else in your opinion?
“ Also, even with all this research, no one can deny that the best way to prevent STDS, pregnancy, and the emotional issues that can follow sex is to remain abstinent.”
No one did deny it.
“but to slander someone for making a personal pledge is strange to me.”
I think you mean libel, and no one did.
“Yes, sex is healthy and natural and it is a part of life, but i do not understand (and maybe that is just ignorance on my part) how anyone can argue against abstinence until a person is ready, which to me is what these pledges are about.”
I can’t understand how you think that’s what we’re arguing against. How on earth did you get the impression that we think kids should be out doing it any and all times they can?
“but this article seems to suggest much more than that and borders on insult, which is no way to make a valid, serious argument. “
The only insult to be had is by those who wish to be insulted.
10 May 2006, on 3:13 pm
obviously you have misunderstood my first post or are attempting to make my argument look unintelligent by picking and choosing lines of it to disregard. That is a clever way of making a point, but not exactly the most honest or valid way – especially for someone who seems to like to point out deceptiveness. i even explained that the reason i have a problem with abortion is because of the ideas it seems to advocate, but you conveniently left that part out of your little rebuttle. That is exactly what the elderly and handicapped have to do with abortion – the fact that if ideas about human life being unimportant are allowed to stand, then what is to stop society from going farther? and of course there are murder laws, but we still have a death penalty – so obviously the law can be swayed for certain reasons when it is deemed appropriate. And I am not suggesting I have or don’t have a problem with the death penalty, I am just using that as an example. In response to your question about Schaivo… I dont claim to know everything that is right or wrong. Her family made the choice based on the fact that medical experts believed she was not going to ever be a mentally functioning person again. And do not try to catch me and say “what about a fetus.. it is not mentally functioning” because by having an abortion, you are disallowing it from ever becoming a mentally capable human being. Maybe if you could prove it would not become one ever, that would be a whole new argument and i would not know what to tell you then because as i said, i dont claim to know all that is morally right or wrong in the world. And actually, it seems to me that now i do understand why people are being defensive and rude, because the responses are. If i am defensive in this post, it is because you picked apart my argument but failed to respond to the argument. You went line by line and disregarded what it actually meant. And the reason i talked about abortion and related topics was not because of the main article, but because other people posted about it and i was responding to them. and a person can be a christian and still be a reasonable, educated person. The fact that you replied “SO you’re religious why?” seems to suggest you don’t believe that. I am a Christian for a lot of reasons which are personal, but that does not mean that i disregard evidence people present me to suggest it is untrue. and when i asked for you not to suggest it is untrue unless you can prove it, i also mentioned that i would not expect you to believe it is true unless i could do the same. that was intended to be respectful, but apparently you lack the ability to do the same in your attempted rebuttles. Your rebuttles would only “fly” in an atmosphere where everyone believes the same thing as you and and everyone wants to just go along and support your views because you fail to really address the issue. I’m disappointed, I thought I might actually be involved in something intellectual, but apparently, it is still only personal. Maybe i’ll go find a forum where people want to address the real issues instead of attemption to twist words and then claim other people deceptive. And as a closing statement – in response to what you suggested about my not reading carefully because we have the 2nd highest infant mortality rate… do you think that would occur if mature, economically well-off people were the parents of those babies? That was the only point i made about that. That abstinence or proper protection would help that problem. When people who have not the means or maturity to take care of a child give birth to one and try to keep it, that is dangerous for the child. and the fact is, most americans belong to the lower middle class and below – meaning that those people probably should not have 8 children and then wonder why they die. The problem comes from the government and from people’s uneducated or irresponsible choices about sex. That was the only point i ever attempted to make, but somehow you think I wasnt reading carefully, but maybe it is you who aren’t. or perhaps you would rather just read things into my argument that are not there. and i admit i had done that apparently for some of the statements made above, but in general i think you are mistaken about my claims. where i can concede to my faults, it seems you are unable to do the same. good luck with your one-sided attempt at debate, i’m off to find someone who knows how to look at a situation from both sides.
10 May 2006, on 3:17 pm
Audrey said:
The idea that it is okay to decide what life we allow and don’t allow frightens me in terms of its future implications for our society more than for moral reasons.
We decide what life continues and what life dies all the time. Do you eat meat? Yes, I just went and compared a human fetus to an animal. Now everybody feel free to freak out.
I don’t support late-term abortions unless there is a health issue involved. But we as a society have to come to grips with the fact that just because a fetus looks like we do, doesn’t mean it is any more developed than your dog. When does consciousness begin? Good question and one worth pursuing well into the future. In the meantime, I don’t remember being a fetus, do you?
Humans have always aborted, naturally and through artificial means. And they always will.
10 May 2006, on 3:18 pm
you disappointed me less with the response to the second post. congratulations. but i never suggested that you thought teens should beout doing it all the time. What i meant by being used, is that it is easier to know a person is in a relationship for you and not for sex, if sex is not on the table. It is also easy, even in a relationship- not just a one night stand- for a person to be used for sex. I have been in that situation myself, where i dated a person who after a few months of my no sex policy admitted that was all he was ever interested in and he thought he could change my mind. I have guy friends who have admitted staying with their girlfriends just because they have sex with them. I do not mean to suggest all men or women are like that, i do not believe that. I just mean it is easier to be aware of the reasons a person is with you, if you take the aspects that could be shady out of the picture, at least until you know you can trust them.
10 May 2006, on 3:49 pm
Ashley, I hope you decide to return to continue our discussion. I’m normally extra smart-aleck around here, but this time I think your response is pretty understandable. I believe you’re presenting arguments that you have come up with in a thoughtful way, and that’s very refreshing coming from a Christian around these parts.
However, your main argument of “the fact that if ideas about human life being unimportant are allowed to stand, then what is to stop society from going farther” is somewhat spacious. Nobody has suggested that life is unimportant.
Others will chime in here very quickly, but I thought I’d at least encourage you to continue the discussion.
10 May 2006, on 3:56 pm
Audrey:
The idea that it is okay to decide what life we allow and don’t allow frightens me in terms of its future implications for our society more than for moral reasons.
Ye old slippery slope – watch your balance there.
Well, first & foremost, the issue here is, as I see it, when is the child a person? Judaic tradition maintains that the baby isn’t a person until the head emerges. Also, I recall seeing a pretty good post here that vanished (maybe I’m just dense) that addressed the fact that the fetus has no rights in accordance w/the 14th amendment. Most cultures (from what little I know) don’t consider the baby a person until birth.
For the record, I am both pro-choice & pro-life. The woman comes 1st.
10 May 2006, on 4:31 pm
Audrey,
I completely agree with you that when to have sex for the first time is totally up to the individual and any pledge made to that effect should be to him- or herself.
You seem to be saying as well that virginity is not that important except as a personal choice to keep it until one decides the time is right, which I also agree with.
However, I thought that the point the post was making, which I agree with as well, is that xian virginity pledges, which are public at least to a certain extent, do not adequately address the issue of teens having sex at ever younger ages without sufficient knowledge and protection and the subsequent consequences. I didn’t see anywhere in the article where it said that personal pledges or decisions to be celibate were not to be encouraged (but maybe I missed it); in fact, one commenter shared his choice to remain a virgin and others have referred to the dangers of promiscuity.
In regards to abortion, I don’t even address the scientific issue of whether the fetus is a person or not, because many people who are religious will still believe it has a soul even if the evidence comes down definitively that it doesn’t even have a consciousness. The reason I believe that abortion should remain a safe, legal, open option for all women who choose it is because ultimately it concerns their bodies and their bodies only.
Whether a fetus is a person or not, it was conceived inside my body; two-thirds of its DNA comes from my body; my body contains and shelters it; for much of its development it cannot survive outside my body if removed; my body sustains and feeds it; if I carry it to term, my body gives birth to it; and if I keep the child and decide to breast-feed it, my body nourishes it. To all intents and purposes it is a part of my body; you can’t get at or to it to either protect or harm it without going through my body.
It would be a moot point if we could remove unwanted fetuses from women’s bodies without interfering with their bodies in any way at the same time safely sustaining those fetuses – but we can’t. We can’t even guarantee a child’s chances of survival after a premature birth, although science has made tremendous advances in that area. We can argue about women’s responsibility to avoid pregnancy ad infinitem, but it won’t change the biological, physiological fact that pregnancy and birth take place in women’s bodies.
That’s why I for one believe that abortion should remain on the books as a safe, legal, accessible medical option. Where I personally think all our efforts should go is into what Lya says in her post: well-presented comprehensive sex education and reliable, available, accessible contraception and from what you write, I think you agree with me on this last point.
10 May 2006, on 4:37 pm
Holy crap, Audrey, you need to take a class in formatting or something- that was nigh impossible to read!
10 May 2006, on 5:38 pm
When I was in highschool I had a job at a grocery store. I was walking with this gentleman, he was about 70 years old to put his stuff in his car for him. Around this time in Florida a huge deal was being made wether or not an abusive boyfriend could be charged with murder because he caused his girlfriend, 4 months pregnant to miscarry. The elderly man was talking about this to me and said that if the fetus is deemed human and the boyfriend is tried and convicted, he would go down to the Social Security office and demand nine months of back pay for being a human in his mothers womb.
To abstain from sex until you are ready is commendable Ashley and as you have stated you know about sex,stds,and the use of protection.
The trouble comes when abstinence is the only thing taught in schools.
Teenagers are not stupid but they are inherently naive and prone to make rash decisions because they can’t see or know the consequences of their actions.
10 May 2006, on 6:04 pm
Audrey, Eve does a great job of addressing a lot of the issues about Lya’s original post that you seem to have missed. Like Lya, I think that honesty is the best policy and I’m glad you admit you haven’t read the entirety of this thread. Whether or not that includes the full text of the original post, I can’t say, although I’d guess you haven’t. As far as taking offense at the way your comments were addressed, I think you need to put things in perspective. The points Lya was responding to were ones which suggest you hadn’t read the original post. Instead they seem to tell us that you read the title, took offense because you thought someone was making fun of those who decide to retain their virginity, and then got upset because the entirety of your initial response wasn’t addressed to your liking. I would suggest that in the future you make sure what you’re questioning hasn’t already been discussed and if it has, be ready for a little frustration in the reply from the author of the post.
10 May 2006, on 6:52 pm
Eve: Do you plan on running for public office? We need you in Congress.
11 May 2006, on 7:33 am
“obviously you have misunderstood my first post or are attempting to make my argument look unintelligent by picking and choosing lines of it to disregard.”
That is dishonest and you know it. I went point by point. Anything omitted was already dealt with.
“That is a clever way of making a point, but not exactly the most honest or valid way – especially for someone who seems to like to point out deceptiveness.”
AH, I see, so you’ve decided what constitutes acceptable behavior and are now going to preach to me what should be done by not doing it?
“i even explained that the reason i have a problem with abortion is because of the ideas it seems to advocate, but you conveniently left that part out of your little rebuttle.”
Liar.
“That is exactly what the elderly and handicapped have to do with abortion – the fact that if ideas about human life being unimportant are allowed to stand, then what is to stop society from going farther?”
Where did anyone say life is unimportant? Where has anyone advocated hurting the elderly or the handicapped. STRAWMAN.
” but we still have a death penalty – so obviously the law can be swayed for certain reasons when it is deemed appropriate.”
WTF does this have to do with anything?
“And do not try to catch me and say “what about a fetus.. it is not mentally functioning” because by having an abortion, you are disallowing it from ever becoming a mentally capable human being.”
It’s estimated that upward of 70% of pregnancies end in misscarrages without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. Is she a murderer? If a woman who knows she’s pregnant miscarries, is she a murderer?
” And actually, it seems to me that now i do understand why people are being defensive and rude, because the responses are.”
Dishonest. I didn’t insult you at all. I debunked your crap arguments, but what did you expect to happen. You’re just upset because you didn’t wow us with your crap.
“If i am defensive in this post, it is because you picked apart my argument but failed to respond to the argument. You went line by line and disregarded what it actually meant.”
Dishonest. If I went line by line why did you accuse me at the start of omitting things? Make up your mind. And, I answered with what it sounded like you meant. You’re wasting this post to lie and whine instead of answering me. I asked you to clarify when people are used, you didn’t answer. I asked you several questions which you have not answered. You are flat out lying now.
“The fact that you replied “SO you’re religious why?” seems to suggest you don’t believe that.”
Actually, that was just for a little laugh. I clearly stated elsewhere that I agreed.
“and when i asked for you not to suggest it is untrue unless you can prove it, i also mentioned that i would not expect you to believe it is true unless i could do the same. that was intended to be respectful, but apparently you lack the ability to do the same in your attempted rebuttles.”
Whine, whine, whine. I said nothing disrespectful. You can’t respond, or don’t understand so you lash out. This is something we see all the time. The point was, since you clearly missed it, is that the responsibility to prove it is on you, not me, as you are the one making the positive statement “god exists”.
“Your rebuttles would only “fly” in an atmosphere where everyone believes the same thing as you and and everyone wants to just go along and support your views because you fail to really address the issue.”
Dishonest. It was clearly an invite to a rebuttal and instead I get MORE WHINING.
“I’m disappointed, I thought I might actually be involved in something intellectual, but apparently, it is still only personal.”
Translation: I can’t keep up, so I’ll cry persecution. Do you know Sable Chicken by any chance?
“Maybe i’ll go find a forum where people want to address the real issues instead of attemption to twist words and then claim other people deceptive.”
Translation: I’m going to CARM.
“And as a closing statement – in response to what you suggested about my not reading carefully because we have the 2nd highest infant mortality rate… do you think that would occur if mature, economically well-off people were the parents of those babies?”
Yes.
“That was the only point i made about that.”
No, you said something irrelevant to the convo and I made a mistake by indulging it.
“That abstinence or proper protection would help that problem.”
Agreed.
“When people who have not the means or maturity to take care of a child give birth to one and try to keep it, that is dangerous for the child.”
So, let’s not allow abortion. That’ll fix it!
“and the fact is, most americans belong to the lower middle class and below – meaning that those people probably should not have 8 children and then wonder why they die.”
That is remarkably hostile and uncaring.
“That was the only point i ever attempted to make, but somehow you think I wasnt reading carefully, but maybe it is you who aren’t.”
Translation: I’m just going to keep typing until I think of something to say.
“or perhaps you would rather just read things into my argument that are not there.”
This is the point of debate, darlin’. You post something, I post my understanding, you defend or we discuss. But since you apparently can’t handle rebuttals, perhaps a low level Xian forum would be better for you.
“and i admit i had done that apparently for some of the statements made above, but in general i think you are mistaken about my claims.”
WHICH IS WHY WE DEBATE – TO COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING. NOT TO WHINE AND LIE WHEN WE CAN’T HANDLE BEING REFUTTED.
“where i can concede to my faults, it seems you are unable to do the same.”
Flat out lie. You did not answer what was put to you. You lied about not getting answers.
” good luck with your one-sided attempt at debate, i’m off to find someone who knows how to look at a situation from both sides.”
Translation: Lya wins
11 May 2006, on 7:36 am
“you disappointed me less with the response to the second post. congratulations.”
NOt the same poster, genius.
“but i never suggested that you thought teens should beout doing it all the time.”
Liar: “Yes, sex is healthy and natural and it is a part of life, but i do not understand (and maybe that is just ignorance on my part) how anyone can argue against abstinence until a person is ready, which to me is what these pledges are about.”
“What i meant by being used,”
FINALLY an answer. And, I agree with your statement.
And King – thanks for explaining it to her.
“
11 May 2006, on 11:57 am
I just want to point out that some of us are mistakenly using Audrey’s name when quoting Ashley.
11 May 2006, on 12:01 pm
Maybe i’ll go find a forum where people want to address the real issues instead of attemption to twist words and then claim other people deceptive.
Ashley, I suggest you spend some time HERE first.
11 May 2006, on 12:21 pm
Great discussion; thanks for the post, Lya!
‘Preciate the kudos, Sean!
11 May 2006, on 12:23 pm
Star, thanks; sorry, Audrey, I meant to address Ashley.
11 May 2006, on 1:43 pm
“And King – thanks for explaining it to her.”
No problem. It cracks me up when people don’t read the whole thread and then get upset that we didn’t respond to their questions. Maybe if they had read the whole thread, they would realize the question had been answered before they asked it.
11 May 2006, on 5:19 pm
stardust1954 Says:
I just want to point out that some of us are mistakenly using Audrey’s name when quoting Ashley.
Thank you Stardust. And, I’d just like to say, please recheck whose quote you’re quoting. I’m feeling more than a wee bit miffed that I’ve been confused with Asshat.. excuse me, I mean, Ashley.
11 May 2006, on 5:35 pm
And what a confusion for us to make, Audrey! Sorry again.
15 May 2006, on 1:25 pm
For the record, it could be worse. No stonings going on that we know of. As long as we’re talking about religious wackbags, let’s not fall into the equivalence trap.
21 May 2006, on 8:59 am
U r such an idiot seriously if people want to save themselves for marriage they can! Just because you and ur silly gang beleive that sex is everything, doesnt mean u have to make everyone else follow your policy. GOD WILL REACH OUT TO THOSE WHO WAIT! Or even those who are just waiting until marriage to have something exciting to wait for rather than just doing everything and being another ‘number’ on a guys list of who he’s slept with
God bless
xxxxxxxxxxxx
24 May 2006, on 12:37 am
[...] Ignoring overwhleming evidence to the contrary, Wisconsin’s governor signed a bill into law making absitnence the focus of sex education in that state. [...]
24 May 2006, on 9:29 pm
Angel: U r such an idiot seriously if people want to save themselves for marriage they can!
Who said they can’t?
Angel: Just because you and ur silly gang beleive that sex is everything,
Who said we believe that?
Angel: doesnt mean u have to make everyone else follow your policy.
Actually, xians like *you* are the ones trying to make everyone else follow *your* policy.
Angel: GOD WILL REACH OUT TO THOSE WHO WAIT!
And not to those who don’t? What a jerk! But since you can’t prove he exists, it’s a dumb point to try to make anyway.
Angel: Or even those who are just waiting until marriage to have something exciting to wait for
Honey, if you think marrying a guy will automatically make sex with him “exciting,” then someone’s been lying to you. And if that’s the kind of pressure you put on each other for your first time, I’d hate to be in either one’s shoes on your wedding night. Odds are he won’t be able to perform and even if he does, you’ll return from the experience wondering why your toes didn’t curl up.
Angel: rather than just doing everything and being another ‘number’ on a guys list of who he’s slept with
Now, that’s just silly; making sure comprehensive sex education includes information on contraception methods and doesn’t just talk about abstinence does not automatically lead to people “sleeping around.” Newsflash: they’re doing it already without that knowledge. Making sure teens are as well informed as possible on all aspects of sexuality, especially how to protect themselves and their partners, can only lead to more reasoned choices and safer practices, which in turn decrease the spread of STDs, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions.
You didn’t read the article, did you, Angel? If you did, you would have learned that abstinence-only sex ed programs do *not* stop premarital sex, disease, or unwanted pregnancies. Check it out.
21 March 2007, on 10:01 am
This comment has been deleted. And the next ones by this poster will be deleted, as well.