Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1883

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkEagle
They already know of the other options. That's not the point, however. The point we stress as parents is that there is only ONE choice at this stage of their lives (my house, my rules... yes, it's old fashioned logic, but it still applies even today). While their friends may carry some weight, hopefully ours outweighs it.

---

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

quote:

---

Originally posted by KRamsauer
If you read closely, I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what was said. I was simply saying the logic was flawed.

---

[pokes head up] Did somebody say logic? [/pokes head up]

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by septimus
On an individual basis, sure, that's obvious. The point here is that as a social policy abstinence is not effective.

---

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1062

quote:

---

Originally posted by yardie
People are going to have sex because it is normal.

---

Absolutely! But *when* people start to have sex is different.

quote:

---

While this is true, I think its a waste of time and money to preach abstitence.

---

Why do you say "preach" instead of "teach"? Religious bias? Seriously, *teaching* abstinence as an option can't *hurt*.

quote:

---

Resources would be better spent on protection.

---

Hm. Remind me not to vote for you to spend my tax dollars!

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

quote:

---

Originally posted by K. Cannon

I fail to see a problem with society promoting individual responsibility.

---

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

Wow, this has gotten interesting.

First off the Abstinence teaching doesn't leave the recipients ignorant of sex. They are quite aware of what goes on. They are told Abstinence first, Protection second, and Keep The Same Partner third.

Abstinence is taught first because it works best to prevent the disease.
Protection is taught second because while it can't totally prevent exposure, it can limit exposure.
Keeping the same partner obviously doesn't prevent you from getting the disease, but will certainly keep the partners from exposing others.

Some FBOs (not all, not even a majority) have stimatized people with AIDs, sex workers, etc. This is not only regrettable, but not in keeping with Christs word. IMHO it is as worse a crime as ignoring starving orphans. FYI many FBOs support/maintain hospices and orphanages for people and children with AIDs.

I knew as soon as I typed the word abstinence that I would see a strong, visceral response. I'm not amazed at that I saw the words "sex / natural" linked (it's a mantra in some circles). I'm wondering how many of you actually have thought that sexual fidelity is actually more natural? Most societies (past/present) end up with some form of marriage.

IMHO thats' because it is safer and provide/provides a more secure enviroment to raise children in (which is the physiological reason for sex). It also allows for a deeper bond to grow between the partners that surpasses the merely physical.

What has "sexual freedom" gained our society, except more easily spread STDs? I know it's helped to weaken the familial bonds in our culture, but I would be interested to hear peples opinions of what thing(s) of worth that it has given modern culture.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobbyMike
[...] I'm wondering how many of you actually have thought that sexual fidelity is actually more natural? Most societies (past/present) end up with some form of marriage. [...]

---

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
In the animal world, there's quite a spectrum of those type of roles.

---

Yep, there's even critters that don't need anybody else at all to reproduce. I think if a person wanted to "prove" any position on what's natural/unnatural by using an example from the animal kingdom, they could....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
I've always been more wolf than dog.

---

Louisiana Swamp Wolf?

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 191

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobbyMike
I'm wondering how many of you actually have thought that sexual fidelity is actually more natural? Most societies (past/present) end up with some form of marriage.

---

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1883

quote:

---

Originally posted by clulup


Of course it is true that most (if not all) human societies have some sort of marriage. However, the degree of fidelity that is linked to that institution is another question. I think it would be very difficult to show that people had less sex outside of marriage in the past, if we try not to glorify the past. I guess we just talk about it more openly than before. After all, sexually transmitted diseases were not invented after the sexual revolution: syphilis has been around for centuries, and the effects of it can be found everywhere in history. Oral contraceptives have made things less risky regarding pregnancy, AIDS made things more risky again regarding getting severly ill.

Also regarding nature things are not that easy. Even in species with a lifelong partnership (like in some birds such as ducks), "infidelity" is quite frequent. Also in species with dominant males (like gorillas) and in families/flocks there is a lot of "cheating" and sneaking away to other flocks.... So strikt fidelity does not seem to be favoured by nature, while living in partnerships is, given that lots of species live in structured relations.

---

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobbyMike
Yep, there's even critters that don't need anybody else at all to reproduce. I think if a person wanted to "prove" any position on what's natural/unnatural by using an example from the animal kingdom, they could....

---

Yep, natural/unnatural comparisons involving particular _human_ societies even sometimes send up the BS flag for me.

quote:

---

Louisiana Swamp Wolf?

---

You found me out, cher.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToolkiT
One could even argue that fidelity is unnatural, by 'sleeping' around the genepool gets a better mix and we avoid inbreeding..

---

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1883

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
A woman has no more or less to gain from fidelity than a man. There's no rule saying that the man the woman may find more attractive and better genetically stocked for reproduction is always the one who is better suited for settling down and raising those offspring. Men just tell themselves such things because they don't like the thought of being cuckolded

---

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToolkiT
I disagree, a man can (theoretically) reproduce with a lot of women at the same time, while when a woman falls pregnant she is 'off the market'.

---

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 191

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
male nature also wants to make sure that it's _his_ seeds getting planted. One can't do that without some degree of fidelity.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by clulup
That's not necessarily true. Since men are stronger, they can lock their wifes up in the house while still being active outside of it. Not very fair, but reality.

---

The cases where such a husband would _effectively_ lock up the wife are so logistically improbable as to be insignificant. Much like effective chastity belts, it's a myth.

quote:

---

I agree with that - makes life complicated, biologically and culturally, even though most cultures try to make it simple: men rule, no divorce, no infidelity. But, unfortunately, real life is complicated, is it not?

---

Yes. Real life is complicated. It's only natural.

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToolkiT

One could even argue that fidelity is unnatural, by 'sleeping' around the genepool gets a better mix and we avoid inbreeding..
Male nature is to 'spread its seeds'...
A woman has a lot more to gain with fidelaty then a man.. such is nature..

---

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

quote:

---

Originally posted by clulup

Also regarding nature things are not that easy. Even in species with a lifelong partnership (like in some birds such as ducks), "infidelity" is quite frequent. Also in species with dominant males (like gorillas) and in families/flocks there is a lot of "cheating" and sneaking away to other flocks.... So strikt fidelity does not seem to be favoured by nature, while living in partnerships is, given that lots of species live in structured relations.

---

I don't think that you can really compare human nature with animal nature, we're just too different. A major diff. is simply that human children require a much longer time with their parents before they can take care of themselves.
We also have the added burden/advantage of reasoning/thinking.

You don't see many ducks debating the nature of things!

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

quote:

---

Originally posted by clulup

That's not necessarily true. Since men are stronger, they can lock their wifes up in the house while still being active outside of it. Not very fair, but reality.

---

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 2682

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobbyMike
You don't see many ducks debating the nature of things!

---

Well, we don't see many of 'em here... probably 'cause it's too hard to type with webbed feet!

Sometimes I just quack myself up!

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...