Democrat wins Long Held GOP seat

[jillian]

we are talking about africa, not the US.... so, if one practices abstinence, does it work? yes or no, simple, just a yes or a no.

But they DON'T practice abstinence.

And when they have sex, it should be safe. yes?

Agree or disagree, real simple.

 

[Yurt]

Yeah, generally the people who are poorer tend to fuck more. Less to do and less pleasures in life so they take what they can get. If abstinence doesn't work here, what in hell makes you think it will work in Africa?

IF its practiced it works. Any guess as to how easy it is to get people to practice it?

no i don't. my guess is that before the 60s abstinence was practiced more than today. the "love" decades and social liberalism that followed have created an environment that is more sexually charged (especially the teens) that we have (probably) ever seen. just talk to your parents about the difference between teen sex when they were growing up and now. most parents i have talked with say that it is much more prevalent now.

so, with education, over time, yes, abstinence can be tought and can become a way of life. to simply shrug our collective shoulders and proclaim that people will not change is defeatist. while the reality now may be a certain way, you cannot say that with time, education and willpower that people cannot change. think about it.

 

[Yurt]

But they DON'T practice abstinence.

And when they have sex, it should be safe. yes?

Agree or disagree, real simple.

maybe we should make guns easier to get for murderers, because they will murder afterall, and might as well make it legal and easy for them to get guns so they don't have to rob someone....or, hey, lets hand out pure crack/cocaine to people so they do not become sick from the garbage crack made in someone's basement....

real simple

 

[jillian]

maybe we should make guns easier to get for murderers, because they will murder afterall, and might as well make it legal and easy for them to get guns so they don't have to rob someone....or, hey, lets hand out pure crack/cocaine to people so they do not become sick from the garbage crack made in someone's basement....

real simple

False analogy. Abstinence only is wishful thinking on the part of the religious right. It doesn't work with kids here and it certainly won't work with people elsewhere. So making the giving of money contingent on the teaching of a useless and destructive paradigm is silly. It's counterproductive. And isn't the point to actually save lives? Or should they be condemned to death beacause they want to have sex?

 

[Larkinn]

no i don't. my guess is that before the 60s abstinence was practiced more than today. the "love" decades and social liberalism that followed have created an environment that is more sexually charged (especially the teens) that we have (probably) ever seen. just talk to your parents about the difference between teen sex when they were growing up and now. most parents i have talked with say that it is much more prevalent now.

It just wasn't talked about then. Its not like people had less sex, it just wasn't mentioned in public.

so, with education, over time, yes, abstinence can be tought and can become a way of life.

Considering its been taught in America for god knows how long, and been an utter and absolute failure, what makes you think we can teach it to Africans?

to simply shrug our collective shoulders and proclaim that people will not change is defeatist.

Not quite. I'd rather go after solutions that, oh I don't know, actually work. Thats not defeatist, its called going after the problem without being blinded by stupid ideology like trying to teach Africans how Republican Americans think they should be fucking.

while the reality now may be a certain way, you cannot say that with time, education and willpower that people cannot change. think about it.

Or we could take the easier route and give them condoms. But why make things easy when we can make them difficult? Its not like preventing AIDS in Africa is important or anything.

 

[Larkinn]

maybe we should make guns easier to get for murderers, because they will murder afterall, and might as well make it legal and easy for them to get guns so they don't have to rob someone....or, hey, lets hand out pure crack/cocaine to people so they do not become sick from the garbage crack made in someone's basement....

real simple

And pray tell how is safe sex a social ill like murderers and crack addicts?

 

[Yurt]

False analogy. Abstinence only is wishful thinking on the part of the religious right. It doesn't work with kids here and it certainly won't work with people elsewhere. So making the giving of money contingent on the teaching of a useless and destructive paradigm is silly. It's counterproductive. And isn't the point to actually save lives? Or should they be condemned to death beacause they want to have sex?

how is it a false analogy...people will do drugs no matter what we say and no matter how much we spend on the so-called war on drugs, education programs, what not...it is exactly the same thing you are saying about abstinence, that it won't work because people are going to fuck like there is no tomorrow and the religious right has their head up their ass because they actually think fornicating is bad. it is the same idea as giving clean syringes to drug addicts in order to stop the spread of aids...it is just a bandaid, not a cure.....when they stop using needles to get high, the risk for contracting aids in that manner becomes zero.

further, it is not useless to teach abstinence. even the most pessimistic stats show that abstinence education did work, just apparently not as well as handing out clean syringes (condoms) and teaching people about the dangers of dirty needles (safe sex).

 

[jillian]

drugs should be legal and taxed.... and addicts should have clean needles.

abstinence only is proven to be a failed program. why stay attached to something based on religious dogma.

Again, isn't the point to keep people from dying? I stand by what I said.

 

[Yurt]

And pray tell how is safe sex a social ill like murderers and crack addicts?

condoms are not 100% proven to stop aids. thats a fact.

 

[jillian]

condoms are not 100% proven to stop aids. thats a fact.

True. But without condoms, you're much more likely to get AIDS.

Again, how is safe sex a social ill?

 

[Yurt]

drugs should be legal and taxed.... and addicts should have clean needles.

abstinence only is proven to be a failed program. why stay attached to something based on religious dogma.

Again, isn't the point to keep people from dying? I stand by what I said.

wrong, it was not a failure, it just did not, apparently, work as good as the handing out condems and education program worked....as i said earlier, this is most likely due to the time we live in, where promiscuous sex is not only more accepted, it is often expected. that being so, of course (right now) abstinence only cannot compete with hollyweird, overtime though, i believe this could change.

interesting stance on drugs...do you believe we should all own guns?

 

[Yurt]

True. But without condoms, you're much more likely to get AIDS.

Again, how is safe sex a social ill?

since there is no such thing as 100% safe sex, the question cannot be answered.

 

[Larkinn]

condoms are not 100% proven to stop aids. thats a fact.

No, only 98% or some such.

 

[jillian]

since there is no such thing as 100% safe sex, the question cannot be answered.

nice dodge.

 

[Yurt]

nice dodge.

what did i say that was not true? maybe he/she should rephrase:

how is """90%""" safe sex a social ill

 

[Larkinn]

since there is no such thing as 100% safe sex, the question cannot be answered.

So something is only safe if its 100% safe? Thats absurd.

 

[Yurt]

So something is only safe if its 100% safe? Thats absurd.

you said safe sex, i said there is no such thing as safe sex, as it is not proven that condoms work 100% of the time...safe sex is a myth, abstinence is a reality which you both grudgingly admitted, however, you both blow it off because people, apparently, won't practice it now.

did you know condoms are rated to be effective for only 20 minutes? and that anal sex has a higher likelihood of tearing the condom....

 

[Larkinn]

you said safe sex, i said there is no such thing as safe sex, as it is not proven that condoms work 100% of the time...safe sex is a myth, abstinence is a reality which you both grudgingly admitted, however, you both blow it off because people, apparently, won't practice it now.

Really, its a myth? Do you consider buying things from a vending machine to be safe? How about eating food? How about walking outside? How about breathing?

Something doesn't need to be 100% safe to be called safe.

did you know condoms are rated to be effective for only 20 minutes? and that anal sex has a higher likelihood of tearing the condom....

Did you know that only a tiny percentage of those "educated" in abstinence only actually follow it?

 

[Yurt]

Really, its a myth? Do you consider buying things from a vending machine to be safe? How about eating food? How about walking outside? How about breathing?

Something doesn't need to be 100% safe to be called safe.



Did you know that only a tiny percentage of those "educated" in abstinence only actually follow it?

drug education also has proven not to work, should we stop that and just legalize all drugs, crack etc... because people who get drug education don't actually follow it?

i am not saying that something has to be 100% to be considered safe, however, abstinence works 100% of the time when followed, whereas, condoms do not. the difference is choice...there is no such thing as safe sex simply because you have a condom, it may be more safe than unprotected sex, but it is disenginuous to call it safe sex and i believe that it misleads people into a false sense of security.

 

[Larkinn]

drug education also has proven not to work, should we stop that and just legalize all drugs, crack etc... because people who get drug education don't actually follow it?

Got a better solution than drug education? I do have a better solution than abstinence, its called safe sex.

i am not saying that something has to be 100% to be considered safe, however, abstinence works 100% of the time when followed, whereas, condoms do not.

When followed is, of course, the rub. You slip that in as if its no big deal about whether it will be followed or not, of course its NOT followed so its actually a huge deal.

the difference is choice...there is no such thing as safe sex simply because you have a condom, it may be more safe than unprotected sex, but it is disenginuous to call it safe sex and i believe that it misleads people into a false sense of security.

Its is significantly more safter than unprotected sex. Calling it safe sex encourages people to use condoms and practice safe sex. You know, the method that people might actually follow.