Sex is only for the rich in the US

[SillyWabbit]

Ummmmmm...whut? Sex is only for the rich? How did I come to be?

 

[koshergrl]

Teenage Pregnancy Rate in Canada:

Teenage Pregnancy Rate in the United States:

If the issue here is education, then looking at the outcomes in terms of pregnancy rates, it seems clear that one of two issues is playing out, either we teach children of different races differently and so they act on the education, or lack thereof, differently or we teach the children of all races the same information and they act on that information differently.

Our teen pregnancy rate for white girls is about the same was what Canadian girls face.

Our black kids are primarily raised by our school systems.

So that explains that.

 

[Anathema]

Wasn't that the point the British writer was making. That Americans didn't want poor people to have sex, which is exactly what you're saying. Abstinence is free. You only want sex available to the rich.

Not at all. I don't even want it available to the rich if they don't meet the previously stated criteria.

Since you have to be wilfully stupid to believe that the young and the poor are going to abstain from sex, you deserve to pay higher taxes for the increased welfare and food stamps which will be the inevitable result

LOL. The only thing those people deserve is to starve or freeze to death for their immorality. I shouldn't be paying taxes for those worthless sacks of feces in any way.

Republicans, who refuse to deal in reality, keep thinking that they're promoting "personal responsibility", when in reality, they're encouraging the poor to gamble they won't get pregnant. I'd rather ensure that teenagers received free birth control than rely upon kids to abstain from sex. The same goes for the working poor. It's cheaper in both the short and the long run.

I'd rather let those kids deal with the consequences of their actions. The hopefully FATAL consequences of their actions.

Conservatives are never practical in these matters. They're far too concerned with being moral

Morality supercedes everything.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Every time I read the title of this thread, I just have to LMAO !
You just can't make this shit up !

 

[Moonglow]

The best sex I ever had was when I was poor.


It was dirty.

Cause you was dirt poor? You never even noticed the smell either?

 

[Moonglow]

Wasn't that the point the British writer was making. That Americans didn't want poor people to have sex, which is exactly what you're saying. Abstinence is free. You only want sex available to the rich.

Not at all. I don't even want it available to the rich if they don't meet the previously stated criteria.

Since you have to be wilfully stupid to believe that the young and the poor are going to abstain from sex, you deserve to pay higher taxes for the increased welfare and food stamps which will be the inevitable result

LOL. The only thing those people deserve is to starve or freeze to death for their immorality. I shouldn't be paying taxes for those worthless sacks of feces in any way.

Republicans, who refuse to deal in reality, keep thinking that they're promoting "personal responsibility", when in reality, they're encouraging the poor to gamble they won't get pregnant. I'd rather ensure that teenagers received free birth control than rely upon kids to abstain from sex. The same goes for the working poor. It's cheaper in both the short and the long run.

I'd rather let those kids deal with the consequences of their actions. The hopefully FATAL consequences of their actions.

Conservatives are never practical in these matters. They're far too concerned with being moral

Morality supercedes everything.

Right, that's an oxymoron in God's thoughts after he invented humans...

 

[Ava]

The best sex I ever had was when I was poor.


It was dirty.

I don't know how you define "dirty" but I feel any consenting adult would benefit from regular orgasms, defined as 3 or 4 times a week, in any manner they enjoy. It really IS beneficial to a contented life, in my opinion, of course.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wasn't that the point the British writer was making. That Americans didn't want poor people to have sex, which is exactly what you're saying. Abstinence is free. You only want sex available to the rich.

Not at all. I don't even want it available to the rich if they don't meet the previously stated criteria.

Since you have to be wilfully stupid to believe that the young and the poor are going to abstain from sex, you deserve to pay higher taxes for the increased welfare and food stamps which will be the inevitable result

LOL. The only thing those people deserve is to starve or freeze to death for their immorality. I shouldn't be paying taxes for those worthless sacks of feces in any way.

Republicans, who refuse to deal in reality, keep thinking that they're promoting "personal responsibility", when in reality, they're encouraging the poor to gamble they won't get pregnant. I'd rather ensure that teenagers received free birth control than rely upon kids to abstain from sex. The same goes for the working poor. It's cheaper in both the short and the long run.

I'd rather let those kids deal with the consequences of their actions. The hopefully FATAL consequences of their actions.

Conservatives are never practical in these matters. They're far too concerned with being moral

Morality supercedes everything.

Right, that's an oxymoron in God's thoughts after he invented humans...

No...just the ravings of a psychopath.

 

[Katzndogz]

Well it's not that they're too stupid to figure out the consequences, it's that often they can't afford the alternative.

They can't afford abstinence? Abstinence not contraception is the answer to these problems.

And back in reality where people actually have urges, and people do actually have sex, and people do actually like having sex and where people don't think they're going to hell if they have sex........

No one should ever be told they are going to hell if they have sex. They should be told that between disease and pregnancy they will think they are in hell.

 

[Anathema]

Right, that's an oxymoron in God's thoughts after he invented humans...

That's only an issue for people who believe in Religion instead of Morality.

 

[Contumacious]

BBC News - Recreational sex is a rich person s game

"The US doesn't want poor people to have sex. Or rather, it has instituted policies that deny the economically disadvantaged easy access to low-cost birth control, either through insurance or publicly funded family planning programmes.'

""By process of elimination, the solution for low-income people is to never, ever have sex," she says. Enforced celibacy, it seems, is the hoped-for outcome."

"
While some on the right welcome what they see as a trend towards valuing virginity among teen girls, Rampell calls this kind of logic "magical thinking":

"The belief that we can get entire classes of Americans to practise abstinence until they're financially ready for marriage and children is a right-wing delusion on par with the left-wing delusions that go into socialism: both rely on a fundamental miscalculation about human nature. If the socialists wished to legislate away self-interest, the moralists wish to legislate away libido."

She concludes that it's just another example of the two Americas that live separate and side-by side, rich and poor."

you have a right to pursue happiness. you have no right to demand that you neighbors and taxpayers provide it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Rich or Poor should not make any difference. The criteria for engaging in any level of sexual intercourse us simple. ....

Are both parties of age to make potentially life changing decisions?

Are both parties prepared to accept the potential physical, emotional and financial consequences of the sexual act?

Are both parties consenting to the act?

So long as those three criteria are met, go right ahead. HOWEVER, this should also mean no abortions and no Government aid if a child us produced.

The point the article makes is this. Firstly, people are going to have sex, it's natural. Forget the rubbish Christianity has attempted to impose on us, sex is normal, it's natural.
Secondly, the US promotes not having sex by taking away education and access to contraception.

In doing so it leaves the poor and often under-educated up the duff more than they would probably like to be, it leaves them with diseases they'd probably not have.

I agree, sex is normal and natural. And it comes with consequences. Which is exactly what Christianity is educating you on. Maybe it isn't just your sex drive that let's your freak flag fly once you consider having the child in this mix of a night with some drunk guy or girl.

You seem to think the best option for the poor, and I do notice you consider them an entirely seperate group from your enlightened status as the protector of the poor is they will have sex with absolutely anyone at the drop of a hat and need our funding for contraceptives. All the while calling what Christianity rubbish because we preach that maybe it's best not to let yourself fall into that moment in the first place.

You're promoting having sex by taking away education, the education that sex leads to child birth and is a burden and should not be taken lightly. There is no burden in getting contraceptives anywhere in this country. You are creating a burden on people trying to educate people on what that may result in. That being pregnancy or disease if you have no self control.

If you actually wanted to help the poor one of the best things you could do is promoting Christianity. It comes without a government handout and is more effective than just screwing whoever comes along with government provided birth control.

The loss of morals and Christian standards is the major cause of these problems. Government handouts can never counter that loss no matter how much money you throw at it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Christianity does not disdain sex. Christianity disdains perversion.

Condums are available in every drug store, convenience store, and gas station in the country. If you can't afford $1 for a condum then you have no business screwing. You libs are so full of shit.

And sex is perversion? So goes the tune.

Answer this question. Why do you think STD rates, teenage pregnancy rates are higher in areas with lower education levels and lower average income.

Does a 14 year old have any business screwing around? Not really.

Do they do it? Definitely. Damn, in my area a girl was preggers at 13.

So in your neighborhood a whore is promoted over a Christian in beliefs and the government is at fault for a 13 year old getting pregnant.

If only the government provided better birth control instead of actually teaching this girl sleeping with every guy that comes down the sidewalk our problems would be solved right?

How did this 13 year old get pregnant? There aren't many 13 year old boys that could do that. So who is the pedophile in your neighborhood?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rich or Poor should not make any difference. The criteria for engaging in any level of sexual intercourse us simple. ....

Are both parties of age to make potentially life changing decisions?

Are both parties prepared to accept the potential physical, emotional and financial consequences of the sexual act?

Are both parties consenting to the act?

So long as those three criteria are met, go right ahead. HOWEVER, this should also mean no abortions and no Government aid if a child us produced.

The point the article makes is this. Firstly, people are going to have sex, it's natural. Forget the rubbish Christianity has attempted to impose on us, sex is normal, it's natural.
Secondly, the US promotes not having sex by taking away education and access to contraception.

In doing so it leaves the poor and often under-educated up the duff more than they would probably like to be, it leaves them with diseases they'd probably not have.

I agree, sex is normal and natural. And it comes with consequences. Which is exactly what Christianity is educating you on. Maybe it isn't just your sex drive that let's your freak flag fly once you consider having the child in this mix of a night with some drunk guy or girl.

You seem to think the best option for the poor, and I do notice you consider them an entirely seperate group from your enlightened status as the protector of the poor is they will have sex with absolutely anyone at the drop of a hat and need our funding for contraceptives. All the while calling what Christianity rubbish because we preach that maybe it's best not to let yourself fall into that moment in the first place.

You're promoting having sex by taking away education, the education that sex leads to child birth and is a burden and should not be taken lightly. There is no burden in getting contraceptives anywhere in this country. You are creating a burden on people trying to educate people on what that may result in. That being pregnancy or disease if you have no self control.

If you actually wanted to help the poor one of the best things you could do is promoting Christianity. It comes without a government handout and is more effective than just screwing whoever comes along with government provided birth control.

The loss of morals and Christian standards is the major cause of these problems. Government handouts can never counter that loss no matter how much money you throw at it.

That's the good thing about you Christians - your faith give you an external source of authority. God says it's bad to have sex before marriage. For kids on the margin, that teaching, that appeal to authority, that feeling that someone is judging you, can be enough to help you screw up some conviction and refrain from having sex. Especially as a kid when large parts of life are still unknown and mystical to you.

That approach is far more helpful than the "go with what feels good" approach that liberals keep pushing. Hedonism isn't really a good platform on which one should base either morals or public policy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First,you are a kid someday you'll have a 14 year old then we can talk.

Second educate yourself as to the 4 meds NOT being covered were for........and never mind that the OTHER 15 are still covered.

I'm a kid? Really? I pretended to be a kid for the sake of filling in the info.

I did things the way a teenager might do them, and found it almost impossible to use the service.

At the same time, there's a problem in the US, especially in areas with lower levels of education and lower levels of average income. A lot of people's response on here is to do nothing, which changes nothing. People say those who can't figure it out should be left to suffer. But then they produce children with less chances in life, they are more likely to produce criminals and so on. It goes down to the heart of what society is, but then I guess the right like having poor people with no hope, they're cheap and provide reasons to be tough on crime.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And back in reality where people actually have urges, and people do actually have sex, and people do actually like having sex and where people don't think they're going to hell if they have sex........

It's not a matter of having the urges. It's a matter of not giving in to them.

Tell that to teenagers who haven't had any sex ed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Teenage Pregnancy Rate in Canada:

Teenage Pregnancy Rate in the United States:

If the issue here is education, then looking at the outcomes in terms of pregnancy rates, it seems clear that one of two issues is playing out, either we teach children of different races differently and so they act on the education, or lack thereof, differently or we teach the children of all races the same information and they act on that information differently.

Our teen pregnancy rate for white girls is about the same was what Canadian girls face.

Unsurprisingly, in the US, white girls are far less likely to be in poverty than Hispanic or black girls. 25% of blacks and hispanics are in poverty, 7% of whites. Go figure that the teenage pregnancy rates also show the poorest end up getting pregnant earlier.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Teenage Pregnancy Rate in Canada:

Teenage Pregnancy Rate in the United States:

If the issue here is education, then looking at the outcomes in terms of pregnancy rates, it seems clear that one of two issues is playing out, either we teach children of different races differently and so they act on the education, or lack thereof, differently or we teach the children of all races the same information and they act on that information differently.

Our teen pregnancy rate for white girls is about the same was what Canadian girls face.

Unsurprisingly, in the US, white girls are far less likely to be in poverty than Hispanic or black girls. 25% of blacks and hispanics are in poverty, 7% of whites. Go figure that the teenage pregnancy rates also show the poorest end up getting pregnant earlier.

From a Masters thesis:

The results show there is no significant difference in teenage pregnancy rates or teenage birth rates between states that require public high schools to provide sex or STD/HIV education programs and those that do not. There was also no significant difference between states that provide comprehensive sex education and those that provide abstinence-only or abstinence-based sex education.However, the results did show factors such as race and median household income have a significant impact on teenage pregnancy rates and teenage birth rates.
​

Education doesn't work. It's not a problem of lack of education, it's a problem of race, as is so much in America.

 

[elektra]

Democrats, the party of stereotyping, the party of bigotry, the bigots have a new enemy, the Middle Class hard working Americans.

 

[Anathema]

Tell that to teenagers who haven't had any sex ed.

That's the job of their parents. If the parents don't do it then maybe THEY would like to pay to support their grandkids instead if making ME do it