Pure in heart abstinence only education

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and the 5 out of six empty chambers in a 'russian roulette' pistol also gives you odds of survival of 83% ... but it's a dying game, that I certainly wouldn't play!!!

are you suggesting that sexual intercourse is a 'dying game'?

J C

koth wrote: »

All sex carries risk. Abstinence only nonsense does nothing to educate people about those risks. It's head in the sand silliness. Educating youths about safe sex and the use of contraceptives is the only way to go. Let them know about all the potential problems of sexual relationships and let them make informed decisions. The alternative is what you're suggesting, i.e. no sex until marriage and they'll magically figure it out on the honeymoon :rolleyes:

I'm suggesting Absitnence Pledges, and monagomy when they start to have sex.

I agree that this is the ideal ... and in so far as we stray from this 'ideal' we run moral and physical risks.

... and the real 'head in the sand silliness' is saying that condoms ensure 'safe' sex when they have failure risks up at the level of 'russian roulette'!!!

Condoms may make sex somewhat 'safer', depending on the health status of your partner ... but they certainly don't provide 'safe' sex ...
... if you want that, choose your spouse carefully ... and be fathful to them ... and use a condom carefully.

J C

koth wrote: »

are you suggesting that sexual intercourse is a 'dying game'?

... it depends on who you are having sex with ... and what they've got.

... for me it's been life giving ... and life affirming.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

She does ... that was one of the (many) reasons that she chose to marry me!!!:D

... and jealously will get you nowhere!!!:P

How did she know how big your penis was before you got married?

MrP

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'm suggesting Absitnence Pledges and monagomy when they do start to have sex.

I agree that this is the ideal ... and in so far as we stray from this 'ideal' we run moral and physical risks.

You agree with who?

... and the real 'head in the sand silliness' is saying that condoms ensure 'safe' sex when they have failure risks up at the level of 'russian roulette'!!!

This is hysterics and misrepresentation put together in a nice bow. Using a condom when engaging in sexual act is safer than not using one. But feel free to provide medical evidence to the contrary.

Condoms may make sex somewhat 'safer', depending on the health status of your partner ... but they certainly don't provide 'safe' sex ...
... if you want that, choose your spouse carefully ... and be fathful to them ... and use a condom carefully.

Are you suggesting that using a condom when your partner has certain STI/STDs is more dangerous to a persons health when compared to not using a condom? Really??

PopePalpatine

God said nothing about dick pics. :pac:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... it depends on who you are having sex with ... and what they've got.

... for me it's been life giving ... and life affirming.

That's a dodge.

Russian roulette is a game of chance. You were suggesting that sexual intercourse is the same with regards to the odds of death. Are you now retracting that daft claim?

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

How did she know how big your penis was before you got married?

MrP

Like I've said ... jealousy will get you nowhere Mr P:p

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Like I've said ... jealousy will get you nowhere Mr P:p

That you could even think that I might be jealous of you is highly offensive. You have nothing, nothing, that I would be jealous of. Are you confusing jealously with pity again? Cos I do feel quite a bit of pity towards you...

MrP

J C

koth wrote: »

That's a dodge.

Russian roulette is a game of chance. You were suggesting that sexual intercourse is the same with regards to the odds of death. Are you now retracting that daft claim?

The failure rates with condoms at 15-18% are in the same 'ballpark' as the risk of being shot in 'russian roulette' (16.66%).

A condom 'failure' is defined as an unwanted pregnancy ... but it could also result in an unwanted disease.

I agree that using a condom reduces the risk of disease transmission and pregnancy ... but choosing your spouse carefully and remaining faithful to them is the only known form of truly 'safe' sex.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

That you could even think that I might be jealous of you is highly offensive. You have nothing, nothing, that I would be jealous of. Are you confusing jealously with pity again? Cos I do feel quite a bit of pity towards you...

MrP

Methinks that you protest too much!!:)

... and your pity could be that start of a proper friendship, amongst equals, between you and me ... Happy New Year.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The failure rates with condoms at 15-18% are in the same 'ballpark' as the risk of being shot in 'russian roulette' (16.66%).

A condom 'failure' is defined as an unwanted pregnancy ... but it could also result in an unwanted disease.

And those consequences drastically increase when you don't use protection and have no sexual education in schools.

I agree that using a condom reduces the risk of disease transmission and pregnancy ... but choosing your spouse carefully and remaining faithful to them is the only known form of truly 'safe' sex.

and how does that work in the real world? Relationships break down. People form new relationships. How exactly is not using condoms safer than using them?

J C

koth wrote: »

This is hysterics and misrepresentation put together in a nice bow. Using a condom when engaging in sexual act is safer than not using one. But feel free to provide medical evidence to the contrary.

It is evidentially and fact based.
Using a condom is indeed safer than not using one ... but the only safe sex is faithful monogamous sex.

koth wrote: »

Are you suggesting that using a condom when your partner has certain STI/STDs is more dangerous to a persons health when compared to not using a condom? Really??

No, I'm not.
... but I am saying that sadly, even using a condom when your partner has an STD is very risky ... due to the failure rates of condoms ... and the fact that many STDs can be transmitted, even when a condom is worn.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It is evidentially and fact based.
Using a condom is indeed safer than not using one ... but the only safe sex is faithful monogamous sex.

And being celibate is safer than monogamous sex. Guess we should all stop having sex.:rolleyes:

The thread is about abstinence being the only sexual education teens are getting. This is an unsafe, and frankly stupid, way to go about reducing unwanted pregnancies and/or STDs.

No, I'm not.
... but I am saying that sadly, even using a condom when your partner has an STD is very risky ... due to the failure rates of condoms ... and the fact that many STDs can be transmitted, even when a condom is worn.

That's not an argument to not have good sex education in schools. If anything it's an argument against the abstinence only lesson plan.

J C

koth wrote: »

And those consequences drastically increase when you don't use protection and have no sexual education in schools.

... only if you or your partner are 'sleeping around'.
Like I have said, I have no problem with adults using condoms or sex education in schools ... once all of the facts are out in the open ... and people are making fully-informed choices about who they sleep with and when ... and what contraception they use and its weaknesses, as well as its strengths.

koth wrote: »

and how does that work in the real world? Relationships break down. People form new relationships. How exactly is not using condoms safer than using them?

Like I have said, choosing your spouse (or indeed your second spouse) carefully and remaining faithful to them, is the only way of enjoying truly 'safe' sex ... everything else involves degrees of 'russian roulette'.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... only if you or your partner are 'sleeping around'.
Like I have said, I have no problem with adults using condoms or sex education in schools ... once all of the facts are out in the open ... and people are making fully-informed choices about who they sleep with and when ... and what contraception they use and its weaknesses, as well as its strengths.

But you're defending the abstinence only education

Like I have said, choosing your spouse (or indeed your second spouse) carefully and remaining faithful to them, is the only way of enjoying truly 'safe' sex ... everything else involves degrees of 'russian roulette'.

Once you have sex, condoms are safer than not using them, no matter what type of relationship a person is in. No amount of spin will change that reality.

J C

koth wrote: »

And being celibate is safer than monogamous sex. Guess we should all stop having sex.:rolleyes:

It's not actually 'safer' to be celibate ... having children increases life expectancy!!!
... so the Bible was right after all, when it said to go forth and multiply!!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16510865
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21568362-having-children-prolongs-life-pro-creation

koth wrote: »

The thread is about abstinence being the only sexual education teens are getting. This is an unsafe, and frankly stupid, way to go about reducing unwanted pregnancies and/or STDs.

With condom failure rates and teen Chlamydia infections up at 'russian roulette' levels, abstinence has a lot to recommend it.

koth wrote: »

That's not an argument to not have good sex education in schools. If anything it's an argument against the abstinence only lesson plan.

Like I have said, I believe that a comprehensive sex education programme should be provided in school ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... only if you or your partner are 'sleeping around'.
Like I have said, I have no problem with adults using condoms or sex education in schools ... once all of the facts are out in the open ... and people are making fully-informed choices about who they sleep with and when ... and what contraception they use and its weaknesses, as well as its strengths.

Wrong. a person can have an STD for any number of reasons other than 'sleeping around'.

Like I have said, choosing your spouse (or indeed your second spouse) carefully and remaining faithful to them, is the only way of enjoying truly 'safe' sex ... everything else involves degrees of 'russian roulette'.

Nonsense. You can have STDs without knowing it. You can get STDs without having sex. STDs can be symptom free. So your spouse could have an STD and not know it. Best use a condom to be safe

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It's not actually 'safer' to be celibate ... life expectancy increases with each additional child that you produce!!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16510865

So being celibate increases a persons chances of getting an STD? Or are you just moving the goalposts?

With condom failure rates and teen Chlamydia infections up at 'russian roulette' levels, abstinence has a lot to recommend it.

Not at the expense of a good sexual education lesson plan, it doesn't.

Like I have said, I believe that a comprehensive sex education programme should be provided in school ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards.

But then you're supporting the lesson plan that I've been outlining!

Nodin

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, I believe that a comprehensive sex education programme should be provided in school ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards.

Yet your kind of program doesn't work and the other does. This was shown conclusively earlier in the thread so why are you here again trotting out the same discredited crap?

J C

koth wrote: »

Wrong. a person can have an STD for any number of reasons other than 'sleeping around'.

True ... but they do tend to be spread sexually.

koth wrote: »

Nonsense. You can have STDs without knowing it. You can get STDs without having sex. STDs can be symptom free. So your spouse could have an STD and not know it. Best use a condom to be safe

... to be safer perhaps.

... but then what do you do if you want to have children?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

True ... but they do tend to be spread sexually.

again, this is an argument for a comprehensive sex education lesson plan.

... to be safer perhaps.

... but then what do you do if you want to have children?

STD checks for both man and woman. Another argument for good sex ed classes and not just abstinence only.

J C

koth wrote: »

So being celibate increases a persons chances of getting an STD? Or are you just moving the goalposts?

They simply die younger ... so celibacy isn't 'safer' than monogamy.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Like I have said, I believe that a comprehensive sex education programme should be provided in school ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards.


koth
But then you're supporting the lesson plan that I've been outlining!

... it seems that it's you who are coming over to my point of view ... welcome aboard.:cool:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

They simply die younger ... so celibacy isn't 'safer' than monogamy.

very good. an unrelated tangent.

... it seems that it's you who are coming over to my point of view ... welcome aboard.:cool:

You've got to be joking. You've been defending the abstinence only lesson plan. You've repeatedly stated that abstinence and monogamy are to the be the central lesson in the classes.

J C

koth wrote: »

again, this is an argument for a comprehensive sex education lesson plan.

No problem once its truly comprehensive.

koth wrote: »

STD checks for both man and woman. Another argument for good sex ed classes and not just abstinence only.

The objective should be to avoid getting an incurable STD, in the first place ... finding out that you have got one ... is a poor second-best solution (although useful, especially where the STD is symptomless).

Delirium

J C wrote: »

No problem once its truly comprehensive.

That's exactly what I've been in support of but you seem to want to argue against it for some reason.

The objective should be to avoid getting an incurable STD, in the first place ... finding out that you have got one ... is a poor second-best solution (although useful, especially where the STD is symptomless).

Well that's the abstinence only lesson plan out the window then.

J C

koth wrote: »

very good. an unrelated tangent.

... erroneously introduced by you.

koth wrote: »

You've got to be joking. You've been defending the abstinence only lesson plan. You've repeatedly stated that abstinence and monogamy are to the be the central lesson in the classes.

I have never advocated 'abstinence only' programmes and you agreed with my definition of 'comprehensive' sex education above.

wrote:

J C
Like I have said, I believe that a comprehensive sex education programme should be provided in school ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards.

Koth
But then you're supporting the lesson plan that I've been outlining!

J C

koth wrote: »

That's exactly what I've been in support of but you seem to want to argue against it for some reason.

Well that's the abstinence only lesson plan out the window then.

It never was 'inside the window', as far as I was concerned ... Abstinence Pledges work ... alongside a truly comprehensive sex ed programme ... ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards..

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... erroneously introduced by you.

wrong.

Other than that it seems you now agree with those who were arguing against abstinence only courses.

J C

koth wrote: »

wrong.

Right ... the (erroneous) idea that celibacy is 'safer' than monogamy was introduced by you here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88254715&postcount=265

koth wrote: »

Other than that it seems you now agree with those who were arguing against abstinence only courses.

I have never argued for abstinence only courses.

Does our agreement here bode well for an agreement on 'other' issues on which we have had our disagreements in the past??

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Right ... the (erroneous) idea that celibacy is 'safer' than monogamy was introduced by you here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88254715&postcount=265

So you're saying I was wrong to say that celibacy is the best way to avoid STDs. How exactly am I wrong?

I have never argued for abstinence only courses.

Does our agreement here bode well for an agreement on 'other' issues on which we have had our disagreements in the past??

I doubt it.

Delirium

@JC this is why it's confusing to know what your position was until you clarified.

Below is your first post on this thread and reads that you are defending the abstinence programmes.

J C wrote: »

You're trivialising a very serious issue ... the disaster that under-age teenage promiscuity is causing in terms of STDs, sterility when they later marry and want a baby ... and lets call it what it is ... statutory rape amongst and of children!!!

Is this 'counsel of defeat' all that Secularism can offer our teens?

The Abstinence Programme is working in America ... and here is what it's like for the misfortunate British teens who are part of the 'pseudo-liberal' society you guys seem to want to foist on the rest of society.

Britain makes contraception freely available to under-age teens ... and yet there are 100,000 teen pregnancies per year and one in five UK teens with Chlamydia ... to say nothing about Syphilis and (life-long) HIV ... or the serious psychological damage that sex abuse between under-age children causes.:(

Christians offer a viable alternative ... children aren't feral animals ... they are thoughtful moral actors who need the responsible support of adults to not destroy their lives by engaging in promiscuity and other risky behaviour ... and to move teen peer-pressure from engaging in casual sex ... to simply saying 'NO' to drink, drugs ... and under-age promiscuity.

Under-age drink, drugs and sex are all destructive and in combination they are disasterous!!!

A basic principle of education is to avoid 'learning the hard way' ... by not making the same mistakes that other people have already made!!!

That is why we legally proscribe under-age drinking ... and under-age sex ... and supporting the former whilst making a joke of the latter is utter hypocracy ... and grossly irresponsible!!!:(

... and that is why the Abstinance programmes are such an outstanding success amongst under-age teens in America ... and fully supported by many responsible parents.

We need to change behaviour when it comes to under-age sex ... and Abstinance programmes work ... while the apparent alternative of throwing your 13 year-old a packet of condoms and putting her on the pill, and letting her off to engage in under-age sex abuse with God knows who (with God knows what STD) ... while relying on micro-thin latex not bursting or being used incorrectly by a drunken teen ... is outrageous IMO.

gaynorvader

The 15-18% condom failure rate quoted is largely to do with improper use and/or storage of the condom. This is probably a result of a lack of education.

robindch

gaynorvader wrote: »

The 15-18% condom failure rate quoted is largely to do with improper use and/or storage of the condom. This is probably a result of a lack of education.

...or a lack of care. The following pages shows what kind of mistakes people make and how often they're made:

http://www.livescience.com/18660-common-condom-mistakes.html
http://www.livescience.com/18661-14-common-condom-errors.html

Note also -- crucially -- that the "15%-18% failure rate" refers to failure rates for sloppy usage over a single year:

http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/explanation-condom-failure-rates

So, assuming that people are having sex 100 times a year, then the chances of pregnancy resulting from a single sexual encounter with perfect condom usage (which has a failure rate of 2%) are around 0.02%, or one chance in five thousand.

The chances of catching an STD can be figured out in a similar fashion and I'm assuming that they'll also be far, far below the scare headline figures pushed around by creationists and other discreditable sources.

gaynorvader

I think J C is correct in his assertion that sex education needs to be comprehensive and I do think abstinence should be dealt with too. However, I disagree that it should be pushed as the best method. It is certainly the best way of avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but only in the same way not leaving your house is the best way of ensuring you don't get hit by a car.

I don't think any solution should be put forward as the best.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Methinks that you protest too much!!:)

... and your pity could be that start of a proper friendship, amongst equals, between you and me ... Happy New Year.

Yeah, whatever. So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

MrP

AerynSun

MrPudding wrote: »

... So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

I'm guessing the lady cut the top off a condom and split it down the middle and saw it measures 12cm x 18cm (she doesn't buy condoms, she's on an abstinence pledge, they are a friend's...) so that makes 216 cm2. According to wikipedia the average human body is 1.9 m2 surface area. So if she were to snip the difference and make a man 2 m2 body area and 200 cm2 penis area, that's 1%. Then... she knows that JC is 6'4" so she did some very clever metric to feet conversion calculation and came up with... the idea of looking at his shoe size, and guessed her way from there?

:pac:

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

MrP

Maybe the alleged wife had access to a pretty powerful microscope to view the alleged organ.

gaynorvader

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe the alleged wife had access to a pretty powerful microscope to view the alleged organ.

I feel like I'm back in primary school...

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

I feel like I'm back in primary school...

Fecking wimpy townies with their fecking primary school microscopes. Us culchies had to magnify 100X with our own eyes in primary school!

robindch

Folks, drop the willy jokes :rolleyes:

MrPudding

gaynorvader wrote: »

I feel like I'm back in primary school...

Lucky we aren't on After Hours, I expect the answer would be "yore ma told her."

Robin, I hope that is ok, it is more of a yore ma joke than a willy joke.

All joking aside, my question is a serious one. JC has alledged that his penis size was a factor in his wife agreeing to marry him. He is also a proponent of no sex before marriage, and I personally think the two things are mutually exclusive. This means that he is being dishonest about one or the other.

MrP

Gordon

Gordon wrote: »

J C, I am honestly zoning out of your replies now simply because of your use of bolding key words, multiple ellipses, shocked face icons and multiple exclamation marks. You don't need these hyperbolic punctuations to add to, or support your point, they should be able to stand on their own.

So out of curiosity, I thought I'd have a look at how exactly you construct your posts, J C. I took your latest 100 posts and did some number crunching and character counting, and then I did it on your oldest 100 posts. Well, actually I had to do it with 100 posts from 6 years ago as it took you 2.5 years to figure out how to quote people via the quote button, so my results were being skewed by your quoting method.

Below are some figures on your current and past text intricacies. The numbers on the left are your most recent 100 posts, in (brackets) is your old 100 posts.

• 8,503 (9,533) words
• 745 (660) sentences
• 1,451 (2,834) full stops
• 174 (68) uses of bold
• 369 (1,083) words bolded
• 2 (60) uses of italics
• 8 (1) uses of underlining

• 0 (1) x ???????
• 0 (2) x ??????
• 0 (2) x ?????
• 0 (8) x ????
• 5 (7) x ???
• 3 (2) x ??
• 281 (7) x ?

• 0 (1) x !!!!!!!!!!!!
• 0 (1) x !!!!!!!!
• 0 (2) x !!!!!!
• 0 (17) x !!!!!
• 0 (56) x !!!!
• 4 (113) x !!!!
• 78 (0) x !!!
• 19 (20) x !!
• 0 (3) x !

• 0 (1) x ....................
• 0 (3) x .............
• 0 (2) x ............
• 0 (9) x ...........
• 0 (3) x ..........
• 0 (20) x .........
• 0 (48) x ........
• 0 (94) x .......
• 0 (129) x ......
• 0 (68) x .....
• 0 (19) x ....
• 390 (6) x ...
• 3 (13) x ..

• 35 (51) x
• 14 (51) x :eek:
• 8 (135) x
• 6 (2) x
• 4 (0) x
• 2 (0) x :P
• 2 (11) x
• 2 (0) x :pac:
• 1 (9) x :cool:
• 0 (0) x :rolleyes:
• 0 (0) x
• 0 (0) x :mad:

• 15 (0) x Youtube
• 12 (0) x URLs

And here are a couple of word clouds based on your 100 posts, which may not be extremely telling as the most common words will involve the topics that you are discussing, at length.

New Posts


Old Posts


In conclusion, I see that you use less full stops in your posts now, which is good. Your full stop usage is half what it used to be, so you now only have an average of 14.5 full stops per post which is reducing your usage by half.

Your multiple question marks have severely reduced, you now limit yourself mainly to single question marks and occasional double/triple marks. This is unlike your old posts where you'd mainly post multiples. Exclamation marks also, you've reduced from 4 and over, to now two or three.

You use more links now and due to your smiley usage, you seem less shocked, less happy, less confused, but more :pac: and more empathetic(?) with your winky smiley usage.

Overall, I like your reduction in unnecessary punctuation from 6 years ago, but it may be an idea to reduce even further to ensure more people read your posts, so maybe that's something to take away from this rather pointless post.

catallus

^^^^

Can I get one of those??? Please???

Doctor DooM

Gordon wrote: »

JC stuff

This is my new favourite post on boards.

Is this something we could do for ourselves? I'd love to observe my changing tastes etc over time.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

MrP

I'll let you apply logic to working that one out!!!:)

J C

Gordon wrote: »

So out of curiosity, I thought I'd have a look at how exactly you construct your posts, J C. I took your latest 100 posts and did some number crunching and character counting, and then I did it on your oldest 100 posts. Well, actually I had to do it with 100 posts from 6 years ago as it took you 2.5 years to figure out how to quote people via the quote button, so my results were being skewed by your quoting method.

Thanks for the obvious effort that you went to ... but I think that you don't need to be so fixated with my (highly effective) posting style:)

AerynSun

Dear Gordon,

I am in love. Will you marry me?

[I won't even demand evidence of the size of things that should not be made jokes of in front of JC].

:P :pac: :cool:

Sarky

I met Gordon ad a moderator beers a while back.

Like a baby's arm holding an apple, it is.

Gordon

Doctor DooM wrote: »

This is my new favourite post on boards.

Is this something we could do for ourselves? I'd love to observe my changing tastes etc over time.

There isn't a button or anything, but you can do it yourself!

catallus wrote: »

^^^^

Can I get one of those??? Please???

Sure, I'll do one later, but I doubt you'll have the multiple ellipses etc!

J C wrote: »

Thanks for the obvious effort that you went to ... but I think that you may need to get out more ... and not be so fixated with my (highly effective) posting style ???:)

Not fixated, but I find it interesting to see your post style change, hopefully you're learning to tone the mad overuse of characters down a bit though.