bush's plan to reduce health care costs
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
that's not "calling it what it is." you should be well aware at this stage that our differing views on the implications of distributing contraception are a cornerstone of this disagreement. What I see as protection, you see as encouragement. What I see as inevitable sexual behavior, you believe won't happen if we consistently tell kids "it's bad." I think you can educate kids and prepare them for the worst, you think it's a mixed message.
So "let's" not pretend either of our opinions are truths that can define "what it is."
Last edited:
phenomenal grip strength.....years of.....
true, i did misspeak. how dare i make the assumption that purity could actually be lauded as a virtue in a sea of spread legs & "choice" made by kids without the legal ability to consent who then bear adult consequences. if nothing else, an equally strong case can be made by these same types for lowering the age of consent.
in the free market of ideas, the sanctimonious notion of purity and dignity of children never stand a chance against orgasms & longing for paternal affections via whore-mongering.
mea culpa en gasha geisha
and in your black and white world this is mutually exclusive with preparing for the fact that not all kids are or will be virtuous. In mine it is not.
laudable goals. unfortunately, not only does it have no connection with what's going on here in the real world, but it's actually DAMAGING to kids...
and another one:
Ideals are commendable, but it's the refusal to acknowledge reality that is hurting our kids in the long run.
Life's a slippery slope, like a bobsledding hooker...
didn't say it was; but when purity is relegate to the status of "unrealistic" (there was a time it was, recall), you've quite obviously lowered the standards. what's next to be relegated to the "dark ages", self-control?
don't get me wrong: back in h.s. i'd have loved to nail all the chicks i possibly could, but at what cost?
do you think purity is merely an identifiable attribute, like religious affiliation, or do you see it as a value?
or put another way: you ever have the "full disclosure" talk w/ your woman? which do you think matters more to her? your ability to avoid infectious diseases & navigate the murky waters of unwanted pregnancies, or tallying the hit parade of onesies & twosies during your "salad days"? apply it both ways, too.
so it's the curriculum that's hurting kids, and not their own choices? sorry, if there's blame to be assigned, why not those making the poor choices? is the state more responsible for one's body than the individual?
this has been more of a rant, for there doesn't seem to be any short term solution short of inoculation & sterilization. while theocracies may offer the anecdotal evidence of what can work, it certainly comes at the cost of individual freedoms, which is not negotiable.
$tinkle, your argument was that condoms and abortion encourage underage sex, but abstinence only education has the same rate of underage sex, therefore your argument is invalid in that respect.
It doesn't matter what you teach them, it matters what they do when they come out of the classroom, and when teenagers are taught about condoms, they use them and there are less pregnancies and less abortions.
edit: I consider the values of purity to be left to the individual family, if a family wants to teach purity to their children, go ahead, but it shouldn't be a state issue.
It doesn't matter what you teach them, it matters what they do when they come out of the classroom, and when teenagers are taught about condoms, they use them and there are less pregnancies and less abortions.
edit: I consider the values of purity to be left to the individual family, if a family wants to teach purity to their children, go ahead, but it shouldn't be a state issue.
Last edited:
Well...to be really sure, I practice abstinence while wearing two condoms at all times.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
You must have missed the bulletin while you were up sh*t creek investigating that lack of paddle, but smoking is naughty and bad ok Secret Squirrel. 
It's all starting to make sense.
First we better define our terms. If "purity" = "abstinence until marriage" than I wouldn't say it is unattainable but I would say it is unhealthy and undesirable. If "purity" = "sexual activity only within a caring relationship" than we're on the same page.
When I think about my circle of friends, the age and circumstances of them losing their virginity has nothing to do with their formal religious upbringing or the availability of condoms. Zip. Zero. It has only to do with their individual personalities (somewhat within a parents control recognizing that siblings often behave very very differently) and the social norms. I understand that it is the latter you are trying to affect. I've said this before, but I grew up in a very religious county with limited access to freely distributed condoms and we had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the state. Many of the kids that got pregnant were from very religious families (notably a well-intentioned, non-rebelious daughter of a pastor), and several of my friends who waited well into their twenties were from secular families that were much more open about sex, birth control, and protection.
I too want to shift social norms, but purity as I would guess you're defining it IS unattainable, and there are much better methods for protecting our kids than presenting one impossible option and praying it will work and they'll never try to figure it out on their own.
Last edited:
I'm with Ohio on this one...
I don't like calling it "purity"... not at all. Traditionally, this has been applied only to women. The old double standard, where dudes are "studs" and girls become "sluts" or "easy" b/c they've had sex? Women clearly have greater potential consequences for unprotected sex, do we really need to add calling them "impure" or with a wink towards certain theocracies, stoning them to death?
Realize you have no interest in abridging freedoms in favor of the theocratic "solution," but I am curious about using "Purity" as a way of describing someone who abstains until marriage.
BTW, how weird and creepy are "Purity Balls"??? Photo #2???
Wow...totally not what I was expecting those photos to be...Plummit said:
pragmatically, i concur, as students (by virtue of their upbringings) don't share the same value system. in fact, there's quite the variety in any one catholic school. so don't take my remarks to mean abstinence only is the way to go. i think there's the lack of a rank ordering which can be detrimental to kids. kind of like drugs: if you're going to do them, stick to pot & leave teh meth to those in pursuit of loserdom.
yes, purity is indeed a moving - but not necessarily contextual/situational - target. i guess the recommendation i'd put forth to my daughter while she's still under my roof is: "if you don't want me walking in on it, don't do it", which should be amended with: "and if you don't want me to justifiably render all the outward positive attributes about your man extinct, don't do it".
i'd break a few of her teeth knowing i'd be knocking the dick out of her mouth (should one find its way).
...or something that only a caring father would do. feel me on that?