Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 139
  1. #81  
    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.
    Danger in this thinking is that it may lead to following your rules while they are in your house, but having a different set of rules when they are on their own..
    I dont think the stict 18year rule works, it all depends on the individual.. some people are ready for sex sooner than others..
    I think it is more importent to show your kids to be able to withstand peerpressure and use good common sense like using protection when you are having sex...
    While you abstinance system may be ideal in theory I dont think it works anymore in modern society.. I'm not saying I'm against your thinking, I'm just worried it is not practical..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #82  
    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]
  3. #83  
    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.
    I fail to see a problem with society promoting individual responsibility.
  4. #84  
    Originally posted by yardie
    People are going to have sex because it is normal.
    Absolutely! But *when* people start to have sex is different.

    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*.

    Resources would be better spent on protection.

    Hm. Remind me not to vote for you to spend my tax dollars!
  5. #85  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    I fail to see a problem with society promoting individual responsibility.
    Teaching abstinence only is the furthest thing from individual responsibility. reread the post you quoted.
  6. #86  
    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."
  7. #87  
    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. [...]
    Well, personally I find it quite natural, but then again, I've always been more wolf than dog. I think most societies tend to act like different species sometimes. In the animal world, there's quite a spectrum of those type of roles.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #88  
    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....

    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."
  9.    #89  
    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.
    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.
  10. #90  
    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.
    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..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  11. #91  
    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. You found me out, cher.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #92  
    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..
    This is somewhat illogical. Spreading more of your offspring among different women actually increases the likelihood of inbreeding of your genes later.
    Male nature is to 'spread its seeds'...
    So some would like to believe, but male nature also wants to make sure that it's _his_ seeds getting planted. One can't do that without some degree of fidelity.
    A woman has a lot more to gain with fidelaty then a man.. such is nature..
    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
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #93  
    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
    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'.
    While pregnant/nursing a woman is (semi) dependant on the man.
    If a woman picks her partner, the 'risk' for her is a lot bigger, a man could bail on a pregnant women, while the woman can't, she is stuck with the kid..
    This (as a sidetrack) is also explains the origin of the engagement ring, once a woman has made the 'investment' in a man she needs some sort of downpayment...(of course this is outdated, but the tradition stayed...)

    ps all this reasoning is purely hypothetical and does not take modern life and ethics into account.. just try to push the point on the 'natural' thing... fact is that modern man is far from natural, while we still have some of the natural instincts...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. #94  
    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'.
    What's that got to do with fidelity?
    While pregnant/nursing a woman is (semi) dependant on the man.
    That's societal. Nothing natural per se about it.
    If a woman picks her partner, the 'risk' for her is a lot bigger, a man could bail on a pregnant women, while the woman can't, she is stuck with the kid..
    Says who? It's no less natural for a woman to abandon her child than a man. You're still not getting my point, though. There's nothing any more or less natural about a woman picking a man for 'fidelity' purposes to stay with her and raise her children and still find ways of giving her offspring 'better' stock.
    This (as a sidetrack) is also explains the origin of the engagement ring, once a woman has made the 'investment' in a man she needs some sort of downpayment...(of course this is outdated, but the tradition stayed...)
    Again, engagement rings are societal. Nothing natural about them any more than dowries.
    ps all this reasoning is purely hypothetical and does not take modern life and ethics into account.. just try to push the point on the 'natural' thing... fact is that modern man is far from natural, while we still have some of the natural instincts...
    I'm trying to push the point that those 'natural instincts' are not necessarily any such thing, but rather may be subtle (or not so subtle) cultural influences.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15.    #95  
    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.
    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.

    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
    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?
  16. #96  
    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.
    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.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #97  
    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..
    The child also gains more by having a paired set of parents. Other than variety, what does a man gain?

    Your inbreeding arguement isn't logical as it supposes one has a better chance of inbreeding with the same partner. Unless you marry a relative you wont inbreed.

    If we all had multiple children from multiple partners wouldn't our children run that risk?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  18. #98  
    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."
  19. #99  
    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 think you are really being silly there, or you haven't ever really tried to subdue a female who doesn't want to be subdued. As a former military law enforcement dude I'd have to differ with you on this one. I am woman, hear me roar, etc.


    Originally posted by clulup
    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?
    Fortunately that way of thinking is changing in western society.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  20. #100  
    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!
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions