Virginity

[Ovisterra]

But you're wrong.

I disagree. You can say that I am wrong, I can say that you are wrong,

Except I can prove it.

You tactfully cut out the bit of my post in which I pointed out that I have proof and you don't.

[Mavorpen]

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that telling every teen not to have sex is effective. I am saying that by keeping our society in a way that we prefer abstinence over promiscuity, value abstinence over promiscuity, and discourage promiscuity, it sets a societal precedent and mentality. What I am saying is that it is not a good idea to take away this mentality, because Sex feels good, and if people are taught, sex feels good, do it whenever you want, with whoever you want, have no fear as long as the condoms are here, it would be a breeding ground for disease. Condoms can and do break whether you are Aphrodite or a first timer. I think we should encourage education about safe sex, but I do not think we should toss away the value of chastity and abstinence especially considering it is scientifically and mathematically the only 100% way to prevent the spread of STDs and HIVs.

Except you're still wrong. The states that put abstinence over promiscuity with sex education have MORE teenage pregnancies, and I'm willing to bet more STDs. Prove me wrong. I have facts, you do not.

Because, your "facts" aren't facts. If we were to stop teaching abstinence there'd be MORE pregnancies (especially teen pregnancies) not less! Your position doesn't even remotely make any sense.

How aren't they facts? How many sources have I given you? Let me count the ways.
1) http://www.avert.org/sex-education.htm
2) http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence07/
3) http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/032210abonly.html
4) http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04 ... education/
5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01003.html
6) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

The fact is, contraception reduces pregnancy rates, not abstinence. I could care less if my position makes sense to you. You've provided no evidence of any sort that yours does.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Physics major and doesn't understand what the burden of proof is.

You've missed the point of his post then.

She said she was a physics major, he then responded by saying he is Barack Obama, and she can't prove he isn't. He is saying that her saying she has a physics major without any evidence is just as valid as that.

Oh, I can show proof that I am a physics major.

[Ovisterra]

I disagree. You can say that I am wrong, I can say that you are wrong, it matters not because I have had this argument many times before and have always come to the same conclusion. Telling kids not to have sex is more effective than tossing Condoms into the crowded Gymnasium and saying "Go F***!!!"

Do you have stats backing up your view abstinence only ed works better than safe sex ed? Because safe sex ed does.

And if you knew anything about safe sex ed you'd know that is not how it is done. Practically a strawman. "Huurh,shove condoms in kids hands in hall and tell them have sex! Less effective than no sex!" - yeah, it would be, which is why that is not the way it is done. You position is in trouble if the only way you can make it work is lying about the way things actually work.

Eloquently put. Thank you.

[Occalgavia]

Ok, YOU'RE the slut-shamer. Congratulations.

But being a slut is something of which people should be ashamed.

[Euronion]

I am Barrack Obama. Prove that I am not.

Physics major and doesn't understand what the burden of proof is.

1. I did not say I was a Physics major, I took honors Physics in High School. What does it matter if I told you what my actual major was, it would be no different than Torcularis' situation.
2. The whole point of the previous post was to say that without sufficient proof he or she is not a Sex Educator, just as, without proof, I am not Barrack Obama.

[Ovisterra]

Ok, YOU'RE the slut-shamer. Congratulations.

But being a slut is something of which people should be ashamed.

Define "slut".

[New Sapienta]

You've missed the point of his post then.

She said she was a physics major, he then responded by saying he is Barack Obama, and she can't prove he isn't. He is saying that her saying she has a physics major without any evidence is just as valid as that.

Oh, I can show proof that I am a physics major.

You should probably do that then.

[Saiwania]

Abstinence did work for me, but I recognize that my experience is probably in the minority. Which is why I am for abstinence plus comprehensive sex education. The adolescents learn about safe sex while still knowing about abstinence if that is the choice they choose for themselves.

[Occalgavia]

But being a slut is something of which people should be ashamed.

Define "slut".

Somebody who engages in excessive sexual activity.

[Ovisterra]

Define "slut".

Somebody who engages in excessive sexual activity.

That's nothing to be ashamed of.

[Mavorpen]

But being a slut is something of which people should be ashamed.

Define "slut".

Ovi, stop humoring him.

[Occalgavia]

Somebody who engages in excessive sexual activity.

That's nothing to be ashamed of.

Yes it is.

[Ovisterra]

That's nothing to be ashamed of.

Yes it is.

Why?

Define "slut".

Ovi, stop humoring him.

I'm morbidly curious.

[Occalgavia]

Yes it is.

Why?

Because it is immoral.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Ok, YOU'RE the slut-shamer. Congratulations.

But being a slut is something of which people should be ashamed.

No, it isn't.

First - because what is considered a "slut" differs person to person and some people don't consider it a thing that really exists at all.

Second - when you have defined "slut" you should explain why it is a bad thing. No points if you need religion to do it (especially a religion that involved telling people the only one who should be casting stones are the ones who aren't sinners themselves)

Third - You are feeling ashamed because of how people perceive you. Connected to two - why the fuck should one care if Occalgavia or others considers one a slut? Who died and made you're opinion such we should tremble at the thought of not living up to your standards?

[Mavorpen]

I'm morbidly curious.

Don't be. Let me summarize his shitty argument.

Humans are humans because they have self control, which separates them from animals. If you have a lot of sex and are a slut, you don't have self control. If you don't have self control, you're more animal than human. Thus, you should be ashamed of being a slut.

There, now please, I don't want to see his bullshit anymore.

[Ovisterra]

Why?

Because it is immoral.

Morality is subjective.

NEXT?

[CTALNH]

Madame, this book seems to present anachronistic views that belong in the annals of history.

I do not normally advocating book-burning, but I may seem to make an exception here.

I am with you on this...

[CTALNH]

Somebody who engages in excessive sexual activity.

That's nothing to be ashamed of.

That actually is to be rewarded.

[Occalgavia]

First - because what is considered a "slut" differs person to person and some people don't consider it a thing that really exists at all.

Right, so I can shame some people for it, and others can shame a different lot of people, and so on.

Second - when you have defined "slut" you should explain why it is a bad thing. No points if you need religion to do it (especially a religion that involved telling people the only one who should be casting stones are the ones who aren't sinners themselves)

That's fine. I don't need religion to do it.
But one religious person could use religion to do it if the person they were shaming was of the same religion, no?

Third - You are feeling ashamed because of how people perceive you. Connected to two - why the fuck should one care if Occalgavia or others considers one a slut? Who died and made you're opinion such we should tremble at the thought of not living up to your standards?

They don't have to care (although I think that would be a bad idea). I am still allowed to think and say whatever I want.

Because it is immoral.

Morality is subjective.

NEXT?

No it isn't.

[Euronion]

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that telling every teen not to have sex is effective. I am saying that by keeping our society in a way that we prefer abstinence over promiscuity, value abstinence over promiscuity, and discourage promiscuity, it sets a societal precedent and mentality. What I am saying is that it is not a good idea to take away this mentality, because Sex feels good, and if people are taught, sex feels good, do it whenever you want, with whoever you want, have no fear as long as the condoms are here, it would be a breeding ground for disease. Condoms can and do break whether you are Aphrodite or a first timer. I think we should encourage education about safe sex, but I do not think we should toss away the value of chastity and abstinence especially considering it is scientifically and mathematically the only 100% way to prevent the spread of STDs and HIVs.

Except you're still wrong. The states that put abstinence over promiscuity with sex education have MORE teenage pregnancies, and I'm willing to bet more STDs. Prove me wrong. I have facts, you do not.

How aren't they facts? How many sources have I given you? Let me count the ways.
1) http://www.avert.org/sex-education.htm
2) http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence07/
3) http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/032210abonly.html
4) http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04 ... education/
5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01003.html
6) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

The fact is, contraception reduces pregnancy rates, not abstinence. I could care less if my position makes sense to you. You've provided no evidence of any sort that yours does.

ugh, you do not understand what I am saying then. I AM FOR SAFE SEX WHENEVER POSSIBLE. Unless your studies are from an alien world in which the word chastity doesn't not exist, in which there are no societal influences favoring absitnence and chastity then your sources are irrelevant because all your sources were done here on Earth under the influence of societal preferences. Even if you do run down the halls, shove condoms in people's hands, those people may still choose not to have sex due to their religious views, societal views, and because of what they've had instilled in them by their parents, by society, by their friends, by their enemies, and by their teachers. Do you see what I'm saying? Tossing away abstinence ONLY education, I am in favor off. I prefer a mixed scientific perspective, which is abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent the spread of STDs and HIVs, but people still will have sex. It's kinda like a filter, you run dirt through the first filter and it filters out all the rocks, you put it through the second filter to filer out anything that isn't loose flowing dirt. The analogy is flawed but it conveys what I am trying to say which is, limited-Abstinence education/influence, no matter where it be from, catches people, it stops them from having sex, or discourages them and others from having sex.

[Occalgavia]

That's nothing to be ashamed of.

That actually is to be rewarded.

It already is - we have services which receive public funding which cater almost exclusively to the slovenly and wretched.

[Euronion]

Oh, I can show proof that I am a physics major.

You should probably do that then.

Indeed, and may I also say, that being a Physics major and a licensed Sex Educator is a rather odd career split.

[Ovisterra]

Morality is subjective.

NEXT?

No it isn't.

Then who defines it?

Don't mention anything religious unless you can conclusively prove it.