UK teen celibacy

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Russ D

And that's what they're trying to do - educate teens about the risks of STD and promoting a pretty good level of protection against them.



Pardon me for asking but how does someone get an STD if they abstain?

I could vastly reduce my chance of heart disease by abstaining from fried breakfasts and cream buns. I could reduce my chance of a car accident to nill by not driving anymore. Life would be pretty dull though.

These people are using the STD hot potato as an excuse to promote their own wierd agenda. It is blitheringly obvious that if you abstain from sex then you won't get STDs but it is totally impractical.

Fact is, people fcuk. Young people fcuk a lot. It has been this way since the dawn of time. Trying to promote abstinence it a silly way of going about promoting protection against STD's in this society today.
If you'll excuse the crudity, the best simple promotion I heard for protection against STDs was.... "Wear a wubber or w*** off instead".

[Jon M]

Originally Posted by towny

Sex is great, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all of life. Take it from someone who knows - my first time was wedding night, aged 26. No regrets whatsoever.

Exactly, I think the STD issue is actually secondary to the emotional effects having sex too early can have on you.

I didn't have sex until I was married, but we did things before getting married that I regret and they affected our relationship for the worse not the better.

"Trying before buying" is a sure fire way of showing someone that you will take what you can get without any of the responsibility.
Just think of people in WHSmiths who go in.. read the magazine, get what they want from it and put it back without paying for what they've enjoyed.

People have the same attitude to sex these days.

Originally Posted by Flubflow

These people are using the STD hot potato as an excuse to promote their own wierd agenda. It is blitheringly obvious that if you abstain from sex then you won't get STDs but it is totally impractical.

You are of course free to believe what you wish, but I find the way you caricature somebody else's view of the world really quite offensive. There is nothing wierd about promoting a lifestyle which devotes itself exclusively to one other person. Can I suggest you have a lot of growing up to do if you can't see this.

As for 'impractical' - quite clearly it is not impractical, or else such a large number of people in the US (and increasingly here) would not be doing it. I would not have done it, and I'm as fallible as anyone else.

- - - - - - -

A general question for the discussion (not in reply to the above): It seems to me, whenever this topic comes up, that there is a surprisingly passionate response from some that borders on claiming abstinence is an evil throwback to the dark ages. I'm curious to know why this is. Is it because promotion of a world view different to their own poses some kind of a threat?

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by towny

You are of course free to believe what you wish, but I find the way you caricature somebody else's view of the world really quite offensive. There is nothing wierd about promoting a lifestyle which devotes itself exclusively to one other person. Can I suggest you have a lot of growing up to do if you can't see this.

As for 'impractical' - quite clearly it is not impractical, or else such a large number of people in the US (and increasingly here) would not be doing it. I would not have done it, and I'm as fallible as anyone else.

- - - - - - -

A general question for the discussion (not in reply to the above): It seems to me, whenever this topic comes up, that there is a surprisingly passionate response from some that borders on claiming abstinence is an evil throwback to the dark ages. I'm curious to know why this is. Is it because promotion of a world view different to their own poses some kind of a threat?

We are not talking about one persons beliefs and choices.
There is nothing wierd with one persons individual choice not to "do it" or to wait and stay with one person. I respect that. There is however some very wrong with an organisation of people promoting the idea as if it is the definitive way ahead (and making money off it by selling rings).
If these people think it is such a great idea then they should just get on with it on an individual basis without trying to use the STD playing card and leave everyone else to make up their own minds.

There is always an equally passionate response that borders on claiming that abstinence is indeed a throwback to the dark ages where sex is regarded as the big evil.

Originally Posted by Flubflow

We are not talking about one persons beliefs and choices.
There is nothing wierd with one persons individual choice not to "do it" or to wait and stay with one person. I respect that. There is however some very wrong with an organisation of people promoting the idea as if it is the definitive way ahead (and making money off it by selling rings).
If these people think it is such a great idea then they should just get on with it on an individual basis without trying to use the STD playing card and leave everyone else to make up their own minds.

By that token, all political parties and pressure groups are wierd, because they all exist to promote their ideas as the definitive way ahead.

There is always an equally passionate response that borders on claiming that abstinence is indeed a throwback to the dark ages where sex is regarded as the big evil.

It is a common misconception that the Bible consders sex evil. Sadly centuries of dogma from that lot in Rome have only helped confuse the issue. The Bible (and let's face it, it's Christians we're talking about here) says sex is a gift from God, and therefore is a good thing. However it also says it is a gift that can be misused, and such misuse is evil. I'll expand on that if anybody wants me to; I have no intention of forcing another religious discussion on everyone.

by the way it is possible to get a STD without having sex. and thats not including needles and such. Bad hygiene can lead to it as well

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by towny

By that token, all political parties and pressure groups are wierd, because they all exist to promote their ideas as the definitive way ahead.


It is a common misconception that the Bible consders sex evil. Sadly centuries of dogma from that lot in Rome have only helped confuse the issue. The Bible (and let's face it, it's Christians we're talking about here) says sex is a gift from God, and therefore is a good thing. However it also says it is a gift that can be misused, and such misuse is evil. I'll expand on that if anybody wants me to; I have no intention of forcing another religious discussion on everyone.

Sex, and the decision to do it or not to do it, is a deeply personal issue and there should be no pressure group saying that you must do it or you must not do the most natural thing in the world. You should be given the impartial education and choices - no more and no less.
Political will has tried to force itself on moral issues in the past and has repeatedly failed.
I find it offensive that someone should think it is wrong of anyone to want to have sex with whoever they want and whenever they want and that their way is the better way. We are not parrots, we are 99% ape and we are not monogamus by instinct. We do have a very well developed brain but I'd rather put it to better use than worrying about the moral issues of sex.

Originally Posted by Flubflow

Sex, and the decision to do it or not to do it, is a deeply personal issue and there should be no pressure group saying that you must do it or you must not do the most natural thing in the world. You should be given the impartial education and choices - no more and no less.

So, your personal policy is to give people impartial information. Pressure groups and political groups promoting different ways of doing things is part of a healthy democracy. The only thing you can't do is tell people that they have no right to campaign for what they believe in. Why is this issue such a sacred cow that it's not even acceptable to promote a point of view that differs from the majority?

Political will has tried to force itself on moral issues in the past and has repeatedly failed.

Possibly because politicians are not best suited to lead debates on morality. But I think that's for another topic.

I find it offensive that someone should think it is wrong of anyone to want to have sex with whoever they want and whenever they want and that their way is the better way.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it might be helpful to you to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the people on this planet follow a religion of one kind or another, and the majority of those religions take attitudes to sex that stop well short of 'whenever, wherever, with whoever'. If you are offended by people who choose to put sex into a moral framework, then you are offended by most of the world's population.

We are not parrots, we are 99% ape and we are not monogamus by instinct. We do have a very well developed brain but I'd rather put it to better use than worrying about the moral issues of sex.

Again, an opinion you're welcome to, as long as you recognise that in global terms most people disagree. Good grief, even atheists generally hold moral issues more highly than this.

Hey, I am an atheist! but that doesn't necessarily mean I dont have moral views my view is that you (try to) live your life in a way that doesn't affect people in a negative way. So sex, as long as both people constant and niter has a secreat sti that they are fully aware of then its fine

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by kronas

thats just utter stupidity, anyone can get STD's, even if they have abstained, you can be as careful as you want to be there is always a risk.

How does one get a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE if you abstain?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

It is blitheringly obvious that if you abstain from sex then you won't get STDs but it is totally impractical.

No. It is impractical for YOU. Not for everyone, for YOU, and others that lack total discipline and control over bodily urges. Not everyone has such a complete lack of control and discipline. Don't blame others for your short comings.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Damien

Hey, I am an atheist! but that doesn't necessarily mean I dont have moral views my view is that you (try to) live your life in a way that doesn't affect people in a negative way. So sex, as long as both people constant and niter has a secreat sti that they are fully aware of then its fine

Couldn't agree more

IMO, abstaining to avoid STD/STIs is treating the symptoms and not the cause... (excuse the 'pun')

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No. It is impractical for YOU. Not for everyone, for YOU, and others that lack total discipline and control over bodily urges. Not everyone has such a complete lack of control and discipline. Don't blame others for your short comings.

But you have sex J, bit hypocritical criticizing him for lacking "total discipline and control over bodily urges"!!!

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No. It is impractical for YOU. Not for everyone, for YOU, and others that lack total discipline and control over bodily urges. Not everyone has such a complete lack of control and discipline. Don't blame others for your short comings.

are you for real?

Originally Posted by Russ D

You call using STDs scaremongering? Have you seen the figures in the UK for teens who have contracted an STD?

There was a documentary on C4 a little while back about one of the Texan towns that promotes this sort of nonsense, it has one of the highest teen pregnancy and STD rates in the whole of America. As an example of STD control these methods do seem to have backfired somewhat spectacularly.