The downfall of America has begun

a13antichrist

New Member
If you ever wanted to REALLY fuck up your country, this is the way to do it...

Just Say No?
The Debate Over 'Abstinence-Only' Reaches New Level With Boost in Federal Spending

[...]
President Bush has proposed spending $135 million on abstinence education next fiscal year, more than double spending from just five years ago.

[...]
Despite their proven effectiveness, Wagoner said, none of the sex education programs are eligible for federal funding because they include information about condoms and contraception — even though 12 of the programs promote abstinence by delaying sexual initiation.

[...]

To be eligible for millions in federal dollars, programs must satisfy stringent criteria, including having abstinence promotion as the sole purpose, teaching that not having sex until marriage is the only way to avoid unwed pregnancy and diseases, and stating that "a mutually-faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity."

Jesus. You guys are in a lot of trouble.

When the Abstinence Clearinghouse convention hit Las Vegas last month, the chastity-promoting group turned a Sin City tradition on its ear. Instead of the cards prostitutes use to sell their services, volunteers handed out cleaner versions: "Good girl" cards.

On one side are six wholesome young women, including a bride. Flip the card over and there are messages that condoms aren't always safe and that married people have more money, longer lives and better sex.

The frightening thing is that on the whole the American public is actually stupid enough to fall for this.

But abstinence-only supporters say those who push condoms on teenagers underestimate the effectiveness of wait-until-marriage messages as well as the harmful effects of premarital sex on teenagers.

I quite literally vomited when I read that. Let's turn all our kids into a bunch of ostriches (head-in-sand-type) controlled by fear and ignorance. That's definitely the way to go.

Time for parenting licenses, I think.
 
Premarital sex is harmful for teenagers? How naive can you be?

This is the same bunch of people that think that sex isn't meant to be pleasureable...but only a tool for procreations' sake only.

Then they turn around and say that Married-sex is better? Better than what? If the only sex is meant to be married sex, then there won't be anything to compare it against. It could be the worst possible sex (Scratch that...it WILL be the worst possible sex for a while because neither partner will have a teacher)...

I dated a girl whose parents were so hung up on sex that they scared both of their daughters into fearful little prisses. The one I dated got herself a case of psychosomatic vaginismas (sp?) or painful intercourse due to a constricted vaginal opening. :sperm:

Driving fear into kids ain't going to make them healthier people...educating them WILL:headbang:

Now...I feel like puking...move over A13...leave some space at the trough there :puke:
 
While that is ridiculous nobody has ever gotten pregnant from abstinance. Sex is good, 70% out of wedlock birth rates are bad. It's a very fine line.
 
Well, I guess I won't get any money from Pres Bush for it, but I'll continue to teach my children about sex, about how good it can be if it's done properly, and about how safe it can be if the right precautions are taken. This crap of telling kids to just not do it is bullshit. It's the same as giving a teenage boy a fast car and a license and then saying "Don't drive over the speed limit, it's dangerous." How long do you think it's going to take that kid to be flying down county line road doing 90 miles per hour?
 
If that's true then we've been in a downfall for a long time.

* 95% of the population complies with the highest standard of catholic hipocresy, can it get any worse?

* permanent decadence
 
PT said:
This crap of telling kids to just not do it is bullshit.

It worked well for a couple of millennia. The problem worsened dramaticallly when we took the free love road.
 
It didn't work at all. People just killed their daughters that got pregnant. Or banished them. The "problem" never worsened, it just got acceptable to hear about it. The solution is to stop being retards, pure and simple.
 
In those couple mileniums the women were oppresed also, and they were seen more like a property than as a person and having their virginity til marriage was a warranty of newness.

For men, it didn't work, as most of them had sexual intercourses before marriage, most likely with servants or lower class girls.
 
most of the people who believe that are usually very religious but shouldnt stick their nose where it doesnt belong. if i have kids i will teach them about safe sex knowing theres a good chance theyll have sex before they get married. :rolleyes: @ the whole absitience education crap
 
IMHO it began a long time ago and is proceeding apace.

It worked well for a couple of millennia. The problem worsened dramaticallly when we took the free love road.
People have always opted for the most sex available, it just wasn't talked about as much (as a13 says). Just look at the Africans. They are slowly depopulating their continent and they won't stop.
 
I suppose they want us to go back to total ignorance, mother and baby homes, commiting "moral deviantes"(unwed mothers) to asylums and forcible adoption too....
 
Gonz said:
While that is ridiculous nobody has ever gotten pregnant from abstinance. Sex is good, 70% out of wedlock birth rates are bad. It's a very fine line.

You can't take that stasitic too far out of context...it is possible that 70% or births are out of the confines of wedlock (as defined by the church) BUT...

that number includes births from people in comman-law relationships as well...a bigger part of american society than marriage seems to be.

That particular statistic seems to want to say that 70% or births are
a) Unwanted
b) unplanned
c) teen pregnancies
and thus, bad.


It's not as fine a line as you might think.
 
Well, it's the people that have these kids that all they know is abstinence that are going to be populating those statistics you're quoting Gonz. The ones that know about ALL the alternatives are the ones that might just keep from having kids for awhile.
 
It's not just knowing about the alternatives, it's having access to them and using them that counts.

It still amazes me how many kids are ignorant of the most basic understanding of reproduction in this country and how to prevent it. They are the ones getting pregnant... e.g. you can't get pregnant the first time... I heard this recently from my 15 year old niece! :rolleyes:
 
I wonder what the odds are that Mr. Bush had some premarital sex?

I find the criteria that these programs must meet extremely offensive.
 
MrBishop said:
Premarital sex is harmful for teenagers? How naive can you be?

Newsflash. Premarital sex with my daughter is very harmful to anyone's health.



Gonz said:
While that is ridiculous nobody has ever gotten pregnant from abstinance.

Does Mary ring any bells?


Aunty Em said:
I suppose they want us to go back to total ignorance, mother and baby homes, commiting "moral deviantes"(unwed mothers) to asylums and forcible adoption too....


Call me a sucker for nostalgia ...

Gonz said:
70% out of wedlock birth rates are bad

I posted about that 4 years ago. Sadly, now, married Ontario gays fit the preferred profile for adoption better than many straight couples.


PT said:
This crap of telling kids to just not do it is bullshit. It's the same as giving a teenage boy a fast car and a license and then saying "Don't drive over the speed limit, it's dangerous." How long do you think it's going to take that kid to be flying down county line road doing 90 miles per hour?

So shall we just give up parenting? I thought telling kids what not to do was part of that. Perhaps the "Just say No" antidrug campaign was just a waste of time too?










Can anyone find a copy of my family manifesto? I can't find it anymore.
 
Professur said:
I posted about that 4 years ago. Sadly, now, married Ontario gays fit the preferred profile for adoption better than many straight couples.

Why is that "sadly"? If gay couples are more capable of bringing up open-minded and well-conditioned kids, so much the better.

Professur said:
So shall we just give up parenting? I thought telling kids what not to do was part of that. Perhaps the "Just say No" antidrug campaign was just a waste of time too?

This abstinence program is already no more than giving up parenting. Instead of giving your kids all the information necessary to make an informed decision, you prefer to slam the door in their faces and tell them to go sit in the corner where you don't have to think about the fact that they're growing up.
And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just being facetious instead of incredibly naive as far as your drug campaign comment is concerned.

Professur said:
Newsflash. Premarital sex with my daughter is very harmful to anyone's health.

No it wasn't. :p

That aside, are you going to hide your daughter in a closet until she's ready to get married? Or will you teach her about the possible consequences and how to avoid them, while strongly recommending the celibacy option? Because recommending abstinence is in itself not entirely a bad thing. If someone's too much of a retard to handle life the way it was meant to be, it might be best to limit him/herself to things they can come to grips with. But forcing abstinence on people by not giving them the information needed to make an informed choice is chopping away at the very characteristic of human existence that makes us successful as a race - the exchange of information. What's going to happen when these kids then themselves become parents? The only thing they'll be able to tell their kids is "sex is EVIL!!!!!!!"

The real hope here is that this program eventually starts promoting celibacy even after marriage - that way any fools who honestly think blind abstinence is the way to go will be cleansed from the human race after a single genereation, to the benefit of us all.
 
Sadly, because the "family" has degraded to the point where a breeding pair is no longer seen as best able to raise their own.

As for my kids, neither V2.0 nor V3.0 are terribly sheltered from sex as is. Can't even turn on the TV after supper without sex on it. As they ask questions, the questions will be answered. I a form that they can understand. My daughter already know that there's no stork flying around dropping babies down chimnies. She saw her mother preggers, and she's seen herself naked. She put 2 and 2 together pretty quick. She hasn't figured out how the baby got in there in the first place, but with a baby boy in the house, I doubt that'll take her long to piece together. But one way or the other, she'll get a sit down talking to at the first sign of puberty. She's already had one when she started school about keeping her body to herself. I didn't go into any details, but tried to focus on how some people go nuts with kids and she would be hurt. So far so good. At the beginning of this school year, she'll get an updated version consistent with what she can understand.

With her uncle working in a porn shop, I doubt she'll stay in the dark for long.
 
*sigh* Thank your lucky stars you don't have my problem, explaining to a 14 year old with a mental age of 6 - 7 about sex.

She knows the difference between boys and girls and that babies grow in mummies tummy, but as yet she doesn't know how it gets there. Trying to figure out when is best to tell her is really difficult because she is going to need to know at some point soon so she can protect herself from boys or men who want to take advantage of her. But equally I don't want to frighten her.
 
Not so long ago children like your were sterilized to prevent pregnancy. One of the justifications was that they couldn't be taught to protect themselves against perverts.

But I think your biggest problem isn't gonna be teaching her to protect herself. It's gonna come when she thinks babies are cute and she wants one.
 
Back
Top