A sick new trend.

[Paragon]

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138

Excerpt:

It has all the ingredients of a wedding. The proud tuxedo-clad father, the frosted white cake, the limousines and an exchange of vows.

But there is no groom and the girl in the long gown is no bride. She's daddy's little girl, there to take a vow of chastity.

In what is becoming a trend among conservative Christians in the United States, girls as young as nine are pledging to their fathers to remain virgins until they wed, in elaborate ceremonies dubbed "Purity Balls."

I'll be the first to admit that teen pregnancies are a very bad thing, and should be avoided. Unfortunately, this does not help.

Why do I have a problem with this? Easy!

Teens will likely have sex. Some don't, most do, regardless of whether they made any pledge. Those taught abstinance-only are generally not nearly as well educated in methods of preventing pregnancy or STDs, so they end up being much less careful about sex when they do break the pledges. Then, because they've disobeyed their parents, they don't go anywhere for help because they feel ashamed. They simply start being secretive as all hell, and this can create a huge rift between them and their parents.

One study conducted by researchers at the universities of Columbia and Yale found that 88 percent of pledgers wind up having sex before marriage.

"Unfortunately these young people tend, once they start to have sex, to have more partners in a shorter period of time and to use contraception much less than their non-pledging peers," said Debra Hauser, executive vice president at Advocates for Youth, a Washington-based non-profit organization.

Second, this has no regard for sexual compatibility. For those of you not aware, there are three important aspects to a healthy relationship:

- Commitment
- Intimacy
- Passion

To clarify, since those terms can be a little confusing (don't intimacy and passion sort of seem like the same thing?), I'll put them in a bit more blunt terms:

- Commitment (yeah, that one didn't need to be changed)
- Friendship
- Sex

Yes, sex is a pretty important part of a relationship. What kind of sex do you like? Many people have very different interests in bed, and I'm not just talking about there preference of gender. Some people are submissive, some are dominant, some like being in bondage, some like putting the other in bondage. Some like to use different holes, some like to use fingers or toes, some only want the two sexual organs together, nothing fancy. Some like dressing up, some like being completely naked. Some like to role-play, some like to watch porn, etc.

Being with someone who does not share your sexual interests can be incredibly damaging to a relationship, which makes it important to explore this area before making a commitment like marriage.

Just imagine learning on your wedding night that your new spouse had a fetish for putting you in bondage and whipping you until you bled, while all you wanted was a simple night in bed, just rather simple sex. Obviously, being forced to do what your spouse wanted would be a problem for you, but it would also be a problem for that spouse if they did not get to fulfill their desires, and pretty soon both of you could become very disinterested in the relationship, and begin looking for more compatible partners.

Yes, you can talk about sex before you get married. But it hardly works as well.

Am I encouraging rampant, wild, undiscriminating sex? Not if you're looking for a good, stable relationship, which most people are, and certainly not if you don't want to contract any venereal diseases. I'm not suggesting people have sex on the first date. I merely mean to suggest that after a certain point in a relationship, this kind of exploration is very useful to that relationship's future.

Third, I think 9, 10 and 11 are too young to expect girls to make this kind of a decision. They have no idea what they're getting into at that age, what sex really means (besides anatomical descriptions that they hardly understand), and none of the hormones necessary to understand why they would want to have sex anyway.

Here is the website for them:
www.generationsoflight.com/generationsoflight/html/PurityBall.html

I have one final issue with this Purity Ball thing, being that it sounds sick. The descriptions about fathers and daughters seem very disturbing to me, even if they are of the "purest" intention. Seriously, read this quote and tell me it didn't make you think the father wasn't having some odd fantasies...:

One of the most memorable highlights of the ball is when the fathers stand in the middle of the ballroom and form a circle around their daughters standing all aglow in their lovely ball gowns. The fathers place their hands on their daughters, and together we pray for purity of mind, body, and soul for generations to come.

"How can you measure the value of your eleven year old looking up into your eyes (as you clumsily learn the fox-trot together) with innocent, uncontainable joy, saying, 'Daddy, I'm so excited!' wrote Wesley Tullis in a letter describing his grateful participation.

Edit: Also PWNED

www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-19-premarital-sex_x.htm

[Paragon]

No replies? I hate to double-post, but I didn't post this on a debate forum just for people to read...

[Admin]

This is probably one of the only forums you'll find where double posting is allowed. I've even done it a few times myself ;D

paragon said:

news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138

Excerpt:

It has all the ingredients of a wedding. The proud tuxedo-clad father, the frosted white cake, the limousines and an exchange of vows.

But there is no groom and the girl in the long gown is no bride. She's daddy's little girl, there to take a vow of chastity.

In what is becoming a trend among conservative Christians in the United States, girls as young as nine are pledging to their fathers to remain virgins until they wed, in elaborate ceremonies dubbed "Purity Balls."

Ceremony or no cermony, I don't think it will change anything much. The girls who do these things are still going to have the same urges and desires. So to me it seems like a waste of time.

paragon said:

I'll be the first to admit that teen pregnancies are a very bad thing, and should be avoided. Unfortunately, this does not help.

It seems, to me anyway, that when a parent tells their kid more and more that they can't do something, the more and more the kid wants to do it.

paragon said:

Teens will likely have sex. Some don't, most do, regardless of whether they made any pledge. Those taught abstinance-only are generally not nearly as well educated in methods of preventing pregnancy or STDs, so they end up being much less careful about sex when they do break the pledges. Then, because they've disobeyed their parents, they don't go anywhere for help because they feel ashamed. They simply start being secretive as all hell, and this can create a huge rift between them and their parents.

Good point.

paragon said:

Yes, sex is a pretty important part of a relationship. What kind of sex do you like? Many people have very different interests in bed, and I'm not just talking about there preference of gender. Some people are submissive, some are dominant, some like being in bondage, some like putting the other in bondage. Some like to use different holes, some like to use fingers or toes, some only want the two sexual organs together, nothing fancy. Some like dressing up, some like being completely naked. Some like to role-play, some like to watch porn, etc.

Being with someone who does not share your sexual interests can be incredibly damaging to a relationship, which makes it important to explore this area before making a commitment like marriage.

Another good point.

paragon said:

Third, I think 9, 10 and 11 are too young to expect girls to make this kind of a decision. They have no idea what they're getting into at that age, what sex really means (besides anatomical descriptions that they hardly understand), and none of the hormones necessary to understand why they would want to have sex anyway.

Which is why it's a bad idea. Eventually once they get those hormones and want to have sex, I doubt some stupid purity ball is going to stop them.

I don't think purity balls are going to work out very well.

[voltage]

So what are you contradicting? The purity ball, or the idea of abstinence?

Lets be honest here about parenthood, first off. Parents teach their kids how to live. If your going to sit here and tell me that a parent needs to let their kid go screw and steal and run around naked like an animal because if they told their child how to act appropriately they might create a 'gap'. Part of the human condition is sin, or doing wrong things. Therefore you can't expect anyone brand new to life to know what is right and what is wrong. Thats where your parents come in. They tell you that you wear clothes in public. They also tell you that you don't lie or steal. Some even tell their kids to save sexual enjoyment for marriage. So who are you to say they don't have that right? Last time I checked, the kids whose parents told them these things had an excellent relationship, a bond if you will. Those who ran about like wild children looked on their parents with contempt. Why? Simply because when you do the right things you are better off in the long run. Stealing the candy bar will get you quick chocolate for free, but it will also make you dishonest and because of your dishonesty you will refuse to trust others. Lying to your parents will get you out of a nasty confrontation, but in the long run a gap will be created between you and your guardians. You will also lose their trust, and thus will lose many freedoms that one who is trustworthy would receive (curfew, dating, etc.) And sex will be just wonderful before marriage, but it has other effects which I will go more into later.

Point is this: Parents who do not intervene on their child's attitudes and behaviors ends up losing the child and the child becomes detached emotionally from the parent. When this happens with males, there is even a lack of an appropriate male bond, thus creating a gap in the child and having the potential for homosexual tendencies. But the parents who teach and rebuke the child, and guide them in what is right have more obedient and better natured children in the long run. I'm not saying you should rob all independent thoughts from a child programming them like a zombie, but rather guiding and setting off so to speak. Where they go after home is their life, and thats where decisions like their sexual decisions should lie, when they are adults who know more than that it feels good and the hormones want it.

So what I'm really saying is, screaming at these fathers for doing their job, raising their daughters and explaining to them abstinence is not a sick trend, nor is it new. It is almost adolescent thinking to demand independence from the parents when you haven't stood long enough apart their care. So this is a childish thought, that you should tell your children to pursue whatever sexual desires they wish, take no cation and screw like stray dogs. But in your mind we are animals, or made of animals, and so panting and running four legged naked would just be a preferred form of behavior. Don't correct it, or you'll child wont like you. What a scary thought!

Now for the issue of sexual abstinence. Sex isn't just something we do. Its not some animal instinct which only serves the one purpose of making more of us. No sex has a deeper view for human beings, and its one of the defining characteristics which singles us out from the monkeys and rabbits. First off, your right. Sex is good for relationships. But you mentioned commitment. Real commitment is one that is public, licensed, and stating that this person is going to be with you forever, regardless of how either of you feel for the time. A teenage sex craze is not committed, and sex without commitment is damaging to the mind. Sex is an emotional bond between people, which is why happy marriages involve sex. Teenagers who wish to go out and play with different holes aren't out to be committed to that someone special. They are out their to please their hormones, and feel good for a few minutes. Look at gun licensing. Whose more capable to go on an airplane and kill the pilot? One who applies for a gun license, or one who bought a machinegun from someones trunk. They are both capable, but the second is more likely to abuse the weapon. Why? Because people who commit and go through proper legal system to obtain a firearm, are not looking for a quick fix and are more likely to handle the weapon properly. Someone who gets a sawed off shotgun from John's trunk are usually not willing to use the weapon for good purpose, but more or less want to abuse it and enjoy the power of the weapon. Sex is close to the same principal. You commit to a person and say you wills stand by them, and enter a public and legal contract per say to them, you are more likely to use sex not as just for self pleasure, but as an effective tool of bringing them and their spouse closer together in a healthy relationship. Kids who go out and want to have sex before there mind is even developed enough to understand it (as you said anatomical structures they don't understand) are more likely looking for the selfish hormone outlet, or it feels good to my body so I'm going to do despite whatever my parents say.

SO in a nutshell, I don't see anything wrong with this purity ball. It does seem extravagant to me, as a simple conversation with mom and dad, even a purity ring would do. But the principal stills stands, these parents are taking care of their kids and making sure that the pleasure of sex is used as it was meant to be used. As an emotional bond between a married couple, proving that they will go to the furthest lengths to achieve there commitment.

[Paragon]

voltage said:

So what are you contradicting? The purity ball, or the idea of abstinence?

The idea of absitence only education, to be specific.

Lets be honest here about parenthood, first off. Parents teach their kids how to live. If your going to sit here and tell me that a parent needs to let their kid go screw and steal and run around naked like an animal because if they told their child how to act appropriately they might create a 'gap'. Part of the human condition is sin, or doing wrong things. Therefore you can't expect anyone brand new to life to know what is right and what is wrong. Thats where your parents come in. They tell you that you wear clothes in public. They also tell you that you don't lie or steal. Some even tell their kids to save sexual enjoyment for marriage. So who are you to say they don't have that right? Last time I checked, the kids whose parents told them these things had an excellent relationship, a bond if you will. Those who ran about like wild children looked on their parents with contempt. Why? Simply because when you do the right things you are better off in the long run. Stealing the candy bar will get you quick chocolate for free, but it will also make you dishonest and because of your dishonesty you will refuse to trust others. Lying to your parents will get you out of a nasty confrontation, but in the long run a gap will be created between you and your guardians. You will also lose their trust, and thus will lose many freedoms that one who is trustworthy would receive (curfew, dating, etc.) And sex will be just wonderful before marriage, but it has other effects which I will go more into later.

I thought I specifically said that I do not condone rampant sexual behavior...didn't I? What do I have a problem with? Hiding the facts from teenagers who for the most part will engage in sexual activity anyway, it does nothing but hurt them. Encourage abstinence, thats fine, just don't shirk on the other stuff, because its probably more important.

Point is this: Parents who do not intervene on their child's attitudes and behaviors ends up losing the child and the child becomes detached emotionally from the parent. When this happens with males, there is even a lack of an appropriate male bond, thus creating a gap in the child and having the potential for homosexual tendencies.

Bullshit. Complete bullshit. I want to see some statistics to back this kind of claim up, because I think you pulled this one straight out of your pocket. Homosexuality is not a form of rebellion.

But the parents who teach and rebuke the child, and guide them in what is right have more obedient and better natured children in the long run. I'm not saying you should rob all independent thoughts from a child programming them like a zombie, but rather guiding and setting off so to speak. Where they go after home is their life, and thats where decisions like their sexual decisions should lie, when they are adults who know more than that it feels good and the hormones want it.

We can argue as much as we want about what rights teenagers deserve, but the fact is that whether their parents allow them to or not, a majority of high school students will have sex. Knowing this, would you rather just wait for your kid to have sex and punish them, or give them all the information they need to know to not get pregnant, or an STD? You can still punish them for it afterward if you find out. Having a grandchild at that age? Some may call it retribution, but I doubt you would enjoy it.

So what I'm really saying is, screaming at these fathers for doing their job, raising their daughters and explaining to them abstinence is not a sick trend, nor is it new. It is almost adolescent thinking to demand independence from the parents when you haven't stood long enough apart their care.

Which is why I'm not demanding it. Teenagers make stupid decisions. They're young, they don't have enough experience with these kinds of things to know what they're really getting into, and thats why they'll do these things no matter what they pledge, and why parents should do their best to cover all the bases.

So this is a childish thought, that you should tell your children to pursue whatever sexual desires they wish, take no cation and screw like stray dogs. But in your mind we are animals, or made of animals, and so panting and running four legged naked would just be a preferred form of behavior. Don't correct it, or you'll child wont like you. What a scary thought!

Caution is the biggest concern in my argument. You obviously don't understand that.

Now for the issue of sexual abstinence. Sex isn't just something we do. Its not some animal instinct which only serves the one purpose of making more of us. No sex has a deeper view for human beings, and its one of the defining characteristics which singles us out from the monkeys and rabbits. First off, your right. Sex is good for relationships. But you mentioned commitment. Real commitment is one that is public, licensed, and stating that this person is going to be with you forever, regardless of how either of you feel for the time. A teenage sex craze is not committed, and sex without commitment is damaging to the mind. Sex is an emotional bond between people, which is why happy marriages involve sex. Teenagers who wish to go out and play with different holes aren't out to be committed to that someone special. They are out their to please their hormones, and feel good for a few minutes. Look at gun licensing. Whose more capable to go on an airplane and kill the pilot? One who applies for a gun license, or one who bought a machinegun from someones trunk. They are both capable, but the second is more likely to abuse the weapon. Why? Because people who commit and go through proper legal system to obtain a firearm, are not looking for a quick fix and are more likely to handle the weapon properly. Someone who gets a sawed off shotgun from John's trunk are usually not willing to use the weapon for good purpose, but more or less want to abuse it and enjoy the power of the weapon. Sex is close to the same principal. You commit to a person and say you wills stand by them, and enter a public and legal contract per say to them, you are more likely to use sex not as just for self pleasure, but as an effective tool of bringing them and their spouse closer together in a healthy relationship. Kids who go out and want to have sex before there mind is even developed enough to understand it (as you said anatomical structures they don't understand) are more likely looking for the selfish hormone outlet, or it feels good to my body so I'm going to do despite whatever my parents say.

Sex is not good for relationships, it is a part of relationships.

Meanwhile, I'm not suggesting that most teenagers are actually committed, because that would be stupid too. But are teenagers the only people who have premarital sex? No. Thats why I'm not talking about them in particular. The idea of abstinence until marriage doesn't mean abstinence until you turn 20, it means until you actually get married, and I have a problem with that, as I've already stated. This concept makes it incredibly difficult to figure out if your fiance has the same sexual interests as you. Beyond that, it encourages early, foolhardy marriages that are preceeded by ignorantly short courtships, where the two involved people are simply getting married to have sex without sticking out a long engagement to make sure they're right for each other. You really cannot know you're in love until you have been with the person for 2 1/2 - 3 years, biologically speaking, because thats how long it takes for certain hormones to wear off. Why is the divorce rate in America so high? Because people get married after dating for only six months, without enough time to figure out if they're really right for each other. Three years later when they find our they're not, and have kids and share everything, they get tangled up in a big fuss.

Solution? Have sex before you marry someone. Wait to formalize the commitment. Make sure you're right for each other before you screw everything up by signing contracts together, living together, having kids, etc.

SO in a nutshell, I don't see anything wrong with this purity ball. It does seem extravagant to me, as a simple conversation with mom and dad, even a purity ring would do. But the principal stills stands, these parents are taking care of their kids and making sure that the pleasure of sex is used as it was meant to be used. As an emotional bond between a married couple, proving that they will go to the furthest lengths to achieve there commitment.

Which is wrong. You shouldn't commit to a relationship with someone unless you know you enjoy sex with them.

[Admin]

voltage said:

So what are you contradicting? The purity ball, or the idea of abstinence?

Both. The purity ball is just stupid because it's a waste of money. A ceremony isn't going to stop someone from having sex, especially not when the ceremony is done when the people are still kids.

Contradicting abstinence for the reasons which Paragon has stated.

voltage said:

Lets be honest here about parenthood, first off. Parents teach their kids how to live. If your going to sit here and tell me that a parent needs to let their kid go screw and steal and run around naked like an animal because if they told their child how to act appropriately they might create a 'gap'.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, that wasn't what I meant at all. I was explaining why the purity balls are ridiculous. Other than that, yes, kids should be encouraged to stay away from getting pregnant or contracting STDs. But sex after a certain age before marraige is probably O.K.

voltage said:

Part of the human condition is sin, or doing wrong things. Therefore you can't expect anyone brand new to life to know what is right and what is wrong.

Exactly what I was trying to point out. Why try to tell your kid they can't have sex before they even know why they would want to have sex?

voltage said:

So what I'm really saying is, screaming at these fathers for doing their job, raising their daughters and explaining to them abstinence is not a sick trend, nor is it new.

No, but some fucking 'purity ball' is sick and retarded. Why does there need to be a ceremony? Can't you just explain to your kids why abstinance at a young age is better than having sex?

voltage said:

So this is a childish thought, that you should tell your children to pursue whatever sexual desires they wish, take no cation and screw like stray dogs. But in your mind we are animals, or made of animals, and so panting and running four legged naked would just be a preferred form of behavior. Don't correct it, or you'll child wont like you. What a scary thought!

Was there really a need to be offensive? What I was aiming at, was not telling your kids to sleep with whoever they want whenever they want. That is stupid. I was simply pointing out, that in some cases, kids will not listen to their parents either due to rebellion or curiousity. But it is most important to tell them what and then tell them why. You can't just say, 'don't have sex because it's bad'. You have to provide reasons and examples and evidence. That way your kid knows for a fact why not.

voltage said:

Real commitment is one that is public, licensed, and stating that this person is going to be with you forever, regardless of how either of you feel for the time.

Yet not even the people who do get married seem to stay together forever like they vowed to

[bbqsandwich]

I don't agree with this particular method of promoting abstinence ("purity ball" or w/e) but I do think it's great that a parent, particularly a dad, would care enough to get involved in their kid's life. Ideally, this kind of decision (abstinence education versus pray the condom doesn't break education) is a matter that should be between parents and their kids -- especially if we're talking about kids whose parents are still legally responsible for the consequences of their kids' actions.

[Paragon]

Condoms really don't break all that often. And there are other forms of birth control, daily pills, day-afters, intra uterine devices (incredibly effective, with little or no affect on the user, all they have to do is go get it put in), diaphrams, etc.

On another note, did someone removed the censors? I could have sworn my previous post said "bullcensored" after I posted it, and now its gone back to the original text of "bullshit".

[voltage]

The idea of abstinence only education, to be specific.



I thought I specifically said that I do not condone rampant sexual behavior...didn't I? What do I have a problem with? Hiding the facts from teenagers who for the most part will engage in sexual activity anyway, it does nothing but hurt them. Encourage abstinence, thats fine, just don't shirk on the other stuff, because its probably more important.

The problem with that statement is simply the fact that you don't know the real number of teenagers having sex. Unless you conducted the survey, I doubt its accurate. And in my debate I showed the consequences of premature sexual activity. Thats not just something that wont hurt anybody. And what other stuff?

crap. Complete crap. I want to see some statistics to back this kind of claim up, because I think you pulled this one straight out of your ass. Homosexuality is not a form of rebellion.

I don't use googled statistics, probably cause I know that if its on the Internet is must be 100% accurate right? I'll try to find some studies for you, but I doubt you'd listen even then. Oh and can you watch your language? I understand you enjoy direct statements like that, but I'm not going to offer apologies for misinterpreted words on other topics, and then let you badger me here unchecked.

We can argue as much as we want about what rights teenagers deserve, but the fact is that whether their parents allow them to or not, a majority of high school students will have sex. Knowing this, would you rather just wait for your kid to have sex and punish them, or give them all the information they need to know to not get pregnant, or an STD? You can still punish them for it afterward if you find out. Having a grandchild at that age? Some may call it retribution, but I doubt you would enjoy it.

No thats not the fact. You put more faith in your statistics than you can effectively back up. Two Internet sites are not enough to say with full credibility "Fact is". Once more this sounds like a teenage rebellion issue of, "you can influence your children, so just tell them where the hospital is when they slit their wrists."

Which is why I'm not demanding it. Teenagers make stupid decisions. They're young, they don't have enough experience with these kinds of things to know what they're really getting into, and thats why they'll do these things no matter what they pledge, and why parents should do their best to cover all the bases.

Now that was pulled out of your pocket. You make it sound like a teenager is someone who can't be taught anything, which isn't true. Cover all bases? Now your contradicting yourself. "Teach them this, but you cant teach them that." Once more, don't tell your child not to do it or they might hate you. even listen to you. eep!

Caution is the biggest concern in my argument. You obviously don't understand that.

Please enlighten me. Or don't waste the quote space.

Sex is not good for relationships, it is a part of relationships.

It is a part of a good marriage, and any relationship outside of the commitment of marriage is obviously avoiding such commitment for sex. Does that sound good to you?

Meanwhile, I'm not suggesting that most teenagers are actually committed, because that would be stupid too. But are teenagers the only people who have premarital sex? No. Thats why I'm not talking about them in particular. The idea of abstinence until marriage doesn't mean abstinence until you turn 20, it means until you actually get married, and I have a problem with that, as I've already stated. This concept makes it incredibly difficult to figure out if your fiance has the same sexual interests as you. Beyond that, it encourages early, foolhardy marriages that are preceded by ignorantly short courtships, where the two involved people are simply getting married to have sex without sticking out a long engagement to make sure they're right for each other. You really cannot know you're in love until you have been with the person for 2 1/2 - 3 years, biologically speaking, because thats how long it takes for certain hormones to wear off. Why is the divorce rate in America so high? Because people get married after dating for only six months, without enough time to figure out if they're really right for each other. Three years later when they find our they're not, and have kids and share everything, they get tangled up in a big fuss.

First off I'm confused on your idea of compatibility. Do you believe all people are unique?

Solution? Have sex before you marry someone. Wait to formalize the commitment. Make sure you're right for each other before you screw everything up by signing contracts together, living together, having kids, etc.

Or go through the commitment, talk about sex for what it is besides feeling good (yes we reproduce through sex) and then you will know that the other person is doing everything they can to bring you closer together.

Which is wrong. You shouldn't commit to a relationship with someone unless you know you enjoy sex with them.

What a ludicrous statement. Its as if you ran over everything I said and still came with the same conclusion. Sex isn't a sort of "I like you" hing. Sex feels good to everybody. So by your rules we should marry the first person we have sex with! Hold the phone! You mean we'd only have sex with one person? Wait wait heres a thought. Get committed before hand so that your partner doesn't run off after the curiosity of sex is gone. Wow! Colossal!

[voltage]

Both. The purity ball is just stupid because it's a waste of money. A ceremony isn't going to stop someone from having sex, especially not when the ceremony is done when the people are still kids.

Contradicting abstinence for the reasons which Paragon has stated.

Wow this sounds familiar, why don't you save time and copy+paste paragon?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, that wasn't what I meant at all. I was explaining why the purity balls are ridiculous. Other than that, yes, kids should be encouraged to stay away from getting pregnant or contracting STDs. But sex after a certain age before marraige is probably O.K.

So you agree taht teenagers should be encouraged to not have sex, but after the mature its ok. Thats safer ground, but I would push it furthur than that saying that sex is more than an instinctual thing like eating or drinking.

Exactly what I was trying to point out. Why try to tell your kid they can't have sex before they even know why they would want to have sex?

Depends on the kid. If your 8 no. If your 11 your coming up to that preteen age which marks the explosion of hormones.

No, but some freaking 'purity ball' is sick and retarded. Why does there need to be a ceremony? Can't you just explain to your kids why abstinance at a young age is better than having sex?

I agree that this purity ball is extravagent and unneeded. But whats with the flowery language? Have you been hanging out with someone of late....

Was there really a need to be offensive? What I was aiming at, was not telling your kids to sleep with whoever they want whenever they want. That is stupid. I was simply pointing out, that in some cases, kids will not listen to their parents either due to rebellion or curiousity. But it is most important to tell them what and then tell them why. You can't just say, 'don't have sex because it's bad'. You have to provide reasons and examples and evidence. That way your kid knows for a fact why not.

Unfortunalty yes I needed to be offensive to the idea since it destroys proper relationships everyday, and attempts to kick the parents out of their childs life.

Exactly. You show facts and causes and consequences. I never said keep your child stupid about thigns, I said tell them what is right. Their i evidence for what is right, such as what would you rather do? Screw 4 people in your lifetime who never wopuld have stayed with you in the first place? People who screwed you because they were teenagers seeking pleasure? Or would you rather be committed to one person and enjoy sex together, as a sealing on the bigger more mature decision of choosing and changing for a partner for life. What would you rather have Alien?

Yet not even the people who do get married seem to stay together forever like they vowed to

I dont understand the implications of the statement.

[Admin]

voltage said:

So you agree taht teenagers should be encouraged to not have sex, but after the mature its ok. Thats safer ground, but I would push it furthur than that saying that sex is more than an instinctual thing like eating or drinking.

Well in that sense, sex can be compared to eating and drinking. Yes it is an instinct that when you get hungry, you eat (and same with thirsty and drinking). Sex is to an extent an instinct, too. Once you get into puberty and you have that "explosion" of sex hormones, whether male or female, there is a desire to have sex. And without the restraints put down from parents, people probably would be having sex at younger ages; moreso than now. But people also just eat and drink at social situations, or while watching TV, or whatever. Not in all those situations are we actually hungry. An animal run by its instincts would only eat and drink when hungry or thirsty. And as you probably know, animals usually come into heat once a year. That is the mating season. People have sex just for fun sometimes. And people tend to be more pro-sex than any other creature on Earth.

voltage said:

Depends on the kid. If your 8 no. If your 11 your coming up to that preteen age which marks the explosion of hormones.

But then don't you think that they should be taught abstinence once they do come into puberty? Otherwise they won't understand it because they will have no desire for sex.

voltage said:

Unfortunalty yes I needed to be offensive to the idea since it destroys proper relationships everyday, and attempts to kick the parents out of their childs life.

Well let me give an explaination to what makes us human. Humans have instincts just like any animal on the planet. Such as listed above, eating, drinking and sex. But what separates us from animals, is that we have the ability to choose to not follow our instincts. We were able to use fire for our own purposes, and discover how to make it. Any other animal is instinctually scared of fire and would not go near it. So there are things that seperate us from animals. But if you want to run around on all fours butt-naked and barking like a dog, by all means, go ahead.

voltage said:

what would you rather do? Screw 4 people in your lifetime who never wopuld have stayed with you in the first place? People who screwed you because they were teenagers seeking pleasure? Or would you rather be committed to one person and enjoy sex together, as a sealing on the bigger more mature decision of choosing and changing for a partner for life. What would you rather have Alien?

I suppose the latter sounds more ideal.

I have a question for you though. You kind of talk about sex like your an adult, but aren't you a teenager, too?

voltage said:

Yet not even the people who do get married seem to stay together forever like they vowed to

I dont understand the implications of the statement.

I was just pointing out that people get divorced quite often even though when they get married they promise to stay together untill death.

[voltage]

Well in that sense, sex can be compared to eating and drinking. Yes it is an instinct that when you get hungry, you eat (and same with thirsty and drinking). Sex is to an extent an instinct, too. Once you get into puberty and you have that "explosion" of sex hormones, whether male or female, there is a desire to have sex. And without the restraints put down from parents, people probably would be having sex at younger ages; more so than now. But people also just eat and drink at social situations, or while watching TV, or whatever. Not in all those situations are we actually hungry. An animal run by its instincts would only eat and drink when hungry or thirsty. And as you probably know, animals usually come into heat once a year. That is the mating season. People have sex just for fun sometimes. And people tend to be more pro-sex than any other creature on Earth./quote]

I agree somewhat on this. We have the ability to not act like animals.


quote]But then don't you think that they should be taught abstinence once they do come into puberty? Otherwise they won't understand it because they will have no desire for sex.

I was taught before my body went wacko. I didn't understand all of it, but as I came into that age I remembered what I was taught and understood myself better and my urges.

Well let me give an explanation to what makes us human. Humans have instincts just like any animal on the planet. Such as listed above, eating, drinking and sex. But what separates us from animals, is that we have the ability to choose to not follow our instincts. We were able to use fire for our own purposes, and discover how to make it. Any other animal is instinctual scared of fire and would not go near it. So there are things that separate us from animals. But if you want to run around on all fours butt-naked and barking like a dog, by all means, go ahead.

Yes! I agree wholeheartedly. We are not animals, and we can choose against our instinct. Every teenagers isn't having sex because they are humans, who can choose to do something other than what their instincts are telling them. This is one of the main reasons I believe those statistics are false.

I suppose the latter sounds more ideal.

I have a question for you though. You kind of talk about sex like your an adult, but aren't you a teenager, too?

I talk about sex the way I was taught, which is from an adult. I don't know everything and I am living evidence that someone can be taught to not have sex until marriage. When I do get married I can only imagine the benefit of sexual pleasure, having not been intimate physically with anyone than the person I choose to spend the rest of my life with. Thats something that makes a great relationship into a fantastic relationship.

I was just pointing out that people get divorced quite often even though when they get married they promise to stay together until death.

To me that just means that they weren't mature enough to understand the commitment. If you marry for sex, that can happen. But divorces are a different issue, and one that I am not very familiar with.

[thatguy]

voltage said:

I talk about sex the way I was taught, which is from an adult. I don't know everything and I am living evidence that someone can be taught to not have sex until marriage. When I do get married I can only imagine the benefit of sexual pleasure, having not been intimate physically with anyone than the person I choose to spend the rest of my life with. Thats something that makes a great relationship into a fantastic relationship.

Man I do hope you don't marry some frigid dead lay! You will be so bummed. And that my friend is something you won't know till you are in the sack. By your rules it is too late. I would definately suggest taking the car for a ride before buying.

[voltage]

Man I do hope you don't marry some frigid dead lay! You will be so bummed. And that my friend is something you won't know till you are in the sack. By your rules it is too late. I would definately suggest taking the car for a ride before buying.

I happen to read this post to a female friend of mine, and she just wants to express her utter disgust with your post. This obviously reveals the adolescent root in the entire idea. Women are cars. Marriage is buying the car. If the car doesn't work right don't buy it. Forget love. Forget personality and companionship. If the car runs buy it, and if it breaks down sell it! I think now we see the real problem in divorce, not so much the sex, but more about the motives behind the companionship.

Oh and I hope I don't get "bummed" by some "frigid dead lay."

[Admin]

I'll be one to admit that sex is probably an important part of a relationship... Though I really have no personal experience

But Voltage does bring up a good point. A long term relationship, such as marraige, does include more than just sex. If you look for only sex to try and create a good relationship with a girl, or a guy if you are a girl, then there can be no long term relationship, really. Thatguy, what you said about a "frigid dead lay" is a good point. But think about it the other way. If your in a long term relationship with someone who is great at sex, but they're not good at anything else, and really don't love you for anything more than your money or whatever, is it still a good relationship? Maybe for a while, but I'm sure it wouldn't be long and you'd move on to someone else.