remember those teenage abstinence pledges?

[MrBaggins]

Why do you need condoms at all? What purpose do they serve?

Sex without fluid transfer. Having sex without significant risk of disease transfer or unwanted birth. A hell of a lot more effective than trusting to human nature.

[Ben Kenobi]

but a divorce... it's breaking the contract after it's been sealed. even worse if children are involved.
divorce is worse than sleeping around, precisely because of its effects on the children.

I don't see one worse than the other. Many of the problems people run into is when they start sleeping around. Sure, it may not hurt a person as a divorce would, but what about abortion? That's the perspective that I have on this issue. Birth control fails, so people resort to abortions.

[chequita guevara]

People who refuse to use condoms aren't very likely to obey a pledge not to have sex. Pledgers are at a greater risk of STDs and teen pregnncy. Why do Christians hate children so?

[Q Classic]

Have anal and oral sex, because "it doesn't really count as sex." Oops, another dirty little secret about Christian pledgers.

1. wrong, it is sex.
2. i've never understood the first. things are supposed to come out of it, not go into it. which is the reason why i refuse to take suppositories and am hoping that they figure out another way to test prostate health.

Condoms have a 99% success rate. Condoms are far more effective than abstinence in preventing pregnancy and stds.

only when condoms are used properly. seriously, with as many idiots in the world opening attachments and getting infected, you think that they'd be able to open a little foil wrapper, put it on without air bubbles, use water-based lubricant, and so on without either: tearing it; degrading the latex's strength by having kept it in their pocketses; using the size that befits them; and so on? please.
abstinence is the only one that cannot create pregnancy. why? abstinence is NOT HAVING SEX.
the pledges for abstinence does not necessarily mean that the pledgees will actually practice abstinent behavior.

Oh no we don't, because we know that abstinence has an extremely high failure rate. Almost 70% of pledgers have sex before marriage. Thus, their abstinence method failed. They had sex. And when they do, they don't use protection.

sex-ed that focuses only on abstinence might not be the best idea; however, to obfuscate the boundaries between the actual practice and what is said is, again, a folly. people are notorious for breaking pledges. or, to use the cliche, actions speak louder than words.
put another way, when you're a horny teen and getting hot and heavy, are you going to think about some promise you made in front of a bunch of people through social engineering? probably not. on the other hand, if you really were serious about it, you'd either stop, or not get yourself in such a situation--meaning that you'd have a 100% chance of avoiding pregnancy.

[pchang]

uses for condoms

riling up religious fundies
making large water balloons that explode on contact
making large shaving creram balloons that explode on contact
cheaper alternative to Prolong (tm)
good container for making popsicles for relief of vaginal pain after giving birth
etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why? There is a biological imperitive for reproduction... and there is no biological imperitive for marriage.

I would argue against you in two ways.

1. Not everyone has a biological imperitive for intercourse. They are doing so, because of peer pressure.

2. People, even if they have a biological imperitive, do have control over their actions, and desires. Otherwise, how could we condemn a rapist for his actions?

3. I would also argue that there is a biological imperitive for marriage. People want and crave the intimate companionship found in marriage, and will seek other ways to fulfill this companionship, if marriage is discredited.

Why should a marital state of someone effect a biological imperitive?

You again assume, that one has no control over one's desires, which is most definitely not the case.

[Q Classic]

as far as who to have sex with.

far be it from me to judge others, but i simply cannot understand how some can have the concept of lovemaking divorced from the concept of passion divorced from the concept of love.

I don't see one worse than the other. Many of the problems people run into is when they start sleeping around. Sure, it may not hurt a person as a divorce would, but what about abortion? That's the perspective that I have on this issue. Birth control fails, so people resort to abortions.

if you're not in a committed relationship with children, sleeping around hurts two people, who are presumably somewhat mature.
if you have children, sleep around, and it leads to a divorce, you hurt two somewhat mature people plus however many immature people who will be learning the behavior of their parents, and will be dealing with scars for a good portion of their lives. even ten years later, when they think they're over it.
if you have children, sleep around, and don't divorce, you still hurt the kids, but it's a powerful argument to making you not continue that destructive behaviour.

[Ben Kenobi]

Having sex without significant risk of disease transfer or unwanted birth. A hell of a lot more effective than trusting to human nature.

What if I told you there was a way to have both, without resorting to condoms?

[chequita guevara]

What's wrong with condoms?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What if I told you there was a way to have both, without resorting to condoms?

What if you showed it statically working... outside the Benaverse?

[Ben Kenobi]

Pledgers are at a greater risk of STDs and teen pregnncy. Why do Christians hate children so?

Bgs the question, that it is good for children to have intercourse.

Is it, Che? I thought you argued that one should wait until one is mature enough to handle intercourse.

[Dinner]

Pregnancy and STDs are very unlikely if people are smart enough to use protection.

[Ben Kenobi]

What if you showed it statically working... outside the Benaverse?

Every time this method, when subjected to scientific scrutiny, it worked in preventing conception.

There have been tests done, and the method is free. You just need to be taught properly.

[Q Classic]

Why is that breaking the spirit? The spirit of the pledge is to wait until marriage to have intercourse.

it makes marriage something other than what it should be: a ticket to sex. that's not what a marriage is about, period.
marriage is about love. love can exist without sex. passionate, non-platonic love can exist without sex. it really really really suck, but it can.

if people are getting married because they think they are in love, but really want to jump each others' bones, i personally think it's more damaging in the long run than if they knew exactly what it was that they were getting into.

those who pledge might not have to go through pre-cana.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Every time this method, when subjected to scientific scrutiny, it worked in preventing conception.

There have been tests done, and the method is free. You just need to be taught properly.

Then you'll have no difficulty in citing actual figures of success rates, then.

Last time I looked at these figures... pledges had significantly lower success rates than condom use.