remember those teenage abstinence pledges?

[Ben Kenobi]

ITs unrealistic to expect people who want to explore sex to use a method that involves commitment.

Well, then.

No further argument.

I argue intercourse ought to take place between a couple who are willing to make a commitment.

dont be naive and condemn something to uphold your own moral superiority ben.

Where do I condemn condoms for anything other than their accepted shortcomings?

[Ben Kenobi]

people who make pledges are just fooling their parents so they can go drink beer and **** on the weekends.

Some do, many don't.

Some even manage to wait until marriage, even in this day and age.

[MRT144]

Ben, you argue that it SHOULD be that way but it isnt. Youre idealistic but misguided

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at it from my perspective.

Just because we go in opposite directions, does not mean I am misguided.

Idealistic, I'm guilty as charged.

[Q Classic]

Again, the ovulation method deals with that.

Read the link more carefully.

no, ben, the article that i'm referring to suggests that some women may ovulate more than once during a menstrual cycle.

i'm not sure about the details, but i'm trying to find the article.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Actually, all the tests done on Billings give about a 99% success rate, higher than the 'ideal case' purported by Planned Parenthood.

If one is to accept the figures of the condom advocates as accurate for condoms, one ought to also accept the numbers given by the Billings folks for their method.

The Billings site mentions something about a window after 'peak' fertily period which

post-ovulation method

may be referring to. PP gave this method a 1% failure rate, in the ideal.

And most of the sites I saw were pro-christian sites, which IMHO lowers the probability of receiving accurate info. I'll accept a 1-3% ideal failure rate, but if you're thinking it's reality based then I've got some New Jersey swampland you might be interested in.

Theben, youre going to pull him out of the beniverse

I doubt it. btw, you could show more decorum towards him.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So I consider STD transmission to be irrelevent to the Billings method, because they assume a monogamous relationship.

You make a lot of assumptions in the Benaverse, that just don't translate to real world attitude and behavior.

The question I think you have to ask yourself, Ben, is how realistic any concept you have of assuming that people will be monogamous will actually translate into the real world?

People WANT to have sex. Casual. Monogamous. Gay. Anal. Dog... any damn way that you can imagine and that they can get it.

Its the sexual imperitive. Built into the human genome.

You are trying to argue that the human race should break from this imperitive.

How do you change this behavior? Essentially, the likelihood of this genetic imperitive being changed in 100% of cases approaches zero.

Abstenance does little to nothing for this, since... it obviously doesn't work at preventing or delaying sex, and when sex happens its generally unprotected.

Its a failure, Ben.

Any method which assumes that a couple got into monogamous relationship... and doesn't require protection, might be well and good, but its not a solution for the foundational problems of young pregnancy, or STD transmission at any age...

Say one of the partners in this monogamous relationship isn't so monogamous, and has unprotected sex (likely since they wouldn't be familiar with, or used to protected sex) with an infected partner. Then the other partner would get infected for sure... because they'd be continuing with this unprotected sex.

You're saying that in the Benaverse this could work.

I'm saying in the real world, it will never work, because...

People. Want. Sex.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Look at it from my perspective.

Just because we go in opposite directions, does not mean I am misguided.

Idealistic, I'm guilty as charged.

from your perspective...

you want people to make good decisions that put them right with god.

you also want people to adhere to a method that is right with your religion.

thats what im seeing.

am i wrong

[Agathon]

Ben, people should definitely have sex before they are married.

You can't tell if its going to work until you sample the goods and she does too. What's the point of committing yourself to a sexual disaster.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll accept a 1-3% ideal failure rate, but if you're thinking it's reality based then I've got some New Jersey swampland you might be interested in.

Still a fair deal for my Brooklyn Bridge which I'm trying to unload. After all, you did cite Planned Parenthood, which has about as much authority on Natural Family Planning, as Ann Coulter would have with the Anti-Defamation league.

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't tell if its going to work until you sample the goods and she does too. What's the point of committing yourself to a sexual disaster.

You make my girlfriend sound like a hunk of fine cheese, that one would nibble on.

I'm sure we'll have time to work these sorts of things out, given that we don't need to worry about privacy.

[Ben Kenobi]

you want people to make good decisions that put them right with god.

True.

you also want people to adhere to a method that is right with your religion.

Nope. Mennonites are Protestant, and do not have any restrictions on barrier methods of birth control.

[Ben Kenobi]

Consequential. The act is fun and that is all you can know.

Sure, you can know that you risk catching an std, or conceiving a baby.

If you end up with either you will know which act caused that outcome.

Though there are problems in terms of effect on the woman of abortion, those are environmental so we can ignore them in this scenario.

Eh. A child should be killed so you can avoid the consequences of intercourse? No dice, whaleboy.

By eliminating those consequences, you get the benefits of sex with no problems!

Sure. Even with protection, the risks remain.

Same goes for everything. Using that logic, I cannot publish a book because the methods of paper production. Nihilism seems to imply that balance in any case.

Clever. Very clever, Whaleboy.

All actions have consequences.

However, I would say that if an action has foreseeable negative consequences, that one ought not to pursue the course of action, unless one can make the case for the good produced by the action would outweigh the bad.

Now, there are many ways looking at this, depending on your theory of the good.

Since you hate Kant, I'll take him up.

One should act as if your action, were to become a universal maxim.

Now, suppose one were to say that one should engage in premarital intercourse, what could we anticipate, if everyone engaged in the action?

First of all, we would see a rampant spread of both stds, and unplanned pregnancies.

While the latter is not negative, per se, the former would be.

Furthermore in the absense of altruism (egoism shows it to be a fallacy),

No, altruism can have selfish benefits, assuming that a reputation for altruism encourages the assistance of others.

Assuming contraceptives and abortion eliminate personal consequences,

Neither assumption holds water.

the benefits of sex outweigh the problems caused to society and thus back at them by their own actions.

Again, if everyone were to engage in premarital intercourse, one would have to deal with many children, as well as stds, both of which become a burden on the state.

Sex w/o birth control = beneficial but possible consequences outweigh to produce value of 0

Health consequences to women on the pill need to be considered.

Abstinance = Sexual value of 0

Positive benefits of lack of std infection, plus formation of relationships.

Sex is part of the human condition (I would argue that it is the foundation for the human condition but again going off at a tangent), therefore sexual value of >0 is beneficial to human.

Again, not everyone has this drive. Is it beneficial to a priest to have a positive value?

I dare say sexual value is more important than religious value,

False dichotomy. Intercourse in marriage satisfies both desires.

Not only do you need to show that intercourse is positive, you have to make the comparision between premarital, and marital intercourse.

I would suggest the latter would be more beneficial than the former.

[Ben Kenobi]

The question I think you have to ask yourself, Ben, is how realistic any concept you have of assuming that people will be monogamous will actually translate into the real world?

It can be done, ergo, it is realistic.

People WANT to have sex. Casual. Monogamous. Gay. Anal. Dog... any damn way that you can imagine and that they can get it.

So why are you posting here right now?

Its the sexual imperitive. Built into the human genome.

Genes do not determine behavior. One can always choose to restrain the urge, otherwise, we would have no cause to arrest rapists, as they would simply fulfill their imperative.

You are trying to argue that the human race should break from this imperitive.

For a time, yes. There is a time and place for intercourse.

How do you change this behavior? Essentially, the likelihood of this genetic imperitive being changed in 100% of cases approaches zero.

Again, my rapist case, plus, not everyone has intercourse, ergo, genes cannot determine behavior.

Abstenance does little to nothing for this, since... it obviously doesn't work at preventing or delaying sex, and when sex happens its generally unprotected.

BAM

It does work, for some, it works better than a condom could ever hope.

[bipolarbear]

You can't tell if its going to work until you sample the goods and she does too. What's the point of committing yourself to a sexual disaster.

Fo shizzy!
I've heard that the cause of lots of tension in marriages, around the time of the seven year itch, is boredom in the sexual aspect of marriage. Se is a very important part of marriage, just as important, as condoms, and aids testing!