remember those teenage abstinence pledges?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That won't work very well. I'd likely be dead by then.

Of course, is that not your intention?

Ack, my true intentions have been revealed!

Yeah, but you won't die or become sterile from crabs.

WARNING: Condoms do not protect you against:
Crabs
HPV
Heart Attacks
Second Hand Smoke
Some weirdo drooling all over you

use with caution!

[Spiffor]

Thanks for the link, AnnC. It rocks

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Same reasons. People aren't perfect, they make mistakes.

Thank you... the first non-Benaverse reply I've seen.

So... you concede that any method is tempered by the ability of people to use it properly.

If 88% of people don't use abstinence "properly", why do you think that it will be a very meaningful method, if 9 out of every 10 people can't stick to it? Why would people suddenly be able to have radically more success than that with this method?

That's unnatural to deny yourself your rightful sex needs. I'm sure you can find someone who will be willing to fulfill your desires, who is much closer than Philadelphia.

She travels to NYC each weekend... but thanks for the concern.

Again, regardless of how common a behavior is, one does have control over their actions.

Incorrect. Certain behaviors are instinctive and inherant. E.G. An OCD subject can't stop repeating certain actions because he wants to. With non-emergent imperitives, its still just a matter of time.

This would only be an argument against those who never have sex, and not for those who wait for marriage.

If those who wait, have more children, than those who do not, does not temporary abstinence confer a survival benefit? Would not evolution select those whom could wait?

Lets look at the facts then shall we?

12% of subjects (which were subject to evolution) were able to abstain... which didn't mean that they didn't want sex.
99% of subjects (which were subject to evolution) wanted sex... and not just for procreation.

Wanting sex is obviously an evolution approved trait... wouldn't you say... in fact... the genes of those that didn't would be discarded, from the evolutionary pool.

As for ability to abstain, I don't see evidence of that having any natural selection effect. Couples who did or didn't abstain are seemingly just as able to produce children who can progeny more children.

Yeah, so? I'm sure all rapists rape because their genes made them do so.

Some individuals are more predisposed to rape than others, where hereditary influences accounted for appropriate conditions. Heredity doesn't account for every rapist... because social and cultural perception account for some, but not all mental development. Bi-random gene selection can account for generational differences in predispositions.

Yes, but you have just denied your earlier case. If their is some genetic basis that encourages someone to rape, and genes determine behavior, than why do we condemn rapists for their actions?

Justice is as imperfect as people. Culture has dained that a kleptomaniac still be prosecuted for theft. The only excuse the law allows is disassociation between right and wrong, which is also a mental defect.

So choosing to pledge is merely an Ãnhibition?

I could easily see how waiting confers a survival advantage.

Yes. A social and peer pressured inhibition.

"Waiting" isn't a trait that seems to have any baring on survival, at all, as is mentioned above.

Probably about 1-2%

A large number of these will be physically or socially unable to have intercourse... thus this number is actually lower.

Statistically tiny... and irrelevant when you are generalizing.

Saying that 1% of people don't want sex proves that there isn't an inbuilt evolutionary trait of sexual desire in humans is laughable. They are definably "the margin of error" in evolutionary terms.

As for why they exist social influences, and genetic variances... as has been mentioned above.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, have I lied anywhere in this thread, compared to the folks that tell you to use a condom everytime?

People are tuning out on that message, because why should they bother when they have a backup like abortion, should push come to shove?

If you had lied, I would have accused you as such; it is those in charge of the organisations who are the liars, I can safely say, having seen the sort of material they use. You have presented the use of condoms as a bit black and white, saying that they are pretty much destined to fail even when used properly and provide little protection from STD's, but I wouldn't call it a lie, I'll just put it down to the fact you've never actually used 'em.

So your solution to increase pre-marital abstinence is to outlaw abortion. Okay. But how will they improve things until that happens? I would question your saying that the pledgers are happy to get abortions given that these are the same people who mostly become abstinence because of their religion, but then, being religious does not really make you any less likely to get an abortion...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Saw this.

99% of kids who do not pledge have intercourse before they are married.

88% of those who take a pledge do the same.

So pledges are having an effect.

All of those who successfully abstain do not get stds, unlike the folks who use condoms or the pill, who even if they use them properly, can still get stds.

There's always protection...besides there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, despite this religious taboo which I have never understood. People should bonk but do it safely. Damn, I wish I could practice what I preach...

[Kontiki]

Ben, it's gettting really frustrating watching you invent non-existant correlations while simultaneously ignoring the obvious real ones. I'll lay this out nice and slow, then no doubt watch you twist it into some rediculous mess:

1. People who take the pledge are more likely to be religious - you've admitted this in this thread.

2. Some religious people, like yourself, believe that sex before marriage is inherently wrong and therefore will not engage in it.

3. What value, then, is the pledge? If you are bound and determined not to have premarital sex, then isn't the pledge completely superfluous? I'm not going to walk up to someone on the street and shoot them - that's just not in my nature, and I could never conceive of doing it. If I hereby make a pledge that I won't do that, would you claim that taking the pledge was responsible for my not doing so?

[Q Classic]

imho, the pledge is another example of wearing your faith on your sleeve instead of praying in the closet as one ought.

[alva]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Ben, it's gettting really frustrating watching you invent non-existant correlations while simultaneously ignoring the obvious real ones.

*scissor*

Catholic trademark

[MrBaggins]

Protestant, you mean... but they practice equal opportunity ignorance too

[alva]

Same difference

[Ben Kenobi]

the pledge is another example of wearing your faith on your sleeve instead of praying in the closet as one ought.

It certainly can be, if you are doing the pledge to obtain praise from men.

I've never given a public pledge, just a promise to myself. Perhaps this is why I have kept to my promise all this time.

And perhaps this is also true, why some pledgers hold on and others do not.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. People who take the pledge are more likely to be religious - you've admitted this in this thread.

True.

2. Some religious people, like yourself, believe that sex before marriage is inherently wrong and therefore will not engage in it.

Also true.

3. What value, then, is the pledge? If you are bound and determined not to have premarital sex, then isn't the pledge completely superfluous? I'm not going to walk up to someone on the street and shoot them - that's just not in my nature, and I could never conceive of doing it. If I hereby make a pledge that I won't do that, would you claim that taking the pledge was responsible for my not doing so?

I answered this objection quite some time ago. There are plenty of people who are religious, who do not take a pledge, and engage in premarital intercourse. Therefore, it is not enough to say that one's religion provides adequate impetus to wait until marriage.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
short of the glory of God. It is sin.

You have a rather unChristian and rather Jewish view of sin.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's always protection...besides there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex,

Within marriage, I would agree, Provost. I would agree wholeheartedly.

For have I not been accused of shrifting marriage, in encouraging people to marry young?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are plenty more religious folks than successful pledgers, so clearly there is something more going on.

This is a nonsensical statement. People were waiting for marriage before the pledge movement. I'm willing to bet the pledge movement hadn't really changed anything except to make children more vulnerable to early pregnancy and stds.