The Plot Against Sex in America

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, what is so bad about teenage pregnancy and births out of wedlock?

I have no problem with out of wedlock birtsh, but kids shouldn't be having babies. They aren't emotionally, physically, or financially mature enough, even if they are capable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:

I said premartial sex is inevitable.

You never specified whether this was for society as a whole, or for each individual. Now that you have, it is much clearer what you meant.

Why? There is nothing wrong with protected sex.

Why should protected sex be good and unprotected sex bad?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
There will be some Apolytoners who will rationally state that all of this is perfectly legal, as producers, television stations, and so forth can all legally choose what they want to show or present.

That's not the issue. The issue is that theoretically this is regulated by the FCC, and it seems to be part of the problem.

But they often ignore or are not aware of the fact that what is technically legal is not necessarily right or just.

We don't care. Were this cable, I'd have no problem, because it's definately LESS just to compell the company to run ads or shows they don't want to run.

[Arrian]

Ben,

I repeat: that number can be improved, but you cannot seriously contend that it will ever approach zero. Even if it declines to 25%, there will still be a LOT of premarital sex.

Actually, what is so bad about teenage pregnancy and births out of wedlock?

I was talking to Speer, who contends that a 2-parent home is best for raising kids.

I actually tend to agree with that, subject to the caveats I mentioned. Second, teenage pregnancy is generally bad because most teenage moms aren't ready for the responsibility of motherhood. Most, not all. I'm sure there are a few glowing exceptions.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

protected sex = fun
unprotected sex = babies and disease, both of which are bad things.

[Ben Kenobi]

They aren't emotionally, physically, or financially mature enough, even if they are capable.

So why then are they mature enough to be having sex in the first place?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
the context of a marriage allows us to assume a certain level of compatibility and permanence between the two individuals; a security that assures society that the children that will possibly be conceived through the sex act will grow up in stable homes.

Surely you're not this naive.

[Ben Kenobi]

unprotected sex = babies and disease, both of which are bad things.

Babies are bad?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should protected sex be good and unprotected sex bad?

Unprotected sex is only bad if you don't want to or can't take care of a child. And it's bad then, because there is a good chance that they may have a child that they don't want.

With proper protection the chances of getting an unwanted child are less than 1%.

[Ben Kenobi]

I repeat: that number can be improved, but you cannot seriously contend that it will ever approach zero. Even if it declines to 25%, there will still be a LOT of premarital sex

I concede this. Always has been, and always will be. Still doesn't change the point that we should be putting more pressure on kids to grow up quickly, or letting them be kids for just awhile longer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So why then are they mature enough to be having sex in the first place?

Sex doesn't involve taking care of another person for over 16 years .

[Ben Kenobi]

With proper protection the chances of getting an unwanted child are less than 1%.

Right, in ideal, laboratory tested conditions.

Real life tends to be a little less ideal though.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Babies are bad?

Very bad. Babies are dirty, slimy, disease ridden moochers who contribute nothing to society and present an enourmous drain on our resources. Babies should be abolished. Mandatory abortions for everyone.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So why then are they mature enough to be having sex in the first place?

Because raging hormones based on millions of years of evolution are telling them, do it, do it, do it!

I think teenagers are capable of being adult enough to have kids (as they did for most of human history, the whole notion of teenager being a modern conception) except that our current society does not really let them (having defined adult upwards). So, the wise public policy is teaching teenagers how to handle sex, as opposed to Pollyana notion that they can just say no. The same policy failed with drugs, and the best course is to educate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sex doesn't involve taking care of another person for over 16 years

No, it's even more than that! What about taking care of your partner?