Pure in heart abstinence only education

J C

koth wrote: »

Wrong. a person can have an STD for any number of reasons other than 'sleeping around'.

True ... but they do tend to be spread sexually.

koth wrote: »

Nonsense. You can have STDs without knowing it. You can get STDs without having sex. STDs can be symptom free. So your spouse could have an STD and not know it. Best use a condom to be safe

... to be safer perhaps.

... but then what do you do if you want to have children?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

True ... but they do tend to be spread sexually.

again, this is an argument for a comprehensive sex education lesson plan.

... to be safer perhaps.

... but then what do you do if you want to have children?

STD checks for both man and woman. Another argument for good sex ed classes and not just abstinence only.

J C

koth wrote: »

So being celibate increases a persons chances of getting an STD? Or are you just moving the goalposts?

They simply die younger ... so celibacy isn't 'safer' than monogamy.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Like I have said, I believe that a comprehensive sex education programme should be provided in school ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards.


koth
But then you're supporting the lesson plan that I've been outlining!

... it seems that it's you who are coming over to my point of view ... welcome aboard.:cool:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

They simply die younger ... so celibacy isn't 'safer' than monogamy.

very good. an unrelated tangent.

... it seems that it's you who are coming over to my point of view ... welcome aboard.:cool:

You've got to be joking. You've been defending the abstinence only lesson plan. You've repeatedly stated that abstinence and monogamy are to the be the central lesson in the classes.

J C

koth wrote: »

again, this is an argument for a comprehensive sex education lesson plan.

No problem once its truly comprehensive.

koth wrote: »

STD checks for both man and woman. Another argument for good sex ed classes and not just abstinence only.

The objective should be to avoid getting an incurable STD, in the first place ... finding out that you have got one ... is a poor second-best solution (although useful, especially where the STD is symptomless).

Delirium

J C wrote: »

No problem once its truly comprehensive.

That's exactly what I've been in support of but you seem to want to argue against it for some reason.

The objective should be to avoid getting an incurable STD, in the first place ... finding out that you have got one ... is a poor second-best solution (although useful, especially where the STD is symptomless).

Well that's the abstinence only lesson plan out the window then.

J C

koth wrote: »

very good. an unrelated tangent.

... erroneously introduced by you.

koth wrote: »

You've got to be joking. You've been defending the abstinence only lesson plan. You've repeatedly stated that abstinence and monogamy are to the be the central lesson in the classes.

I have never advocated 'abstinence only' programmes and you agreed with my definition of 'comprehensive' sex education above.

wrote:

J C
Like I have said, I believe that a comprehensive sex education programme should be provided in school ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards.

Koth
But then you're supporting the lesson plan that I've been outlining!

J C

koth wrote: »

That's exactly what I've been in support of but you seem to want to argue against it for some reason.

Well that's the abstinence only lesson plan out the window then.

It never was 'inside the window', as far as I was concerned ... Abstinence Pledges work ... alongside a truly comprehensive sex ed programme ... ... including moral and psychosexual issues as well as the benefits of abstinence before entering a committed relationship ... and monogamy afterwards..

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... erroneously introduced by you.

wrong.

Other than that it seems you now agree with those who were arguing against abstinence only courses.

J C

koth wrote: »

wrong.

Right ... the (erroneous) idea that celibacy is 'safer' than monogamy was introduced by you here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88254715&postcount=265

koth wrote: »

Other than that it seems you now agree with those who were arguing against abstinence only courses.

I have never argued for abstinence only courses.

Does our agreement here bode well for an agreement on 'other' issues on which we have had our disagreements in the past??

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Right ... the (erroneous) idea that celibacy is 'safer' than monogamy was introduced by you here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88254715&postcount=265

So you're saying I was wrong to say that celibacy is the best way to avoid STDs. How exactly am I wrong?

I have never argued for abstinence only courses.

Does our agreement here bode well for an agreement on 'other' issues on which we have had our disagreements in the past??

I doubt it.

Delirium

@JC this is why it's confusing to know what your position was until you clarified.

Below is your first post on this thread and reads that you are defending the abstinence programmes.

J C wrote: »

You're trivialising a very serious issue ... the disaster that under-age teenage promiscuity is causing in terms of STDs, sterility when they later marry and want a baby ... and lets call it what it is ... statutory rape amongst and of children!!!

Is this 'counsel of defeat' all that Secularism can offer our teens?

The Abstinence Programme is working in America ... and here is what it's like for the misfortunate British teens who are part of the 'pseudo-liberal' society you guys seem to want to foist on the rest of society.

Britain makes contraception freely available to under-age teens ... and yet there are 100,000 teen pregnancies per year and one in five UK teens with Chlamydia ... to say nothing about Syphilis and (life-long) HIV ... or the serious psychological damage that sex abuse between under-age children causes.:(

Christians offer a viable alternative ... children aren't feral animals ... they are thoughtful moral actors who need the responsible support of adults to not destroy their lives by engaging in promiscuity and other risky behaviour ... and to move teen peer-pressure from engaging in casual sex ... to simply saying 'NO' to drink, drugs ... and under-age promiscuity.

Under-age drink, drugs and sex are all destructive and in combination they are disasterous!!!

A basic principle of education is to avoid 'learning the hard way' ... by not making the same mistakes that other people have already made!!!

That is why we legally proscribe under-age drinking ... and under-age sex ... and supporting the former whilst making a joke of the latter is utter hypocracy ... and grossly irresponsible!!!:(

... and that is why the Abstinance programmes are such an outstanding success amongst under-age teens in America ... and fully supported by many responsible parents.

We need to change behaviour when it comes to under-age sex ... and Abstinance programmes work ... while the apparent alternative of throwing your 13 year-old a packet of condoms and putting her on the pill, and letting her off to engage in under-age sex abuse with God knows who (with God knows what STD) ... while relying on micro-thin latex not bursting or being used incorrectly by a drunken teen ... is outrageous IMO.

gaynorvader

The 15-18% condom failure rate quoted is largely to do with improper use and/or storage of the condom. This is probably a result of a lack of education.

robindch

gaynorvader wrote: »

The 15-18% condom failure rate quoted is largely to do with improper use and/or storage of the condom. This is probably a result of a lack of education.

...or a lack of care. The following pages shows what kind of mistakes people make and how often they're made:

http://www.livescience.com/18660-common-condom-mistakes.html
http://www.livescience.com/18661-14-common-condom-errors.html

Note also -- crucially -- that the "15%-18% failure rate" refers to failure rates for sloppy usage over a single year:

http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/explanation-condom-failure-rates

So, assuming that people are having sex 100 times a year, then the chances of pregnancy resulting from a single sexual encounter with perfect condom usage (which has a failure rate of 2%) are around 0.02%, or one chance in five thousand.

The chances of catching an STD can be figured out in a similar fashion and I'm assuming that they'll also be far, far below the scare headline figures pushed around by creationists and other discreditable sources.

gaynorvader

I think J C is correct in his assertion that sex education needs to be comprehensive and I do think abstinence should be dealt with too. However, I disagree that it should be pushed as the best method. It is certainly the best way of avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but only in the same way not leaving your house is the best way of ensuring you don't get hit by a car.

I don't think any solution should be put forward as the best.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Methinks that you protest too much!!:)

... and your pity could be that start of a proper friendship, amongst equals, between you and me ... Happy New Year.

Yeah, whatever. So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

MrP

AerynSun

MrPudding wrote: »

... So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

I'm guessing the lady cut the top off a condom and split it down the middle and saw it measures 12cm x 18cm (she doesn't buy condoms, she's on an abstinence pledge, they are a friend's...) so that makes 216 cm2. According to wikipedia the average human body is 1.9 m2 surface area. So if she were to snip the difference and make a man 2 m2 body area and 200 cm2 penis area, that's 1%. Then... she knows that JC is 6'4" so she did some very clever metric to feet conversion calculation and came up with... the idea of looking at his shoe size, and guessed her way from there?

:pac:

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

MrP

Maybe the alleged wife had access to a pretty powerful microscope to view the alleged organ.

gaynorvader

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe the alleged wife had access to a pretty powerful microscope to view the alleged organ.

I feel like I'm back in primary school...

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

I feel like I'm back in primary school...

Fecking wimpy townies with their fecking primary school microscopes. Us culchies had to magnify 100X with our own eyes in primary school!

robindch

Folks, drop the willy jokes :rolleyes:

MrPudding

gaynorvader wrote: »

I feel like I'm back in primary school...

Lucky we aren't on After Hours, I expect the answer would be "yore ma told her."

Robin, I hope that is ok, it is more of a yore ma joke than a willy joke.

All joking aside, my question is a serious one. JC has alledged that his penis size was a factor in his wife agreeing to marry him. He is also a proponent of no sex before marriage, and I personally think the two things are mutually exclusive. This means that he is being dishonest about one or the other.

MrP

Gordon

Gordon wrote: »

J C, I am honestly zoning out of your replies now simply because of your use of bolding key words, multiple ellipses, shocked face icons and multiple exclamation marks. You don't need these hyperbolic punctuations to add to, or support your point, they should be able to stand on their own.

So out of curiosity, I thought I'd have a look at how exactly you construct your posts, J C. I took your latest 100 posts and did some number crunching and character counting, and then I did it on your oldest 100 posts. Well, actually I had to do it with 100 posts from 6 years ago as it took you 2.5 years to figure out how to quote people via the quote button, so my results were being skewed by your quoting method.

Below are some figures on your current and past text intricacies. The numbers on the left are your most recent 100 posts, in (brackets) is your old 100 posts.

• 8,503 (9,533) words
• 745 (660) sentences
• 1,451 (2,834) full stops
• 174 (68) uses of bold
• 369 (1,083) words bolded
• 2 (60) uses of italics
• 8 (1) uses of underlining

• 0 (1) x ???????
• 0 (2) x ??????
• 0 (2) x ?????
• 0 (8) x ????
• 5 (7) x ???
• 3 (2) x ??
• 281 (7) x ?

• 0 (1) x !!!!!!!!!!!!
• 0 (1) x !!!!!!!!
• 0 (2) x !!!!!!
• 0 (17) x !!!!!
• 0 (56) x !!!!
• 4 (113) x !!!!
• 78 (0) x !!!
• 19 (20) x !!
• 0 (3) x !

• 0 (1) x ....................
• 0 (3) x .............
• 0 (2) x ............
• 0 (9) x ...........
• 0 (3) x ..........
• 0 (20) x .........
• 0 (48) x ........
• 0 (94) x .......
• 0 (129) x ......
• 0 (68) x .....
• 0 (19) x ....
• 390 (6) x ...
• 3 (13) x ..

• 35 (51) x
• 14 (51) x :eek:
• 8 (135) x
• 6 (2) x
• 4 (0) x
• 2 (0) x :P
• 2 (11) x
• 2 (0) x :pac:
• 1 (9) x :cool:
• 0 (0) x :rolleyes:
• 0 (0) x
• 0 (0) x :mad:

• 15 (0) x Youtube
• 12 (0) x URLs

And here are a couple of word clouds based on your 100 posts, which may not be extremely telling as the most common words will involve the topics that you are discussing, at length.

New Posts


Old Posts


In conclusion, I see that you use less full stops in your posts now, which is good. Your full stop usage is half what it used to be, so you now only have an average of 14.5 full stops per post which is reducing your usage by half.

Your multiple question marks have severely reduced, you now limit yourself mainly to single question marks and occasional double/triple marks. This is unlike your old posts where you'd mainly post multiples. Exclamation marks also, you've reduced from 4 and over, to now two or three.

You use more links now and due to your smiley usage, you seem less shocked, less happy, less confused, but more :pac: and more empathetic(?) with your winky smiley usage.

Overall, I like your reduction in unnecessary punctuation from 6 years ago, but it may be an idea to reduce even further to ensure more people read your posts, so maybe that's something to take away from this rather pointless post.

catallus

^^^^

Can I get one of those??? Please???

Doctor DooM

Gordon wrote: »

JC stuff

This is my new favourite post on boards.

Is this something we could do for ourselves? I'd love to observe my changing tastes etc over time.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. So, anyway, how did your wife know about the size of your penis before you got married?

MrP

I'll let you apply logic to working that one out!!!:)

J C

Gordon wrote: »

So out of curiosity, I thought I'd have a look at how exactly you construct your posts, J C. I took your latest 100 posts and did some number crunching and character counting, and then I did it on your oldest 100 posts. Well, actually I had to do it with 100 posts from 6 years ago as it took you 2.5 years to figure out how to quote people via the quote button, so my results were being skewed by your quoting method.

Thanks for the obvious effort that you went to ... but I think that you don't need to be so fixated with my (highly effective) posting style:)

AerynSun

Dear Gordon,

I am in love. Will you marry me?

[I won't even demand evidence of the size of things that should not be made jokes of in front of JC].

:P :pac: :cool:

Sarky

I met Gordon ad a moderator beers a while back.

Like a baby's arm holding an apple, it is.

Gordon

Doctor DooM wrote: »

This is my new favourite post on boards.

Is this something we could do for ourselves? I'd love to observe my changing tastes etc over time.

There isn't a button or anything, but you can do it yourself!

catallus wrote: »

^^^^

Can I get one of those??? Please???

Sure, I'll do one later, but I doubt you'll have the multiple ellipses etc!

J C wrote: »

Thanks for the obvious effort that you went to ... but I think that you may need to get out more ... and not be so fixated with my (highly effective) posting style ???:)

Not fixated, but I find it interesting to see your post style change, hopefully you're learning to tone the mad overuse of characters down a bit though.