• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Planned Parenthood Attack

I think monogamy is a great choice for a lot of people, but it's ultimately a choice to be made rather than a prescriptive solution. This issue I take with Wrangor's line of reasoning is that it takes away ownership of an individual's sexuality. Ultimately what is most important is to give kids the tools to make the best decisions for their own sexual experience. For many, that might be abstinence which should be a decision they arrive at based on their own values and judgement. That's great, but for many others that may not be the path they take. That's fine too.
 
Wrangor said:
Yet we don't push the correct narrative.

The only argument produced thus far against it is the classic 'you are a loser/you are missing out on fun', and those are pretty shallow arguments.

Disease prevention, family planning, and the true sexual satisfaction that originates from absolute trust seems to me to be a much better way to go.

Instead sexual discipline seems to be an afterthought. More importantly sexual discipline is a clear afterthought to the large majority of our society.
Click to expand...

I'll address these in order:

1. There is no "correct" narrative in the sense you are talking about. It's okay to say that "sex is awesome, you should have it" and to say "marriage is awesome and the best sex is in a monogamous relationship" as long as you also say "here's how to have safe sex, no matter how often, when, where , or with whom you have it." Pretending that what has worked for you will work for everyone else is bad enough, being arrogant enough to try and push that view on everyone else is even worse.

2. That's the only argument you have paid attention to. The best arguments against your proposal are: 1. your approach has been tried and has proven ineffective. 2. your approach actually results in a pretty fucked up view of sex and bodily autonomy, especially for women. and 3. It's really none of your business

3. Disease prevention, family planning, and true sexual satisfaction is most definitely the way to go. That doesn't dictate a need for a single life-long monogamous relationship.

4. Sexual discipline should absolutely be encouraged. We should be teaching children to have the discipline to vigilantly practice safe sex.
 
Wrangor is right, sex is best in a monogamous relationship.

What is wrong with one monogamous relationship followed by another, and another, and another, until you find the person you want to have your final monogamous relationship with? As long as you practice safe sex, I don't think this is unreasonable or destructive behavior.
 
I don't remember any middle or high school teachers telling me that "sex is awesome" (the narrative?) Sex ed was quite the opposite. I'm not exactly sure what Wrangor is calling for here re: sexual monogamy among teens.
 
He is, as far as I can tell, calling for the action of the state to be limited to a well-publicized embracing of abstinence until marriage and then monogamy thereafter with that person - administered through all persons in leadership positions, and through the schools. I get the sense that with enough conviction he believes that it is possible to have a nation of teenagers who are culturally changed and understand this so well that they do not stray from it and are obedient to it, and the problem is solved.
 
So based on the discussion we've been having, especially between myself, 2&2, and Wake&Bake, I started a poll about planned vs unplanned pregnancies.
 
Wrangor said:
true sexual satisfaction that originates from absolute trust
Click to expand...

Every marriage has this?

I understand where you're coming from but I genuinely think your approach is naive.
 
Wrangor is talking like getting into a monogamous relationship is easy.

He also doesn't seem to understand plenty of unplanned pregnancies occur within monogamous relationships.
 
If you only ever drove a Lambo you may enjoy it but you will never enjoy it quite like you would after you spent two decades driving a shitty Toyota Avalon.
 
Wrangor said:
Who doesn't know HOW to use a condom? Real simple. Have boner. Put on condom. Screw. Don't take off condom while screwing. Pretty simple. That should take about 5 minutes of class time.

I think we should but let's not pretend that teenage pregnancy is caused by 15 year old boys not knowing how to wear a condom.
Click to expand...

Except it is. Here's the list of countries sorted by teen birth rate ... it's nearly all the very secular ones with very strong sexual education and access to birth control that are all at the bottom in terms of teen birth rate. The US has 6 times the teen birth rate as Denmark for example, and they basically hand out condoms like they are attendance stickers at school.

High quality, regular sexual education that starts at a young age (i.e - before teens become sexually mature ... in the Netherlands it starts around 4 years old and they are covering birth control methods by age 11) and access to effective birth control dramatically lowers teen birth rates. That means that you have much lower numbers of abortions, and that children who are born are largely born to responsible parents who will care for them well (helping break the cycle of poverty that unplanned teen births feed into).

I never get why we are arguing things that are testable facts when it comes to this. We know what kind of sexual education works in terms of reducing teen pregnancies. It's been field tested, it has dramatic results. You're not a dumb man Wrangor, go read up a bit and get yourself educated on the topic.
 
I'm not trying to rip on Wrangor when I say this, but facts only go so far if you're competing with the literal word of God and its interpretation which leads you to believe sex before marriage is a sin.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm not trying to rip on Wrangor when I say this, but facts only go so far if you're competing with the literal word of God and its interpretation which leads you to believe sex before marriage is a sin.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Just don't expect the rest of us are going to try and build social policy around an ancient religious text, and expect us to shun you and your opinions if you do. You are intentionally choosing to not participate in modern society at that point and cannot be reasoned with.
 
This is one nation under God, and sex is for marraige only. Those godless swedish perverts can teach their little children about sex, but not in my America.
 
vadimivich said:
Except it is. Here's the list of countries sorted by teen birth rate ... it's nearly all the very secular ones with very strong sexual education and access to birth control that are all at the bottom in terms of teen birth rate. The US has 6 times the teen birth rate as Denmark for example, and they basically hand out condoms like they are attendance stickers at school.

High quality, regular sexual education that starts at a young age (i.e - before teens become sexually mature ... in the Netherlands it starts around 4 years old and they are covering birth control methods by age 11) and access to effective birth control dramatically lowers teen birth rates. That means that you have much lower numbers of abortions, and that children who are born are largely born to responsible parents who will care for them well (helping break the cycle of poverty that unplanned teen births feed into).

I never get why we are arguing things that are testable facts when it comes to this. We know what kind of sexual education works in terms of reducing teen pregnancies. It's been field tested, it has dramatic results. You're not a dumb man Wrangor, go read up a bit and get yourself educated on the topic.
Click to expand...

this is america. what works or doesnt work in other countries doesnt apply to us vad.
 
Back to the PP attack.

"Nevertheless, some Americans — especially conservative pundits and Republican presidential candidates — have repeatedly insisted that if a terrorist claims to be Muslim, they should be identified as such. By that (arguably problematic) standard, Dear would appear to be a clear example of a “Christian terrorist.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...parenthood-shooter-was-a-christian-terrorist/
 
ONW said:
Back to the PP attack.

"Nevertheless, some Americans — especially conservative pundits and Republican presidential candidates — have repeatedly insisted that if a terrorist claims to be Muslim, they should be identified as such. By that (arguably problematic) standard, Dear would appear to be a clear example of a “Christian terrorist.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...parenthood-shooter-was-a-christian-terrorist/
Click to expand...

I feel like I've posted this like 5 times on this thread. Never got any traction from the Pubs on here surprisingly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top