Virginity Pledges are NOT effective (yes I know the sky is blue)

[Ice]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/index.html

Virginity pledges don't mean much, study says

By Theresa Tamkins

As many as one in eight teens in the United States may take a virginity pledge at some point, vowing to wait until they're married before having sex. But do such pledges work? Are pledge takers more likely than other teens to delay sexual activity?

A new study suggests that the answer is no. While teens who take virginity pledges do delay sexual activity until an average age of 21 (compared to about age 17 for the average American teen), the reason for the delay is more likely due to pledge takers' religious background and conservative views -- not the pledge itself.

According to a study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, pledge takers are as likely to have sex before marriage as other teens who are also religious, but don't take the pledge. However, pledge takers are less likely than other religious or conservative teens to use condoms or birth control when they do start having sex.

In the new study, Janet Rosenbaum, Ph.D., of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, analyzed the large chunk of data used in all the studies that have looked at virginity pledges: the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. In this survey, middle and high school students were asked about their sexual behaviors and opinions starting in 1995-96.

In the analysis, Rosenbaum compared 289 young adults who took virginity pledges in their teens with 645 young people who did not take such a pledge. The researcher was careful to only compare teens who had similar views on religion, birth control and sex in general, regardless of whether or not they took a pledge. Health.com: What should I do if the condom breaks?

Five years after the initial survey the study subjects were aged 20 to 23. Eighty-two percent of pledge takers denied (or forgot) they had ever taken such a vow. Overall pledge takers were no different from non-pledge takers in terms of their premarital sex, anal and oral sexual practices, and their probability of having a sexually transmitted disease.

Both groups lost their virginity at an average age of 21, had about three lifetime partners, and had similar rates of STDs. "And the majority were having premarital sex, over 50 percent," says Rosenbaum. Overall, roughly 75 percent of pledgers and non-pledgers were sexually active, and about one in five was married. Health.com: Who's most at risk for STDs?

Unmarried pledgers, however, were less likely than non-pledgers to use birth control (64 percent of pledge takers and 70 percent of non-pledge takers said they used it most of the time) or condoms (42 percent of pledge takers and 54 percent of non-pledge takers said they used them most of the time).

"There's been some speculation about whether teenagers were substituting oral or anal sex for vaginal sex and I found that wasn't so," says Rosenbaum. "But I did uphold a previous finding that they are less likely to use birth control and drastically less likely in fact to use condoms -- it's a ten percentage point difference."

Rosenbaum is concerned that abstinence-only sex education programs that promote virginity pledges may also promote a negative view of condoms and birth control. The result may be teens and young adults who are less likely than their peers to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Health.com: Sex and teens: Test your knowledge

Federal funds for abstinence only education programs have increased from $73 million in 2001 to $204 million in 2008. About 25 states apply for such funds each year to educate teens, says Rosenbaum. Sometimes programs are measured by how many teens take virginity pledges, not whether the teens stick to them, avoid sexually transmitted diseases or unplanned pregnancies, says Rosenbaum.

"Studies find that kids in abstinence-only programs have negative, biased views about whether condoms work," she says. Since such programs promote abstinence only they tend to give only the disadvantages of birth control, she says. Teens learn condoms don't protect you completely from human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes, which is true, but they may not realize that they protect against all the "fluid-based STDs," she says. "People end up thinking you may as well not bother using birth control or condoms."

Virginity pledges, along with a six-hour curriculum, were first introduced in 1993 by an evangelical Christian group, and a 1995 survey suggested that 13 percent of teens had taken such a pledge (current survey data are lacking, says Rosenbaum.)

"Virginity pledgers are very different than most U.S. teens -- they are obviously more conservative, they have more negative views about sexuality and birth control and so, even if they didn't take a pledge, these would be teenagers who would be very likely to abstain anyhow," says Rosenbaum. About 40 percent of the study subjects were born-again Christians, she notes.

The new study does not suggest that virginity pledges are harmful, says Andrew Goldstein, M.D., an obstetrician and gynecologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, because they were not associated with an increase in STDs or unplanned pregnancies. However, they do seem to be "useless," says Goldstein, who was not involved in the study.

Promoting the pledges gives a "false sense of security and energy could be better spent in education," he says. "It is time to stop spending money on these useless programs and funnel it into safer-sex counseling." Health.com: Six things your teen needs to know about sex

When it comes to advice for the parents of teens, Rosenbaum notes that just about every organization, from Focus on the Family to Planned Parenthood, offers a similar message.

"Parents should talk to their kids about their sex. It should not be single conversation, it should be a continued conversation at the moments that are teachable moments," she says. "Parents tend to hope that schools will take care of it -- they can't, obviously."

Is anyone really surprised by this? I like the part of the article that says most teens have either forgotten about their pledge or simply ignored it. Without going into too much detail, that's pretty much what happened to me . I think I took one in 7th grade or so at my old catholic church. It didn't do anything when the time came because I didn't even remember I took it! (even if I had, it wouldn't have been effective)

I also had a friend who had bible thumping parents. He honestly didn't know that a latex condom was effective in combating STDs. I wanted to cry when he told me this.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The only person to whom you may promise such a thing is yourself. Many of us find ways --often quite creatively -- to lie to ourselves on a regular basis. So no, I am not surprised.

[rasoforos]

What I am really surprised about is that it took em on average 21 years to get laid! :freak:

There is only one way to ensure abstinence....


....Magic...

...:The Gathering

[AlexanderSextus]

What I am really surprised about is that it took em on average 21 years to get laid! :freak:

There is only one way to ensure abstinence....


....Magic...

...:The Gathering

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Duke of Gloucester]

Of course it depends what you mean by effective. It seems to me you could argue that they are effective because they delay intercourse by four years on average.

Of course they authors of the study ascribe this to the person's religious belief and not the actual pledge and in doing this they hit at the problem with these pledges. There are lots of things that Christians* are supposed to refrain from. It is a bit odd to make a pledge to refrain from just one of them and as Frenchy sings "There are worse things I could do." How about pledges to refrain from violence, greed, indifference to the plight of others, pride?

*I am sure that other religions have similar moral codes, but this discussion is in the context of Christianity.

[KukriKhan]

So, a majority of people in the age-range of 15 - 25 have learned that any promises they make, or pledges they avow, can be cheerfully disregarded later on.

Because the promise was coerced?
Because nature's call trumps mere adolescent words?
Because "That was then; this is now."?

[Fragony]

Probably because they were hornier then a rabbit on coke.

[HoreTore]

I see absolutely no reason to deny yourself something as good as sex.

It's very, very pleasant, improves the quality of your day-to-day life, keeps the fundamentalist koko-heads mad, improves your health AND stamina. There's absolutely no reason not to do it if you want to(ie. you're horny).

[Gregoshi]

There is only one way to ensure abstinence....


....Magic...

...:The Gathering
C-L-A-S-S-I-C :2thumbsup:

Five minutes since I read this and I'm still LOLing. :laugh4:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I also had a friend who had bible thumping parents. He honestly didn't know that a latex condom was effective in combating STDs. I wanted to cry when he told me this.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:



I'm Sorry, just thought it was funny. Sad, but funny. If a teen is going to have sex and/or masterbate, it's going to happen, if you like it or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, a majority of people in the age-range of 15 - 25 have learned that any promises they make, or pledges they avow, can be cheerfully disregarded later on.

Because the promise was coerced?
Because nature's call trumps mere adolescent words?
Because "That was then; this is now."?

Pretty bad really, when you put it like that.

No one goes through their whole life without breaking their word, I am ashamed to admit I broke mine, but I'm shocked at the apparently casual attitude these teenages seem to have had.

[LittleGrizzly]

They shouldn't be coerced into making the original statement and thus having to break thier own word to satisfy some other people's morals...

I remember as a kid saying i would never take drugs or anything stupid like that, i was simply underinformed about everything, people had taught me that drugs are crazy evil (rather than just a little bad for the less bad ones) and as a child i accepted that hook line and sinker, i am of the opinion that you are not breaking your word when others mislead you with thier chosen source of information

[AlexanderSextus]

^^^^Maximum props for accurate description of how the Office of Natl. Drug Control Policy LIES!!!!!

[Lorenzo_H]

I made no such pledge, but have still managed to stay true to my Christian beliefs. I have it justified in my mind to wait until marriage, so thats basically what's keeping me going. Of course, being only 17 myself, I could well have to eat my words when I'm 21 or whatever, but I'm saying I've had quite a few offers of sex which I successfully turned down. And they weren't ugly girls either!

[rory_20_uk]

I made no such pledge, but have still managed to stay true to my Christian beliefs. I have it justified in my mind to wait until marriage, so thats basically what's keeping me going. Of course, being only 17 myself, I could well have to eat my words when I'm 21 or whatever, but I'm saying I've had quite a few offers of sex which I successfully turned down. And they weren't ugly girls either!

Sleeping with someone is easy. Proves nothing about how desirable you are. Sleeping with someone that everyone knows is remaining celebate until marriage shows that you are really something. Same logic why I know some homosexual men frequently get chatted up "I turned a gay man straight!"

~:smoking:

[Ronin]

I made no such pledge, but have still managed to stay true to my Christian beliefs. I have it justified in my mind to wait until marriage, so thats basically what's keeping me going. Of course, being only 17 myself, I could well have to eat my words when I'm 21 or whatever, but I'm saying I've had quite a few offers of sex which I successfully turned down. And they weren't ugly girls either!

*grumbles something under his breath about no girls ever hitting on him when he´s more than willing*

like the old saying says "God gives nuts to people who have no teeth" indeed :wiseguy:

[Lorenzo_H]

*grumbles something under his breath about no girls ever hitting on him when he´s more than willing*

like the old saying says "God gives nuts to people who have no teeth" indeed :wiseguy:
I've realised that the chance of you getting offered sex by any particular person is inversely proportional to how much you want it.

Here's my 2 cents on Romance:

Think of the logic of attraction - I think that the human mind, before it is willing to let the body have sex with someone, needs to feel safe with them. If you want to sleep with someone, and you give it away by being flattering, flirty or suggestive, it automatically lets the other person know what you are up to. If on the other hand you seem to not be interested in them, in their subconcious they feel less sexually threatened by you, and therefore (perhaps over the course of x amount of time) they then become very attracted, and wonder what it would be like if you did like them in that way. If you continue to ignore them in that way, I've heard it described like a cat and string - that is to say, when you dangle yarn or string above a cat, just out of its reach, it will go crazy jumping over backwards to grasp it. Once you let the cat have the string, it merely looks at it for a few moments, then forgets about it and walks away.

In essence, I say that you should withdraw yourself from the mindset of "when and how might I get into her pants" whenever you meet a nice girl, like most guys (including myself sometimes!). That mentality actually reduces the chances of exactly that happening. Instead be friendly and genuine. For instance, with my current GF, I did not actually go out with her until around 6 months after first meeting her. I didn't rush anything, but instead was polite and didn't give away that I was after her. I also hate the fact that many people in our culture use alcohol to speed the whole romance process up. Some people aren't willing to put in the effort to get to know each other sober, so instead they choose to meet at a party, smashed. I think more people should just be patient and get to know those they like by talking over long periods of time, rather than probing each others Bacardi drenched tonsils after one nights' rave. How can you trust someone with those standards?

I think that by having sex in a relationship too early you are risking it. By bringing it to consummation before you fully know, trust and are committed to one another, you may find yourselves lacking fidelity to one another before long. The perfect relationship I believe waits until marriage, when the couple are clearly stating to the world that they intend with every fibre of their respective beings to stand by the other through everything. The intimacy of sex will be so much better once there are no doubts about the other. Our culture can sometimes reduce sex to an act to obtain pleasure. While sex is without a doubt pleasureable, I think it can be so much more than that when you have it reserved for only one person in your life. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/04/true.love.found/index.html this article gave me some reassurance.

Apologies if a little OT? lol...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Making children take pledges they don't understand is pointless, it's why these people believe in adult baptism after all (presuming this is a US evangelical thing).

[Ronin]

I've realised that the chance of you getting offered sex by any particular person is inversely proportional to how much you want it.

Here's my 2 cents on Romance:

Think of the logic of attraction - I think that the human mind, before it is willing to let the body have sex with someone, needs to feel safe with them. If you want to sleep with someone, and you give it away by being flattering, flirty or suggestive, it automatically lets the other person know what you are up to. If on the other hand you seem to not be interested in them, in their subconcious they feel less sexually threatened by you, and therefore (perhaps over the course of x amount of time) they then become very attracted, and wonder what it would be like if you did like them in that way. If you continue to ignore them in that way, I've heard it described like a cat and string - that is to say, when you dangle yarn or string above a cat, just out of its reach, it will go crazy jumping over backwards to grasp it. Once you let the cat have the string, it merely looks at it for a few moments, then forgets about it and walks away.

In essence, I say that you should withdraw yourself from the mindset of "when and how might I get into her pants" whenever you meet a nice girl, like most guys (including myself sometimes!). That mentality actually reduces the chances of exactly that happening. Instead be friendly and genuine. For instance, with my current GF, I did not actually go out with her until around 6 months after first meeting her. I didn't rush anything, but instead was polite and didn't give away that I was after her. I also hate the fact that many people in our culture use alcohol to speed the whole romance process up. Some people aren't willing to put in the effort to get to know each other sober, so instead they choose to meet at a party, smashed. I think more people should just be patient and get to know those they like by talking over long periods of time, rather than probing each others Bacardi drenched tonsils after one nights' rave. How can you trust someone with those standards?

I think that by having sex in a relationship too early you are risking it. By bringing it to consummation before you fully know, trust and are committed to one another, you may find yourselves lacking fidelity to one another before long. The perfect relationship I believe waits until marriage, when the couple are clearly stating to the world that they intend with every fibre of their respective beings to stand by the other through everything. The intimacy of sex will be so much better once there are no doubts about the other. Our culture can sometimes reduce sex to an act to obtain pleasure. While sex is without a doubt pleasureable, I think it can be so much more than that when you have it reserved for only one person in your life. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/04/true.love.found/index.html this article gave me some reassurance.

Apologies if a little OT? lol...

That isn´t me at all.....I think my problem is that I am extremly shy and kind of anti-social to a certain degree....I don´t drink, I don´t go to discos and "clubs"...so I end up flying under the radar and not being noticed.....

but enough OT.


Making children take pledges they don't understand is pointless, it's why these people believe in adult baptism after all (presuming this is a US evangelical thing).


I once saw somewhere that amongst the people that took the virginity pledge the rate of oral and anal sex was a lot higher than the general population.

So I´m not so sure the problem is that the young people don´t understand the pledge....the point is that people will do with the pledge the same they do with everything else....they will find loopholes.

[Marshal Murat]

I think that while virginity pledges don't prevent sex before marriage, in my mind, it does prevent girls from making stupid decisions concerning sex when they're between high-school and college. 21 isn't outta college, but you do have a college education and have a better chance of future employment rather than an 18-year old who just graduated from high school.

[Thermal]

Bah if it's Gods will for everyone to have sex after a certain time or after marriage, why are we able to sex and impreganate quite possibly, in most cases at the age of 13? THE CHURCH LIES I TELL YOU, LIES!



i love you god, please secure me a place in heaven :angel:

[HoreTore]

I once saw somewhere that amongst the people that took the virginity pledge the rate of oral and anal sex was a lot higher than the general population.

Hmmmm...... Care to send a couple of them over here? :beam:

On a related thought, what girls/boys don't do oral? that's just rude....

[Mooks]

On a related thought, what girls/boys don't do oral? that's just rude....

Must restrain myself....from putting quote in signature.

:help:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On a related thought, what girls/boys don't do oral? that's just rude....

Lots, actually, quite a few people don't like doing it and a significant number don't like recieving it either. On relationships, I think Lorenzo has a point (though sooner or later you have to move in and a certain amount of sexual threat seems to be attractive.) Life is complicated.

About the pledge, what this indicates is that people don't take it seriously and many probably don't have a concept of an honourable word. I have a friend working for a charity in Texas right now, she says that a lot of parents use Christianity to control their children, which just makes the children two-faced. I also heard that only around 12% of Americans will admit to being atheist, I find that a rather low number when you look at American culture.

Barrack Obama may well be an etheist, for example, the story of his Church attendence seems to suggest that he doesn't obsess about taking communion every Sunday.

[Ronin]

Lots, actually, quite a few people don't like doing it and a significant number don't like recieving it either.



I will accept the first part of that sentence...but the second part seems to be fiction at the very least...:wiseguy:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will accept the first part of that sentence...but the second part seems to be fiction at the very least...:wiseguy:

I suppose it depends on your partner's competancy, mostly though I think it's a cultural objection. I have heard women in particular say they just don't like the idea. Since it's a cultural objection they've probably never tried it.

[HoreTore]

Gah! No oral sex = less lubed up genitals. And that leads to a sore soldier. I honestly can't imagine having sex without both giving and receiving...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I also heard that only around 12% of Americans will admit to being atheist, I find that a rather low number when you look at American culture.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Very few people I know are adamant about declaring the non-existence of God. On the other hand, many aren't very avidly religious. Runs roughly "well, I believe God exists, but I distrust religion so I'll just do my own thing while acknowledging a vague entity called God."

These "unchurched" may be functionally atheists as far as society would feel their impact, but many such would deny the "atheist" label.

[Rhyfelwyr]

a lot of parents use Christianity to control their children, which just makes the children two-faced.

This isn't an issue I hear raised very often, but it has caused me some concern. Maybe I just get too easily freaked out by things, but the talk I hear about 'family values' from US evangelicals is borderline disturbing. It's almost like families are turning into mini-cults; this isn't natural, and it wasn't how the family functioned historically. It does seem to have become quite tied with Christianity, although I can't understand why - the Bible mentions treating your neighbour well more than your family. I can think of a few qoutes off the top of my head, for example Jesus saying he comes to bring the sword of division between families, at one point he even tells us to hate our family before we can come to God through him (although it translates more as love less - getting our priorities right and not being like animals caring only for people based on biological connections), that contradict these views.

[Ronin]

This isn't an issue I hear raised very often, but it has caused me some concern. Maybe I just get too easily freaked out by things, but the talk I hear about 'family values' from US evangelicals is borderline disturbing. It's almost like families are turning into mini-cults; this isn't natural, and it wasn't how the family functioned historically. It does seem to have become quite tied with Christianity, although I can't understand why - the Bible mentions treating your neighbour well more than your family. I can think of a few qoutes off the top of my head, for example Jesus saying he comes to bring the sword of division between families, at one point he even tells us to hate our family before we can come to God through him (although it translates more as love less - getting our priorities right and not being like animals caring only for people based on biological connections), that contradict these views.

there are plenty of people that label themselves as Christian that would be at the top of Jesus **** list if he indeed came back some day....this is hardly news, it has been like this throughout history.

[Megas Methuselah]

I also had a friend who had bible thumping parents. He honestly didn't know that a latex condom was effective in combating STDs. I wanted to cry when he told me this.

You don't have Sex Education in your barbaric land? :inquisitive:

[LittleGrizzly]

Im fairly sure almost all americans do... with possibly the exception of one or two states...

I think some parents are allowed to opt thier children out of sex ed, and by kush's description of his parents they possibly could very well had done that...

[HoreTore]

Sex ed or not doesn't matter. The thing is, that you have one group of people saying condoms work, then you have another group of people saying they don't. That will of course lead to some people believing the lie.

[Mooks]

Sex ed or not doesn't matter. The thing is, that you have one group of people saying condoms work, then you have another group of people saying they don't. That will of course lead to some people believing the lie.

Or they want to avoid the subject all together for "abstinence". Of course numerous studies show it doesnt work, but these arent the kind of people that look to studies and those annoying "facts" in the first place (I.E fundamentalist christrians).

[LittleGrizzly]

Or they want to avoid the subject all together for "abstinence". Of course numerous studies show it doesnt work, but these arent the kind of people that look to studies and those annoying "facts" in the first place (I.E fundamentalist christrians).

Its like the fossil record and carbon dating and lots of other tricks... by the devil! only those true of faith see through the lies! ;)

[Lorenzo_H]

I will accept the first part of that sentence...but the second part seems to be fiction at the very least...:wiseguy:

Hate to contradict you, but while I have in the past given it (and since regretted it, not because it wasn't enjoyable, but for reasons I have expressed in earlier posts), the number of times I have refused to receive oral sex is more than I can count in my head. I am male, before you ask:mellow:. There are certainly a lot of people who don't like receiving it, I know others as well.

The reason I don't do it is because honestly, I hate the idea of reducing a girl to that. I would feel almost bestial. I wouldn't feel good about making a girl I like do me such a menial favour. The amount of girls I have known who were abused by that whole system of thinking and the whole cycle and culture is very painful for me to recall. Who knows, maybe I shall do it in future, hopefully when I am committed to someone for life.

[rasoforos]

The reason I don't do it is because honestly, I hate the idea of reducing a girl to that. I would feel almost bestial. I wouldn't feel good about making a girl I like do me such a menial favour.



Its good to have a clear cut idea of why you do/dont want to do something. However I do not understand why you would feel this way.

Why should you think that a girl is 'reduced' by giving oral sex?

There is no 'shame' in sex. Two adults agree to have fun and as long as they both enjoy anything goes. Society fills us with all that 'shame' mumbo jumbo when we are young.

Why is it a menial favour? Your partner wants to do something to please you and sometimes pleasing your other half without expecting something in return is much better than the greatest sex ever. Its Altruistic and not menial.

As far as 'bestial' . Far from it, its very human, no animal does it ( I think) :2thumbsup:

[Ronin]

Its good to have a clear cut idea of why you do/dont want to do something. However I do not understand why you would feel this way.

Why should you think that a girl is 'reduced' by giving oral sex?

There is no 'shame' in sex. Two adults agree to have fun and as long as they both enjoy anything goes. Society fills us with all that 'shame' mumbo jumbo when we are young.

Why is it a menial favour? Your partner wants to do something to please you and sometimes pleasing your other half without expecting something in return is much better than the greatest sex ever. Its Altruistic and not menial.

As far as 'bestial' . Far from it, its very human, no animal does it ( I think) :2thumbsup:


Quoted....For.....Truth....:book:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Neither are contraceptives. Only partially. The same for head start. But it 0 effect after a few years. Now I hear the FEDS want to make pre school mandatory.

[Lorenzo_H]

Its good to have a clear cut idea of why you do/dont want to do something. However I do not understand why you would feel this way.

Why should you think that a girl is 'reduced' by giving oral sex?

There is no 'shame' in sex. Two adults agree to have fun and as long as they both enjoy anything goes. Society fills us with all that 'shame' mumbo jumbo when we are young.

Why is it a menial favour? Your partner wants to do something to please you and sometimes pleasing your other half without expecting something in return is much better than the greatest sex ever. Its Altruistic and not menial.

As far as 'bestial' . Far from it, its very human, no animal does it ( I think) :2thumbsup:
Ever since a guy who forced a girl, who I am good friends with, to do it, I cannot even contemplate it. I guess my mentality is very particular, because of my own experiences; I just don't want to remind any girl of that kind of guy. I have a fixation that by doing it, it will give the impression, subconciously, that I am with the girl only for physical action, and that her worth to me is determined by that.

[rasoforos]

Ever since a guy who forced a girl, who I am good friends with, to do it, I cannot even contemplate it. I guess my mentality is very particular, because of my own experiences; I just don't want to remind any girl of that kind of guy. I have a fixation that by doing it, it will give the impression, subconciously, that I am with the girl only for physical action, and that her worth to me is determined by that.

I understand. It does you credit to be so concerned. However, just because one man is a total :daisy:, it does not mean that girls will associate you with him. We cannot be held accountable for the sins of the whole male population. I see your point though.


Just a reminded. A woman's mouth is usually filled with razor sharp teeth. More than capable of punishing a guy who feels like forcing oral sex :2thumbsup:

[Lorenzo_H]

I understand. It does you credit to be so concerned. However, just because one man is a total :daisy:, it does not mean that girls will associate you with him. We cannot be held accountable for the sins of the whole male population. I see your point though.


Just a reminded. A woman's mouth is usually filled with razor sharp teeth. More than capable of punishing a guy who feels like forcing oral sex :2thumbsup:

Granted, there is, thankfully, a large number of guys who aren't like that. This particular friend seemed to find more than her fair share of the :daisy:s, because she is more than very attractive with an easily tricked, perhaps naive, personality. Hence, I've come across a few of them.

Its also not as simple as her being able to punish him like that. The whole psycology is really, really messed up, I can't even understand it. Because they guy who is enforcing the situation on the girl is always older, and therefore has more social status, he can make her do what he wants (with pressure, threats etc), and then get away with it after.

I will relate it to the topic, which is that I think abstenance from that lifestyle, and all the risks associated with it is a very respectable thing.

[LittleGrizzly]

Neither are contraceptives. Only partially. The same for head start. But it 0 effect after a few years. Now I hear the FEDS want to make pre school mandatory.

Yo G! :D

nice to see you around!

[Ja'chyra]

The average age in the US is 17???? Don't you have Bacardi Breezers over there.

If I had waited that long I'd have been humping random inanimate objects.


Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H
I made no such pledge, but have still managed to stay true to my Christian beliefs. I have it justified in my mind to wait until marriage, so thats basically what's keeping me going. Of course, being only 17 myself, I could well have to eat my words when I'm 21 or whatever, but I'm saying I've had quite a few offers of sex which I successfully turned down. And they weren't ugly girls either!

I served my apprenticeship with a guy that was awarded £50 for never taking a day off sick, he proceeded to boast about it until I pointed out that I had over a month off and it only cost me £50.


Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Lots, actually, quite a few people don't like doing it and a significant number don't like recieving it either.

I had a girl that would give but didn't like receiving, there must have been a reason why I dumped her

[HoreTore]

I had a girl that would give but didn't like receiving, there must have been a reason why I dumped her

Sexual blocks in her head due to imagined taboo's. I blame the conservatives for that. Their public words that is - as evidenced by the number of scandals, they're very liberal and open-minded privately :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The average age in the US is 17???? Don't you have Bacardi Breezers over there.

The age of consent in most states is 16/17 (as are driving privileges enabling you to escape the immediate family after school hours). The drinking age is 21 and is more and more rigorously enforced.

At 18 years of age, you can, legally: vote to select individuals for Federal office, enlist to fight for your country, drive a multi-ton truck, and marry the significant other of your choice (in MA that isn't even restricted by physical sex).

However, you still could NOT buy a beer to drink with dinner nor (in most places) rent a car.

[HoreTore]

Uhm.....

You can have sex at any age. The age of consent is there to prevent adults exploiting children, say a 40-year old and a 13-year old. Two 13-year olds, or in other terms "roughly the same evolutionary stage", is still perfectly OK, of course...

[Vladimir]

I think that while virginity pledges don't prevent sex before marriage, in my mind, it does prevent girls from making stupid decisions concerning sex when they're between high-school and college. 21 isn't outta college, but you do have a college education and have a better chance of future employment rather than an 18-year old who just graduated from high school.

Which is really the point of the whole damn thing! In that regard they can be very effective.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm.....

You can have sex at any age. The age of consent is there to prevent adults exploiting children, say a 40-year old and a 13-year old. Two 13-year olds, or in other terms "roughly the same evolutionary stage", is still perfectly OK, of course...

Umm, almost every country in the Western world dissagrees with that statement. I realise that in Norway sex is not taken as seriously as it is in some other places, but even so! Is it ok for a 13 year old to get pregnant?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Umm, almost every country in the Western world dissagrees with that statement. I realise that in Norway sex is not taken as seriously as it is in some other places, but even so! Is it ok for a 13 year old to get pregnant?

The morality of the modern world seems to be that if something is done with consent then it is completly fine.

[LittleGrizzly]

I have no objection to two 14 year olds having sex with each other if they want to, or at least i wouldn't press any kind of criminal charges against them, aslong as they are careful about it and its makes them both happy then i would be happy for them...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well in Britain two fourteen year olds are not considered competant to make that decision, granted, some are and I knew sexually active couples at that age. However, that doesn't make it a good idea for the majoriety and this is why we have a statute of Age of soncent.

Consider this, what if one of them is mentally competant (in fact, not law) and the other isn't? What's the difference between a 14 year old boy coercing an imature 14 year old girl and a 40 year old man? I don't think the 14 year old boy is any less predatory. With that in mind, I would say that charges should be brought on a case-by-case basis.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Consider this, what if one of them is mentally competant (in fact, not law) and the other isn't? What's the difference between a 14 year old boy coercing an imature 14 year old girl and a 40 year old man? I don't think the 14 year old boy is any less predatory. With that in mind, I would say that charges should be brought on a case-by-case basis.

True, it's pretty ridiculous when a 16 year old who slept with a 15 year old gets the same record as some old paedophile.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

True, it's pretty ridiculous when a 16 year old who slept with a 15 year old gets the same record as some old paedophile.

I believe I was saying the exact opposite. The law is there to protect those who are vulnerable, not withstanding that not everyone in that age group is vulnerable. With that in mind, charges should, as I said, be brought on a case by case basius, but the assumption should be to prosecute.

I knew the law when I was that age, so did everyone I went to school with.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well then you have problems defining what is unfair coercian or what is simply trying to convince someone to sleep with you, in the same way you can a 14 year old not mentally competent to make the decision you can have a 30 year old women not competant to make the decision. I would agree we should protect people in that manner, but that can be a factor at any age....

Though to get back to my main point, aslong as the 2 14year olds both want it (as in not coerced and both are competent), and are being careful about it then them having sexual relations is only a positive*...

* in terms of exercise, happiness ect.

True, it's pretty ridiculous when a 16 year old who slept with a 15 year old gets the same record as some old paedophile.

Agreed!

I have always though there should be at least a 2 year, or maybe a 3 year gap for a charge of peadophilia to be made, i knew a boy whose friend went on the sex offenders register for a video of a girl doing things with a lambringi (sp?) bottle, he was in the same school year as the girl!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well then you have problems defining what is unfair coercian or what is simply trying to convince someone to sleep with you, in the same way you can a 14 year old not mentally competent to make the decision you can have a 30 year old women not competant to make the decision. I would agree we should protect people in that manner, but that can be a factor at any age....

This is true, but if we applied such thinking across the board then you can't actually do anything. So you draw a line in the sand, and if people cross it they are punished. We do the same with physical assault, homicide etc. There will always be unpleasent cases but the law is very clear


Though to get back to my main point, aslong as the 2 14year olds both want it (as in not coerced and both are competent), and are being careful about it then them having sexual relations is only a positive*...

* in terms of exercise, happiness ect.

Unless she gets pregnant, though that is hardly a certainty.


Agreed!

I have always though there should be at least a 2 year, or maybe a 3 year gap for a charge of peadophilia to be made, i knew a boy whose friend went on the sex offenders register for a video of a girl doing things with a lambringi (sp?) bottle, he was in the same school year as the girl!!


That would allow a 17 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, a 16 year old with 13, 15 with 12. Where would you stop?

[Moros]

That would allow a 17 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, a 16 year old with 13, 15 with 12. Where would you stop?
Not same school, same schoolyear he said.

Anyway personally I think the pledges are silly. But if it's someone who decides on his or her own to take such a pledge, then I respect it. But if it's the parents, then it's just stupid and rather pointless.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I believe I was saying the exact opposite. The law is there to protect those who are vulnerable, not withstanding that not everyone in that age group is vulnerable. With that in mind, charges should, as I said, be brought on a case by case basius, but the assumption should be to prosecute.

I knew the law when I was that age, so did everyone I went to school with.

I meant that a 16 year old can be at the same level of maturity as a 15 year old, therefore they should not be lumped with the real paedophiles, but judged on a case by case basis. So I was agreeing with you, I think. Oh well, now we can disagree about whether or not we disagree. :clown:

[HoreTore]

Consider this, what if one of them is mentally competant (in fact, not law) and the other isn't? What's the difference between a 14 year old boy coercing an imature 14 year old girl and a 40 year old man? I don't think the 14 year old boy is any less predatory. With that in mind, I would say that charges should be brought on a case-by-case basis.

The law is, that when two people are not of about the same level of maturity, the age of consent rules the day. If they are about the same, then it's free willy-time.

Note that the emphasis isn't on age, it's on level of maturity. That means that if one of them is mentally retarded, for example a 15-year old who is on the same level as a 7-year old, it would be criminal for another 15-year old to have sex with him/her.

2 13-year olds, a 13-year old and a 14-year old, 2 12-year olds, and so on is all good. Not a problem.

Anyway, how is it even possible to have the law differently? How on earth can the legal system punish kids for having sex? And which one of them gets the whip, which one is the "victim"? How can you tell, how can you be sure?

There is a thing called "free will". We encourage that thing here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I meant that a 16 year old can be at the same level of maturity as a 15 year old, therefore they should not be lumped with the real paedophiles, but judged on a case by case basis. So I was agreeing with you, I think. Oh well, now we can disagree about whether or not we disagree. :clown:

Oh, ok, we agree.

Lokk everyone!:clown:


The law is, that when two people are not of about the same level of maturity, the age of consent rules the day. If they are about the same, then it's free willy-time.

Note that the emphasis isn't on age, it's on level of maturity. That means that if one of them is mentally retarded, for example a 15-year old who is on the same level as a 7-year old, it would be criminal for another 15-year old to have sex with him/her.

2 13-year olds, a 13-year old and a 14-year old, 2 12-year olds, and so on is all good. Not a problem.

Anyway, how is it even possible to have the law differently? How on earth can the legal system punish kids for having sex? And which one of them gets the whip, which one is the "victim"? How can you tell, how can you be sure?

There is a thing called "free will". We encourage that thing here.

How do you judge "level of maturaty"? If that's the law in Norway it is not the law here, or in America, or elsewhere. Though I think Canada has a similar system, they still have a legal threshold of 14, before which point you cannot consent.

[HoreTore]

How do you judge "level of maturaty"?

Common sense by the judges + psychiatrists. And anyway, how on earth can you punish 12-year olds for doing each other?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We punish them for stealing, littering, defacing public property, causing a nuissence... Any time they break the law they are punished. At 12 you wouldn't go to jail, charges might not even be brought, but a 15 year old and a 12 year old is a different story, and it doesn't change the fact that we have a law.

If you break the law you are punished, that is the only fair legal system. If you believe a law is wrong you have it changed, you can't just go around breaking laws you don't like.

[HoreTore]

Of course not. But why on earth is there a law against having sex with each other?

Oh well. It's not that long ago that there were laws deciding what hole to put your willie in too, so....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We have laws to protect the vulnerable, I seriously doubt many teens suffer lasting trauma not having sex.

[Mooks]

Of course not. But why on earth is there a law against having sex with each other?

Oh well. It's not that long ago that there were laws deciding what hole to put your willie in too, so....


Iv heard theres laws all over the U.S prohibiting sex between unmarried couples.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Utah, in Virginia you can only do it missionary with the lights off, in a bed, with the curtains drawn, after dark.

No that is truely unjust.

[Strike For The South]

If you would like to have sex then have sex. If you would not like to partake then don't.

[Papewaio]

It shouldn't be just maturity to deal with the action. But the maturity to deal with the logical consequences. How many 15 year olds lives will be fine if they have a child at that age?

[Strike For The South]

It shouldn't be just maturity to deal with the action. But the maturity to deal with the logical consequences. How many 15 year olds lives will be fine if they have a child at that age?

Not many, but how 15 year olds will care that the age of consent is 16 or 18 or 54? These kind of things fall under the families domain not the states.

[Watchman]

That's what sex ed, contrareception and - if need be - abortion is for...

[Strike For The South]

That's what sex ed, contrareception and - if need be - abortion is for...

I realize.

[HoreTore]

We have laws to protect the vulnerable, I seriously doubt many teens suffer lasting trauma not having sex.

I doubt they'll have any trauma from not getting coca-cola either. Does that mean we should limit kids to Pepsi?

You people are under the impression that sex is somehow something bad, and for it to be good, it will have to be performed under certain circumstances. Which truly is rubbish. Sex is good, healthy and safe. Why would you want our children to be unhealthy, Philipvs...?

[seireikhaan]

I doubt they'll have any trauma from not getting coca-cola either. Does that mean we should limit kids to Pepsi?

You people are under the impression that sex is somehow something bad, and for it to be good, it will have to be performed under certain circumstances. Which truly is rubbish. Sex is good, healthy and safe. Why would you want our children to be unhealthy, Philipvs...?
Well... "safe" is sort of debatable, depending on the individual's practices.

[HoreTore]

Well... "safe" is sort of debatable, depending on the individual's practices.

With proper precautions(ie. condoms), no, it's not debatable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

yes it most certainly is, and it is not necessarily fun either. Particually for young women and girls, then there's the sometimes horrific emotional fallout. Scandanavians have a particually relaxed view of sex, this is not a universal view however. Some people, in Britain for example, take it very seriously and the breakup of sexual relationships can be extremely painful.

As regards Coca-Cola, I think it's fair to limit a child's cafine intake, that stuff can stunt your growth. Having said that, I'm not convinced we should legislate against it.

For you sex is apparently not a profound and deeply personal experience, ok fine, for some people it can be life changing, or life destroying. That is why we have an age of consent, to protect young people who are not aware of the posssible physical and emotional reprecutions.

[seireikhaan]

With proper precautions(ie. condoms), no, it's not debatable.
You apparently disregarded my part about "depending in the individual's practices".

[Papewaio]

Not many, but how 15 year olds will care that the age of consent is 16 or 18 or 54? These kind of things fall under the families domain not the states.

Only if the state does not have to pick up the tab for the children's child.

[Strike For The South]

Only if the state does not have to pick up the tab for the children's child.

I fear I have lost something in translation. Are you saying that these laws should only be enforced when 1. A child comes about and 2. Parents can't pay for said child?

[Lord Winter]

Only if the state does not have to pick up the tab for the children's child.

So if there over eighteen then its fine for welfare to pay?

[Papewaio]

No, what I'm saying is that the idea that it is okay if they are mature is rubbish. Maturity is not the only thing to consider when playing at making babies.

One should also have the financial ability to look after the consequences of pregnancy. And the state gets a larger say nowadays because of welfare issues.

[Strike For The South]

No, what I'm saying is that the idea that it is okay if they are mature is rubbish. Maturity is not the only thing to consider when playing at making babies.

One should also have the financial ability to look after the consequences of pregnancy. And the state gets a larger say nowadays because of welfare issues.

I see and agree.

[LittleGrizzly]

Maturity is not the only thing to consider when playing at making babies.

So it is only the potential for babies that is the problem with it ?

If kids were using other sexual methods would it be more acceptable ?

If not where do we draw the line, you can kiss but not tongues, you can use tongues but keep all your clothes on...

One should also have the financial ability to look after the consequences of pregnancy. And the state gets a larger say nowadays because of welfare issues.

So for example a 14 yr old paris hilton is fine to have a kid. But Bob the long term unemployed 40 yr old... shouldn't...

[Papewaio]

Kids are for life. I don't recommend having them as a kid because that means you have a parent who has never lived as an adult.

And no I don't think that Paris Hilton counts as mature for starters. That and I said the person had to have the ability to look after the consequences of the action be it 'gain of knowledge', emotional reaction or pregnancy. So a 14 year old Paris Hilton's family might be able to look after the child but this is just a case of the smallest form of government looking after the child ~;).

So if the person can handle the consequences and not pass the buck to someone else then that is part way there to being a responsible parent.

=][=

As for Bob the long term unemployed 40 year old, well Mrs Palmer and her daughters will be his for life. Men use their personality for contraception, women also add in the mans ATM receipt. So Bob will be fighting an uphill battle against men who can feather the nest.

Doesn't stop the strategy of letting someone else feather the nest and making them a cuckold... but in general he who makes the biggest nest can have his choice of birds. Also some partners are quite happy to bludge and it can be seen all over the world where welfare occurs that a tiny portion of the recipients see it as a lifestyle choice and we get multiple generations of bludgers. On the flip side some on welfare make better parents then the ultra rich... as per PHs parents.