Palin's Daughter Says Abstinence Not Realistic

[mrstickball]

The Ghost of RubangB said:

mrstickball said:
Abstinence-only education is a mixed bag. It's hard to really preach that, given the sexualization (not a word?) of the Western/American culture.

Most of our movies and TV promote sex before marriage, and very little emphasis is placed on the dangers of sex before marriage. So why wouldn't our culture be inundated with the good side of sex, and not the bad side?

Abstinence is realistic when your not a whore. Of course, that doesn't mean you need to rule out sexual responsibility in all of it's forms, either.

It's also really hard to preach abstinence only education when it's the official stance of the church that if a priest rapes or molests little boys, they don't have to go to jail, they just have to get relocated to another church in a really small town in the middle of nowhere with half as many cops so they don't get caught next time.

Which church? If your talking about the Roman Catholic church, you are not referring to all churches. The RCC's retarded stance on priests is abhorrent, and I hope that they send those that commit crimes are rightfully sent to jail.

Or when the easiest way to stay abstinent (masturbation) can't be taught anywhere, and when the surgeon general said that masturbation is very very healthy physically/mentally/emotionally and makes it easier to stay abstinent and healthy, she got fired.  Actually, what do you think about teaching masturbation as a safe alternative to sex that can never lead to STDs or pregnancy?

I don't entirely see any major problem with it.

And please refrain from implying that my mother, my father, my sisters, my wife, and myself are all whores.  Some of us choose to have sex, not because we are weak and falling prey to primal sinful urges, but because sex is healthy, natural, and good for you.

I wasn't trying to argue that everyone that has premarital sex is a whore. Maybe my choice of words was wrong, but I was attempting to use the connotation that unless you are some sort of sex-crazed person that is well outside the lines of normal sexual desires, it's something that can be avoided. I was using the Miriam Webster definition of a 'promiscuous woman' (or man).

No matter what we teach our kids, some will be abstinent and some will get pregnant or STDs at a young age, but if there's a chance that we could educate some of them about the dangers and stop some unwanted pregnancies, we'll be able to decrease the demand for abortions, decrease the spread of STDs and cervical cancers, and save lives.  Teaching a kid how to use a condom isn't going to turn them into a whore.  They will make their decision to have sex or not on their own.  We can't force kids to stay abstinent by hiding knowledge from them, but we can make them smarter and safer, and it is my opinion that failing to teach our kids the truth is bad for the family, the community, and the world.

Certainly agreeable. No matter what how what you teach people - they can, and sometimes will, avoid what you say, so reasonable discussion about safe usage is always preferable. I'm not against teaching about safe sex. Just the argument that premarital sex is ok, which I don't think it is. Of course, that's my personal opinion, and I'm entitled to the benefit of it