Don't Pop The Pill If He Won't Share The Bill

[ewu]

now are you willing to take on the entire cost without you partner prompting, on your own initiative?

[codex biblio]

In theory, I'd like to think birth control is a shared expense in a relationship. Unfortunately, in reality, I don't think that's true.

now are you willing to take on the entire cost without you partner prompting, on your own initiative?

I'm assuming this question is aimed towards guys. In an ideal world, this might happen. But in reality, I don't think a lot of guys would even think of covering the entire cost of birth control without prompting/hints.

Don't women have to prompt (remind/hint) their guys on a lot of other things (birth control or otherwise)? And even then, things often still go "over" the guy's head. But then, that brings up the discussion of communication being so important in a relationship which can be a whole other topic. 

[ewu]

i agree....guys are oblivious.....like no sarcasm.....for realz. we need to pay attention more.

[Runewitt]

now are you willing to take on the entire cost without you partner prompting, on your own initiative?

well, considering the fact that we are currently in a long distance type relationship and i dont make enough money to support myself, no, i'm not.

[AMKestrel]

lyricaldanichan's point: if more people fully recognized the validity and enjoyment of non-penetrative forms of sex, then there would be fewer teenage pregnancies.

That's more agreeable. But are you sure? I'm not calling for a cite, and I'm not looking to provide a counter-cite, but consider that both sexual activity and pregnancy is supposedly increasing among teenagers. IF that's true - and that's a big one - that would mean teenagers are enjoying those alternatives and yet pregnancies are increasing regardless.

I wonder what the results of an anonymous survey of the teenaged males vs teenaged females in question would
show.  I would hazard a guess that the females would show more of a tendency to recognize and support the
validity and enjoyment of the non-penetrative forms of sex, while the teenaged males would be less likely to
recognize the validity and enjoyment of non-penetrative forms of sex.  I think many teenaged males are socialized
to consider anything short of full, penetrative sex as "not sex", and that until they engage in full, penetrative
sex, they're not really a "man" yet, that they haven't crossed that elusive boundry into adulthood.  Thus, they
end up putting pressure on their female partners to engage in full, penetrative sex, when the female may have
otherwise been very happy to continue engaging in non-penetrative sex.

That is to say, we may very well have a gender split, such that while the alternatives are being enjoyed more
among teenagers, pregnancies are also on the rise because the male half view those alternate activities as
being less 'manly', and thus continue to push for engaging in full, penetrative unprotected sex, not necessarily
because the alternative activities aren't enjoyable, but because they fail to meet a societal definition that
the teenagers are (perhaps unconsciously) striving to fulfill.

I begin to wonder if teenaged pregancy rates would drop if cultures considered cunnilingus as the
sign of non-virginity and the crossing into adulthood for teenaged males, for example?

[PyronIkari]

I wonder what the results of an anonymous survey of the teenaged males vs teenaged females in question would
show.  I would hazard a guess that the females would show more of a tendency to recognize and support the
validity and enjoyment of the non-penetrative forms of sex, while the teenaged males would be less likely to
recognize the validity and enjoyment of non-penetrative forms of sex.  I think many teenaged males are socialized
to consider anything short of full, penetrative sex as "not sex", and that until they engage in full, penetrative
sex, they're not really a "man" yet, that they haven't crossed that elusive boundry into adulthood.  Thus, they
end up putting pressure on their female partners to engage in full, penetrative sex, when the female may have
otherwise been very happy to continue engaging in non-penetrative sex.

That is to say, we may very well have a gender split, such that while the alternatives are being enjoyed more
among teenagers, pregnancies are also on the rise because the male half view those alternate activities as
being less 'manly', and thus continue to push for engaging in full, penetrative unprotected sex, not necessarily
because the alternative activities aren't enjoyable, but because they fail to meet a societal definition that
the teenagers are (perhaps unconsciously) striving to fulfill.

I begin to wonder if teenaged pregancy rates would drop if cultures considered cunnilingus as the
sign of non-virginity and the crossing into adulthood for teenaged males, for example?

I hate this mentality. The problem is, not that there should be an alternative to sex, and that if people saw this alternative SOCIALLY as sex, then people would stop having real sex.

It's not the case at all, and it WILL NEVER BE THE CASE. Sex exists, people know it exists, and people will want to have it, regardless of the alternatives. Sex is the end step, and is supposed to be the best of all physical stimulation.

If you want to prevent pregnancy, you teach how to prevent pregnancy. Not tell kids "don't have sex and do things that are like sex". Because they will still want to have sex. Even in that sense. Okay, you tell kids to not have penetrational sex. You tell them, oral, manual stimulation, and all that stuff is perfectly fine. They will do so. Okay, now that they know all of that stuff and do it, they will think "Wow this is great... but sex is supposed to be better than this. So why don't we have sex?!?!??!?"

If something is there, people will do it. If you don't want a kid to smoke, you don't give him alternatives to smoking. You tell them the dangers of smoking itself, and teach them about that. Smoking isn't something you can replicate, just like sex isn't something you can replicate. You can do alternatives for something similar, but it is NOT THE SAME... and therefore the experience is not the same.

No matter what you say as an alternative, it will not make up for sex. So what do you do? Teach them how to have safe sex. Teach them how to use birth control. Teach them how to prevent STD's and the consequences if they don't.

Because telling a child "Don't do this, it's bad... do this instead it's just as good" will make the child think "well why can't I just do that?".

The entire "alternative" route isn't educating people at all... it's forcefully keeping people ignorant. All that does is lead to future problems.

[ewu]

forbidden fruit my friends. The more you say don't do it, the more likely they will. If they are gonna do it, then at least have them educated about it and doing it correctly....

[Nyxyin]

Maybe you misunderstood.  I don't think anybody seriously proposed changing anything other than raise social acceptance of non-conceiving sexual practices.  Raising social acceptance of non-conceiving sexual practices to match heterosexual intercourse doesn't imply that people should stop having sex.  It doesn't reduce education about sex.  (Leaping to the other end like that is taking a shade of gray and painting it in black and white.)  Under my definition, "raising social acceptance of non-conceiving sexual practices" is not met unless there is a reduction in the assumption that heterosexual intercourse is necessarily better than other forms of sex.  The attitude that heterosexual intercourse is the "end step" and the "best of all stimulation" seems to discriminate against homosexual people.

Furthermore, the only way to fully prevent pregnancy is to not have sex.  Condoms and birth control do not prevent pregnancy completely.  They only reduce the chances.  People don't qualify as being properly educated about sex until they understand that, even with condoms, birth control, etc., they are still taking a risk, no matter how small.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.  Non-conceiving sexual practices would not replace sex ed, but more social acceptance of them would still reduce problems.  Both are good ideas.

[Runewitt]

I am somehow surprised that no-one has yet to mention two simple, yet permanent solutions to the problem of birth control. The male form, either chemical or surgical castration/ the vasectomy and the female possibility of "getting her tubes tied." I am neither advocating or denouncing these possibilities, I am simply noting that these forms of birth control have yet to be mentioned.

[PyronIkari]

Maybe you misunderstood.  I don't think anybody seriously proposed changing anything other than raise social acceptance of non-conceiving sexual practices.  Raising social acceptance of non-conceiving sexual practices to match heterosexual intercourse doesn't imply that people should stop having sex.  It doesn't reduce education about sex.  (Leaping to the other end like that is taking a shade of gray and painting it in black and white.)  Under my definition, "raising social acceptance of non-conceiving sexual practices" is not met unless there is a reduction in the assumption that heterosexual intercourse is necessarily better than other forms of sex.  The attitude that heterosexual intercourse is the "end step" and the "best of all stimulation" seems to discriminate against homosexual people.

Furthermore, the only way to fully prevent pregnancy is to not have sex.  Condoms and birth control do not prevent pregnancy completely.  They only reduce the chances.  People don't qualify as being properly educated about sex until they understand that, even with condoms, birth control, etc., they are still taking a risk, no matter how small.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.  Non-conceiving sexual practices would not replace sex ed, but more social acceptance of them would still reduce problems.  Both are good ideas.

What does homosexuality have ANYTHING to do with this?

God damn... I honestly haven't a damned clue what the hell your point is. Most people understand that condoms and birth control are not 100% accurate. It's common sense that the best way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. No one will disagree with that... but that isn't the god damned point in this. We're talking about people that DO want to have sex. They realize that, but they want to have sex anyways... so they will.

Rune: They have. Getting your tubes tied isn't a 100% there have been cases where the female has gotten pregnant afterwards. Rare as it is, it still makes it not 100%. Besides, that's an extreme condition, and one most younger people will not want to do.

[Nyxyin]

I'm not sure I understood what was meant, but vasectomies have previously been mentioned in this thread:

Take for example, the statistics shown for a vasectomy are 99% or more

In any case, even sterilization is still not 100%.  The risk of pregnancy is very small, but still non-zero.

Among 10,685 women studied, the risk of ectopic pregnancy within 10 years after sterilization was about 7 per 1,000 procedures. [...] even though pregnancy after sterilization is uncommon, it can occur, and it may be ectopic. [...] Approximately 100,000 ectopic pregnancies occur each year

Worse, the numbers count only the ectopic pregnancies (which are the life-threatening ones which implant outside the uterus).  The site below claims the risk is twice as high when counting normal pregnancies:

A recent study has estimated that 143 women in 10,000 get pregnant after a tubal ligation

[Nyxyin]

Weird.  It didn't warn me that a new post came in while I was typing.

We're talking about people that DO want to have sex.

I was talking about why people want to have sex.

People are going to want to have sex for a large variety of reasons, and those reasons can change from time to time.  Sometimes, people (teenagers in particular) choose to have conception-capable sex and risk pregnancy more because of social allure and social pressure than any significant increased desire for that particular variety of sex.  If non-conceiving forms of sex were considered to be equal, then some people wouldn't feel as pressured to risk conception-capable sex as often, and the probability differences would add up to fewer problems overall.

The point of the homosexual argument is trying to start with a commonly accepted assumption to logically reach the conclusion that conception-capable sex can't be considered better.  If homosexuals should have the same social status as heterosexuals, then non-conceiving sex must also have the same social status as conception-capable sex.

[PyronIkari]

I was talking about why people want to have sex.

People are going to want to have sex for a large variety of reasons, and those reasons can change from time to time.  Sometimes, people (teenagers in particular) choose to have conception-capable sex and risk pregnancy more because of social allure and social pressure than any significant increased desire for that particular variety of sex.  If non-conceiving forms of sex were considered to be equal, then some people wouldn't feel as pressured to risk conception-capable sex as often, and the probability differences would add up to fewer problems overall.

The change would be minimal at best. People don't want to have sex merely because of social pressures. In other countries, there is even more social pressures to not be a virgin by the age of 20(fffffff Japan). Your average girl loses her virginity by 20, and it's EXTREMELY awkward if she hasn't. Most guys won't date a virgin over a certain age because it shows lack of experience.

The US is actually pretty good compared to Japan in that respect. Now, the issue is that, teen pregnancy numbers are inaccurate in Japan compared to the states(actually both are pretty inaccurate but Japan is far worse).

People will have sex regardless. You act as if, teens are only having sex because they are pressured too socially. Where does the pressure come from though? If you think it's just because "sex makes you an adult" you're seriously joking yourself. This is another stereotype made because it's easier to put a false blame on things than the reality. Adults made that crap up to make it sound like sex is a bad thing. It's compared to drug use. "Don't do it, just because others tell you to". Like I said, this society is so half-assed that they can be honest about things. Kids have sex, because sex feels good. If it didn't, not nearly as many kids would be having sex. You can make up excuses and say the initial reason was because they was pressured, and that looks good on paper, but if you break it down... that's just a small reason in cooperation with the fact that... sex feels really good.

I could turn this entire conversation around and state "why do people tell kids not to have sex". Seriously, why? Well kids is a bad word, but young adults. If they're smart about it, what makes it any different than having sex... oh, say... two years later?

One of the big issues is that, adults make sex taboo. America makes nudity, and natural acts so taboo, that it drives curiosity. You can't push two different sides. Kids learn that sex is an amazing thing, that it feels great, and there's nothing close to it. Masturbation is only a tiny taste of what sex is really like. Then they're told that it's a bad dirty thing, and they shouldn't do it. That they should wait until marriage, and all that crap.

That's like waving ice cream in front of a kids face and going "OMMMMMMG THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOO GOOD... It tastes so amazing but you can't have any until you are 18/20/21/you're married." And then handing them a tic-tac and going "ENJOY THIS INSTEAD!"

The point of the homosexual argument is trying to start with a commonly accepted assumption to logically reach the conclusion that conception-capable sex can't be considered better.  If homosexuals should have the same social status as heterosexuals, then non-conceiving sex must also have the same social status as conception-capable sex.

This... is so incredibly stupid... that I don't get why you're even saying it. Homosexuals and their social status has nothing to do with sex. But just to note. I know many bi-sexual people. I know many homo-sexual people. I know many homo-sexual people that have had straight sex before. These people tell me that straight sex feels better physically. However, homo-sexual people also tell me that receiving anal sex CAN be amazing. But both state the same thing "They're two different things".

Are you now saying, we are discriminating against blinds, by creating good movies, that they cannot enjoy? That we are discriminating against deaf by performing concerts? Discriminating against people in comas... by living?

As I said... your comment makes absolutely no sense. Homosexuals do not have heterosexual sex. They enjoy different forms of sex, but that doesn't mean that it is equal to heterosexual sex, nor does it mean we are discriminating against them. If you TRULY TRULY TRULY TRULY believe this though. I think, you should follow your word, and kill yourself. So you do not discriminate against the dead, those in comas, or paraplegics.

[ewu]

I am somehow surprised that no-one has yet to mention two simple, yet permanent solutions to the problem of birth control. The male form, either chemical or surgical castration/ the vasectomy and the female possibility of "getting her tubes tied." I am neither advocating or denouncing these possibilities, I am simply noting that these forms of birth control have yet to be mentioned.

You know, most of us are still young and still want to have children and thats prob why it has not had that much bearing on our discussion. As much as some procedures are reversable....man, you dont wanna mess with the plumbing:)

[Nyxyin]

People don't want to have sex merely because of social pressures.

Maybe you misunderstood.  I don't mean everybody.  I mean some people, but probably more people than commonly perceived.  As was mentioned above, there might also be a gender split here.  I agree it's probably more common for girls to be socially/peer pressured into having conception-capable sex than boys.

You act as if, teens are only having sex because they are pressured too socially.

I think some teens (and even adults) are convincing themselves that conception-capable sex is better than non-conceiving sex because of subconscious pressures in society.  People who don't prefer conception-capable sex are told that there's something wrong with them, that they're repressed, picking up on their parents' biases, or just not good enough at sex.  And so, some of those pay lip service to the emperor's clothes, while others keep trying sex whether they like it or not, in an attempt to reach some holy grail that might not exist for them.  They may fake orgasms in order to keep up the illusion for their partner.

I keep coming back to the homosexuality angle because the fact that homosexuality is not a disease implies more generally that people are still healthy even when they don't like sex the same way.  Variation in preference is still perfectly healthy.  People are still good and whole even if they don't think sex is so much better than masturbation that it's worth the risks.  I think some teens are still afraid to admit it because of their partners or friends.  Pressure to have sex is usually not because "sex makes people into adults".  Part of the reason is the quite opposite: because sex is "cool" or "in" or "rebellious" / "anti-adult".

Kids have sex, because sex feels good.

Some people have conception-capable sex because it feels good, but not all people.  Some people (teens especially) might do it because they believe that's what it takes to stay with their partner or because they don't want to be teased or pitied by their friends.  Some people might do it more as an express love and affection rather than it being rewarding as a physical sensation.  It doesn't mean that they're not good at sex or that they're repressed, but it does mean that they may enjoy other expressions just as much or even more if social / friend / partner pressures were different.

One of the big issues is that, adults make sex taboo.

Which, in turn, convinces kids to think of sex as "cool".  I agree with that.  Both attitudes feed into each other, causing more problems than necessary.  Sex should not be thought of as either cool or taboo.  As I said, nobody here is proposing to make sex taboo.  I'm just saying that other options can be equally good (or better) for some (perfectly healthy) people, and it would reduce problems if they were more commonly accepted as such.

If you TRULY TRULY TRULY TRULY believe this though. I think, you should follow your word, and kill yourself.

This is unrelated to the topic, an obvious troll, and an attempt to be emotionally manipulative.

[PyronIkari]

Maybe you misunderstood.  I don't mean everybody.  I mean some people, but probably more people than commonly perceived.  As was mentioned above, there might also be a gender split here.  I agree it's probably more common for girls to be socially/peer pressured into having conception-capable sex than boys.

I think some teens (and even adults) are convincing themselves that conception-capable sex is better than non-conceiving sex because of subconscious pressures in society.  People who don't prefer conception-capable sex are told that there's something wrong with them, that they're repressed, picking up on their parents' biases, or just not good enough at sex.  And so, some of those pay lip service to the emperor's clothes, while others keep trying sex whether they like it or not, in an attempt to reach some holy grail that might not exist for them.  They may fake orgasms in order to keep up the illusion for their partner.

This is completely baseless and mostly your own fabrication of the truth. The gender split has no basis in this conversation because it's about wanting to wait over known dangers and preference in choice of method. That only applies more to virgins than non-virgins, which makes it moot.

In the second paragraph, the major point is "you think", which means absolutely nothing. For a good part though, the second sentence is true though. But not "they aren't good enough" that their partner isn't good enough at sex. This goes exponentially for females with bad male partners. You're missing the point of faking orgasms if you think it's for *themselves* to pretend to like sex.

See, the basis of your argument is that, a large number of people only have sex because of social pressures... and frankly, it's not true. The first time, and losing one's virginity, that is the only time this comes into play, especially for females. The fact of the matter is, most females that have sex as teenagers DO dislike sex after their first time. The male is inexperienced, and it's extremely rare for the female to even enjoy sex at all their first time. But then they also know that, sex as a virgin is hard, and it usually hurts, but after that, it's easier and feels better.

And before you state anything about how I pointed out how you only think this, as to where you are going to say "well you only think this". As I said. I worked as a counselor for teenagers at a high school. I heard so much about their thoughts on sex, that I'm basically reflecting everything they said to me right now.

I keep coming back to the homosexuality angle because the fact that homosexuality is not a disease implies more generally that people are still healthy even when they don't like sex the same way.  Variation in preference is still perfectly healthy.  People are still good and whole even if they don't think sex is so much better than masturbation that it's worth the risks.  I think some teens are still afraid to admit it because of their partners or friends.  Pressure to have sex is usually not because "sex makes people into adults".  Part of the reason is the quite opposite: because sex is "cool" or "in" or "rebellious" / "anti-adult".

Hahahhahahahahahahhahahaha, or maybe... because sex feels really good? This is the drug argument all over again. This is why drug education didn't do crap, because people didn't really educate about drugs and only talked about the negative. It's not so much that it's rebellious or cool... it's that most people don't really learn what it's like, and when they do have it, it exceeds expectation.

As of, 2000 they did a survey at every major college in the US. Don't even ask me to link this, because I didn't read it online, I read the study at UCI soon after they did it. They were asked their sex, when they lost their virginity, and they were asked a simple question with 3 answers and added a short comment section.

A. Sex was superior to what was imagined.
B. Sex was about what one expected.
C. Sex was inferior to what was imagined.

The large majority(I think it was 80% or so) voted A. Very very very few people voted B it was like 2%, and the rest were C. The mass majority of C voters were female and in the comments some of them have stated that they had not had sex since losing their virginity. (I realize I spent a lot of my junior year at UCLA reading weird studies and playing Tekken Tag Tournament)

Some people have conception-capable sex because it feels good, but not all people.  Some people (teens especially) might do it because they believe that's what it takes to stay with their partner or because they don't want to be teased or pitied by their friends.  Some people might do it more as an express love and affection rather than it being rewarding as a physical sensation.  It doesn't mean that they're not good at sex or that they're repressed, but it does mean that they may enjoy other expressions just as much or even more if social / friend / partner pressures were different.

Which, in turn, convinces kids to think of sex as "cool".  I agree with that.  Both attitudes feed into each other, causing more problems than necessary.  Sex should not be thought of as either cool or taboo.  As I said, nobody here is proposing to make sex taboo.  I'm just saying that other options can be equally good (or better) for some (perfectly healthy) people, and it would reduce problems if they were more commonly accepted as such.

So now everything you state is incredibly theoretical, and based purely on a "what-if" situation. If there was absolutely no sexual bias, would people still act the same. WE NOW TURN TO OUR FRIENDS IN SE ASIA. SE Asia is taught about sex extremely differently than in the States. Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia come to mind the most. I would list Thailand and Viet Nam, but Viet Nam is extremely Catholic in many places due to French influence, and recently Thailand has taken a very Western stance on many things in its attempt to industrialize more. Anyways, back to my point. Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia aren't told that sex is bad(for the most part) and the legal age of consent are all below the age of 16.

Now do you honestly believe, that there are less teens having sex, and less pregnancy in these countries?

Well, you'd be wrong if you think so. Sex is not held an a high standard in these countries, nor is it a taboo subject. Many women walk around without tops in certain parts of the country during hotter weather. They're normal things.

This is unrelated to the topic, an obvious troll, and an attempt to be emotionally manipulative.

No, it's completely related to the topic. It is the exact same comparison you made. "Well some people can live perfectly healthy with an alternative, so we are discriminating against those that live with that." I also wanted to point out the huge flaw in your comment.

I keep coming back to the homosexuality angle because the fact that homosexuality is not a disease implies more generally that people are still healthy even when they don't like sex the same way.  Variation in preference is still perfectly healthy.  People are still good and whole even if they don't think sex is so much better than masturbation that it's worth the risks.

Who said anything about a disease? Now you're opening up a different can of worms. Is Homosexuality a choice? Is it genetic? Is it a forced preference by the mind/body? If it is a choice, your comment sort of applies, but only sort of. But the big problem with it sorta applying is that, it open up another taboo subject of "preference". Alternative stimuli is healthy, and the such then right? Then pedophilia necrophilia, beastiality, and all these subjects now come into play of "healthy alternative". You have to understand that, these aren't exactly "alternatives" of choice, but instead alternatives based on pure preference and mental stimulation. In this case yes, people can live healthy alternatives without having straight intercourse, but the thing is... they don't apply because they have extremely strong mental preferences that choose otherwise.

In the case that homosexuality is anything but a choice, then your comment is completely false for the same reasons. They don't have straight intercourse because they're "preventing risks" or because "it doesn't feel better or it isn't something completely different"... but because they aren't attracted to the idea. They aren't attracted to the partner, which makes it lose all meaning.

Part of sex is being attracted to the person. Intercourse is more than just sticking your penis into a girls vagina. The guy has to be aroused, the girl has to be aroused, and the such.

[Tony]

I begin to wonder if teenaged pregancy rates would drop if cultures considered cunnilingus as the
sign of non-virginity and the crossing into adulthood for teenaged males, for example?

If I'm reading you correctly, you should be able to look at other cultures and how they treat sex and adulthood to see if there's still a strong impulse to have intercourse (evidenced by teen pregnancies).

Personally, I think there are biological influences that mostly overpower attempts to get creative with it; I don't think it's very much a matter of culture or conditioning. But I'd readily concede that if the data showed it.

The attitude that heterosexual intercourse is the "end step" and the "best of all stimulation" seems to discriminate against homosexual people.

Homosexuals don't come into play in this discussion. It doesn't have any context is this discussion - the pivot is pregnancy, and they don't get pregnant. We could broaden the discussion analogously with STD or AIDS, but let's not do that.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.  Non-conceiving sexual practices would not replace sex ed, but more social acceptance of them would still reduce problems.  Both are good ideas.

Let me help: PyronIkari is saying that it would not effectively reduce problems, because the urge to have intercourse trumps any social influence, including promoting alternatives.

Sometimes, people (teenagers in particular) choose to have conception-capable sex and risk pregnancy more because of social allure and social pressure than any significant increased desire for that particular variety of sex.

The question is, how many? Unless it's significant, targeting them won't be effective as alternatives.

The point of the homosexual argument is trying to start with a commonly accepted assumption to logically reach the conclusion that conception-capable sex can't be considered better.  If homosexuals should have the same social status as heterosexuals, then non-conceiving sex must also have the same social status as conception-capable sex.

You just switched terms; we were talking about penetration, and now you're talking about conception-capable sex.

Anyway, that's a silly argument. I'll grant that homosexual sex should have no different status that heterosexual, but that doesn't mean the two are fundamentally the same, or even qualify for an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you TRULY TRULY TRULY TRULY believe this though. I think, you should follow your word, and kill yourself.

This is unrelated to the topic, an obvious troll, and an attempt to be emotionally manipulative.

Don't pay his methods too much mind. The mods are free to take action, anyhow.

[Nyxyin]

Personally, I think there are biological influences that mostly overpower attempts to get creative with it; I don't think it's very much a matter of culture or conditioning. But I'd readily concede that if the data showed it.

This issue very complex, so a post has to be insanely long to even come close to doing the topic justice.

a) There are so many factors that we can't tell from statistics.  Statistics show correlation but not causation.  It takes a very carefully controlled experiment to show causation, and it's a bit unethical to control variables so carefully with humans.

b) Biology and environment work in a very complex feedback loop.  Science has a very difficult time telling the two apart, and the more we know, the more we realize that we can't say which factor will "win".

c) Homosexuals are an example of a potentially different biology.  Some research previously concluded that humans are neither fully homosexual nor heterosexual but biochemically lie on some spectrum in between.  If people can have different biological gender preferences, then why not different biological preferences in other ways too?

c1) There have been fMRI studies that suggest girls neuro-chemically have less of a gendered excitation response than boys, so girls may be more biologically bisexual or asexual than boys.

d) There have also been studies claiming only around 30% of girls (numbers vary) orgasm with penetration.  This makes sense and isn't a sexual prowess problem because the main equipment is physically on the outside for the majority of girls, not the inside.  Desire for full intercourse might be more often biological for boys and more often social for girls.

you should be able to look at other cultures and how they treat sex and adulthood to see if there's still a strong impulse to have intercourse (evidenced by teen pregnancies).

I can pull up statistics about international teen pregnancies being drastically different from the US, but I'm not sure how to use them in the context you propose.  However, the statistics do boil down to "The Rate of Teenage Childbearing in the U.S. Is the Highest in the Most Developed Countries."  The US is drastically different from other developed countries.

http://www.massteenpregnancy.org/data/international.html

In less developed countries, teenagers tend to grow up faster and be more responsible earlier, so teen pregnancy may be more considered a blessing than a problem because families aren't so nuclear, elders are often more respected, and even children of teenagers often mean more hands to help with younger siblings.  Teen pregnancy wouldn't be a problem in cultures that don't have such a prolonged phase of minimal responsibility.

Let me help: PyronIkari is saying that it would not effectively reduce problems, because the urge to have intercourse trumps any social influence, including promoting alternatives.

Yes, and I disagree with that assumption.  Let's try a different approach:  It takes two to have sex, and biologically, the majority of females carry equipment that don't need penetration to have a great time.  So, biology gives us a battle of the sexes.  Social pressures influence which of the sexes are more likely to be more influential at any given point in time.  I think better social acceptance of non-penetrative sex stands a chance of convincing up to 70% of the girls.

You just switched terms; we were talking about penetration, and now you're talking about conception-capable sex.

I apologize, and I've switched back, but I don't think it makes much of a difference.  Vibrators seem to be marketed as "masturbation" devices, and many are shaped for penetration.  Also, I don't think the emotional aspect is relevant to pregnancy.

Anyway, that's a silly argument. I'll grant that homosexual sex should have no different status that heterosexual, but that doesn't mean the two are fundamentally the same, or even qualify for an apples-to-apples comparison.

Exactly.  That's a great start.  Now, I'd like to expand that to saying no two humans are sufficiently alike for an apples-to-apples comparison.  Humans have a wide range of variety, spanning heterosexual to homosexual to bisexual to asexual and tons of other things that we might not even have words for.  That means that some humans might biologically prefer full intercourse while others biologically do better with other activities, and it could just be social pressures convincing the others to behave in line with the first.

Don't pay his methods too much mind.

I'm somewhat copying sysadmin's technique of calling out potential emotional triggers because I think it's useful to expose them and get them in the open.  And thanks for the wording tip earlier.

[PyronIkari]

This issue very complex, so a post has to be insanely long to even come close to doing the topic justice.

a) There are so many factors that we can't tell from statistics.  Statistics show correlation but not causation.  It takes a very carefully controlled experiment to show causation, and it's a bit unethical to control variables so carefully with humans.

b) Biology and environment work in a very complex feedback loop.  Science has a very difficult time telling the two apart, and the more we know, the more we realize that we can't say which factor will "win".

c) Homosexuals are an example of a potentially different biology.  Some research previously concluded that humans are neither fully homosexual nor heterosexual but biochemically lie on some spectrum in between.  If people can have different biological gender preferences, then why not different biological preferences in other ways too?

c1) There have been fMRI studies that suggest girls neuro-chemically have less of a gendered excitation response than boys, so girls may be more biologically bisexual or asexual than boys.

d) There have also been studies claiming only around 30% of girls (numbers vary) orgasm with penetration.  This makes sense and isn't a sexual prowess problem because the main equipment is physically on the outside for the majority of girls, not the inside.  Desire for full intercourse might be more often biological for boys and more often social for girls.

This is all stuff you hear in magazines and rumor circles about sex. But in actual practice, a lot of this is different.

A. Statistics are only as accurate as the honesty and the sample given.
B. This is very untrue. Many things can very well be determined, but other things are very half-and-half on what they could be. But this is a moot point. For the most part we're talking about older children, where they have enough mentality to think for themselves, even if their decisions are persuaded by bias(or we'd like to think they can).
C. Some research doesn't mean squat. It was one conclusion, and other research have found the exact opposite to be true.
C1. Please learn the definition of "asexual". But your conclusion on their research is incorrect. You might want to reread the study and what the study was attempting to prove and try again.
D. Hahaha... this one is fun. Not studies, but surveys. I could also argue that the main equipment is on the inside. Yes yes, the G-spot is real but this isn't the issue. It's not biological per say. If you're talking biological, then the reason for sex, isn't so much the pleasure. It's the fact that it's a maternal instinct. Specific hormones exist so that people breed. It's pretty similar to animals. Animals enter "heat" as a reflex for them to attempt to leave offspring. Not for them to please themselves sexually. So your entire point D is so incredibly flawed, because you're addressing a fact to infer something that it has nothing to do with.

Oh and I have a few questions to ask you. Yes they are very relative to this subject, but of course you are free not to answer them.

What college are/did you attend, and are you a virgin? I could further ask how much experience you have in sexual relations, but I'll keep it simple with "are you a virgin". I really should ask the age you lost it, but I'm fairly certain that will bring issues that don't apply and will cause a bunch of stupid to occur in the near future. If you want to know the relevancy... You boasted about your education before and I wanted to know on what you're basing this mentality on for POV reflection. The second is obvious. Experience in the topic at hand means a lot more than what you can read in your everyday magazine. (Side note, I've read most of your factual information in cosmo, or some other girls magazine before while in the bathroom of my ex-gf's house)

I can pull up statistics about international teen pregnancies being drastically different from the US, but I'm not sure how to use them in the context you propose.  However, the statistics do boil down to "The Rate of Teenage Childbearing in the U.S. Is the Highest in the Most Developed Countries."  The US is drastically different from other developed countries.

http://www.massteenpregnancy.org/data/international.html

In less developed countries, teenagers tend to grow up faster and be more responsible earlier, so teen pregnancy may be more considered a blessing than a problem because families aren't so nuclear, elders are often more respected, and even children of teenagers often mean more hands to help with younger siblings.  Teen pregnancy wouldn't be a problem in cultures that don't have such a prolonged phase of minimal responsibility.

Uh... did you even read that site you linked? Had you done so, and the links provided on the site, you'd see that it has NOTHING to do with teenagers growing up faster.

In fact, it states EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING SINCE THE VERY GOD DAMNED BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD. You're throwing in YOUR CONJECTURED THEORY based on facts and numbers, and completely ignoring everything that is on that site that you, yourself, linked. The issue is that, Americans are prudes about it. Instead of really teaching kids about sex, and how to be responsible, they are telling them to find alternatives to sex, and to not do it. This is bad in two different ways. Kids will do it because it's taboo, and they DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING. It's not so much offering alternatives that causes kids to learn. Kids will choose to do alternatives if they feel the risks are too dangerous. It has nothing to do with social acceptance. Because frankly... it is socially accepted. The only time there's any pressure, is the first time. Because that's "dreading the loss of virginity". Frankly, the story is a lot different when talking to non-virgins, and virgins. The pressures are extremely different, and perspectives are extremely different. But what doesn't change is education about sex.

I will reiterate what does links state. Other countries give children trust, allow them to make their own decisions, and give them the tools and knowledge they need to be safe. The kids themselves use their judgment in how they want to continue. America crams views and morals down the kids throat... they have to act this way, or else. They keep knowledge a secret, because they fear that kids with knowledge will jump at things. Learning about sex will cause them to go out and have orgies in the street.

But it has the opposite affect.

So thanks for proving my point Nyxyin.

Yes, and I disagree with that assumption.  Let's try a different approach:  It takes two to have sex, and biologically, the majority of females carry equipment that don't need penetration to have a great time.  So, biology gives us a battle of the sexes.  Social pressures influence which of the sexes are more likely to be more influential at any given point in time.  I think better social acceptance of non-penetrative sex stands a chance of convincing up to 70% of the girls.

And you're wrong. Guys don't need penetration to have a great time either. But the feeling is different. Let's even go with your "girls don't get orgasms with penetration(reference point, girls don't get orgasms in general with missionary style penetration. That's where this fact is based from. I don't want to go into this too much but different things are achieved in different positions. Missionary is more suited for the guy to climax since it allows for quick motion, however the only direct impact on a major part for the female is the clitoris being rubbed by the top base of the male's penis. From behind, the girls front is directly pushed which is more stimulation). Let's say theoretically you are right. I hope these girls plan on being lesbians, because a guy isn't going to like that where he does everything she wants, and where he gets nothing in return.

Then we jump back to reality. In which case you're wrong. Sex is different than oral or manual stimulation. Reaching an orgasm isn't the problem. It's extremely easy to reach an orgasm. The point is that, sex is more than that. I've said it before. If what you said were true, girls wouldn't enjoy sex as much as they do oral and manual stimulation. Which isn't the case at all. Girls love sex. Girls crave sex. Any one who states otherwise is either lying to themselves, or are really naive. Of course there are exceptions, just like with guys. People that don't enjoy sexual activity at all, guys that enjoy masturbating more than sex with someone else, girls that prefer anal... but those are not the norm.

[Nyxyin]

Yes, it's true that there's a study for everything and its opposite, but saying that still doesn't address statistics showing only correlation and not causation.  A lot of the causation media reports of studies fabricate are highly questionable.  Comment A was meant to apply to the http://www.massteenpregnancy.org/data/international.html link.  I did read the part you're referring to, and they're doing the exact the same thing I do.  They said, "There are a variety of complex explanations for these striking differences. In particular, it seems", etc.  In other words, in that part, they're also making conjectured theories about what the numbers seem to mean.  They know the numbers show a correlation between US and teen pregnancy, teen STDs, and teen abortions, but the education part is just a conjecture and not supported by the numbers displayed.

In any case, Tony asked for international teen pregnancy stats, so I provided them.  I already said that I didn't know how he was going to use them in the context he proposed, but the US does have a higher teen pregnancy rate than most developed countries.  If Tony wants to conclude that it means the US has an abnormally high impulse for intercourse, then from the numbers on the page, it's an equally valid conclusion as the education one.  There aren't enough numbers on that page for them to conclude that it's due to education differences.

Also, I already agreed with you repeatedly that the "taboo" thing is a problem, but I'm saying that the "cool" thing is also a problem too.  The media sells sex all over the place.  There's this huge glorification of sex all over the US media.  Neither the cool nor taboo attitudes educate.

Kids will do it because it's taboo

Yes, there.  That suggests that "kids" are having sex not just because it "feels good" but because there are social / peer / media pressures to do it.  Proper education presents the facts and doesn't impose conclusions such as "taboo" or "cool" or what not.  There is nothing wrong with people who don't like sex.  There is nothing wrong with people who prefer masturbation, non-penetrative sex, or non-conceiving sex.  It's a normal variation in humans.  Evolution works better with genetic diversity.  Media keeps pushing this picture of it being "human" to like sex and go to great lengths to get better sex, but it's not.  US teens seem to be subconsciously internalizing bad media.

If you're talking biological, then the reason for sex, isn't so much the pleasure. It's the fact that it's a maternal instinct. Specific hormones exist so that people breed.

Now you're saying that teens are having sex to get pregnant...?  If teens knew that, would they still have as much sex as they do?  If people are saying that it's a biological drive to get pregnant, then why consider teen pregnancy to be a problem at all?  If we accept biology as a valid explanation, then it should be normal to get pregnant, and then we should fix attitudes against teen pregnancy and create an social structure in which it's fine for teens to get pregnant.  Yes, full intercourse and pregnancy are biologically coupled.  Yes, having full intercourse is biologically asking for a baby.  How many teens having sex want to get pregnant...?

What college are/did you attend

That is not at all relevant to anything.  Background has nothing to do with the ideas.  It doesn't matter whether a post-doc researcher or a high school student presents an idea.  Thinking background matters is an ad hominem fallacy.  I'm not facilitating the fallacy.

and are you a virgin? [...]  Experience in the topic at hand means a lot more than what you can read in your everyday magazine.

If you insist on believing such a thing, no, I'm not a virgin, and I double-check interesting science-related articles in everyday magazines (such as Times and Psychology Today) against the actual research data, but that's a huge long rant by itself.

Back to sex, I've experienced both genders as well as excursions with the "sexually twisted".  I did a lot of experimenting about how much of sex is physical, psychological, and emotional for me.  I've talked to people in the process of their own explorations.  Results are highly variable from person to person.

There's a mix of risk / reward / responsibility, rebelliousness / coolness / taboo, domination / submission / equality, closeness / separateness, physical / emotional, etc., and all that (plus the same factors in the other parties involved) feed back into the enjoyment and the decision to do it at all.  Social / media / peer pressures always factor in in some way, no matter how minor, although it does vary how much and how conscious people are of the influence.  I think it's very selfish and irresponsible for even teens to say that it just feels good and believe that consideration trumps everything else.  Proper education should include understanding of responsibility and risk too.  In an ideal world, people who are uneducated enough to think that birth control failure statistics do not apply to them should not be having sex.  Every time, people should be looking at the decision and saying, "This could be the time we become a statistic and become pregnant, but it will be worth it."  How many US teens can say that every time they have full intercourse?  (US teens also have a higher number of partners than teens in other developed countries, by the way.)  Note that this doesn't say that teens shouldn't have sex; it just says that they should understand what's involved in having sex before choosing to do so.