Dear Abby printed Tue Nov 25. Here is the article.
DEAR ABBY: The letter from "All in Love Is Fair" (Oct. 1), asking your opinion about asking her boyfriend to pay for half the cost of her birth control pills, made me chuckle. I have been married for 28 years, but when my husband and I were going together, I paid for my birth control. One day when I was at the pharmacy and my birth control method went from the conveyer belt to the bagger, she remarked how expensive it was. I just smiled and said, "Not as expensive as a baby!" The checker cracked up. I think you gave the writer the correct answer. -- BEEN THERE IN CALIFORNIA
DEAR BEEN THERE: Thanks for your support, but we are definitely in the minority. I heard from one other reader who agreed with us. On the other hand, thousands of men and women wrote that my answer was sexist and outdated. Please forgive my lapse, folks. I admit that while my batting average may be pretty fair, I am not "pitch" perfect. Read on:
DEAR ABBY: I preach equal responsibility for birth control to both my daughters and my son! Shame on you for telling "All in Love" that paying for birth control is only the woman's responsibility. It is the responsibility of both partners. Only when men are as concerned about preventing unwanted pregnancies as women will there be fewer unwanted (and often abused) children and single welfare mothers. Please rethink this. -- JEAN W., FORT COLLINS, COLO.
DEAR ABBY: It's bad enough that women usually have to deal with the birth control issue, but having to pay 100 percent of the cost is absurd. Men should kick in toward other forms of birth control, as they reap the benefits. Likewise, a woman should split the cost of condoms.
Perhaps "All in Love Is Fair" should tell her boyfriend it's now his turn to take care of the birth control and offer to split the cost of the vasectomy. -- REBECCA IN ATLANTA
DEAR ABBY: I work in the area of unintended pregnancy prevention. One of the biggest hurdles this country faces in tackling the problem is getting males to shoulder their responsibility in preventing unintended pregnancy. You have set the field back with your response.
Men who insist that birth control is solely the responsibility of the woman aren't mature enough to be having sex. If the boyfriend is unwilling to contribute toward preventing pregnancy, she should stop having sex with him. -- S.S. IN RICHMOND, VA.
DEAR ABBY: I agree with you that a personal prescription drug should not be a shared expense if it's for an illness. But pregnancy is not an illness. Not having children is the responsibility of both parties involved, just as having children is the responsibility of both. Please tell her "Don't pop the pill if he won't share the bill!" -- PAUL IN LA PORTE, TEXAS
DEAR ABBY: When my boyfriend and I became sexually active in college, he went with me to Planned Parenthood and waited while I saw the doctor. He paid half the cost of the birth control device, saying, "This is for our pleasure together, and it protects us from becoming parents before we're ready. It's my responsibility, too." I knew right then that he really loved me, because he cared about my future.
That sweet, honorable boy grew up into a loving and supportive husband. We've been happily married almost 20 years. -- MARISSA IN PALO ALTO
Thoughts and comments?
Personally, I'd pay for half of it. Whether or not it is a social or etiquette responsibility I'm not so sure. People have a lot of differing opinions on etiquette as it is, add in the responsibility of birth control and I don't wanna be there for the people like in the news articles who get really opinionated and angry.
Honestly it really depends on the two people and the relationship they have. I have perfectly willing to pay for all of it, but shouldn't a relationship be more than who pays for what?
Damn, our stupid materialistic society! Even something as pure as love has been tainted....(oh, also hallmark and that day in Feburary)
... HAHA. Poor Abby. xD
Although if it was expensive enough, I would probably ask the male in the relationship to at least pitch in from time to time. Otherwise, too bad for him. :0 (Like a dinner thing. Pay for the bill, split it, every other one you pay for...)
But if I was angry, I'd probably suggest to get surgery for him...
I agree with ewu on this one. It really depends on the relationship. I've always had to pay for my own birth contraceptives in past relationships, but as for responsibility, it's equally both partners to do their part in preventing a pregnancy... when it's a committed relationship, that is. If a girl is going around and casually seeing other people, then it'd probably be more practical to take the responsibility of providing herself with birth control, whereas many guys probably carry around a condom in their wallet for the same reason. Since Mikey is financially dominant in this relationship, he normally takes up the bill for many of my things. Poor guy.
both sides need to be prepared, more so the man than the woman.
i can see no problems with paying a fair amount in a relationship, for anything. its non-material, its integrity. i dont really know what the Pill costs, because as a guy, i havent used it. if talu-chan wanted me to help pay for it, i'd open my wallet in a heartbeat. that isnt saying that i dont want children, and would do anything possible om my side to prevent it, its just that we know we arent ready for that kind of responsibility.
Quote from: Runewitt on November 27, 2008, 10:54:08 PM
that isnt saying that i dont want children, and would do anything possible om my side to prevent it, its just that we know we arent ready for that kind of responsibility.
Having children is a huge responsibility and can possibly ruin a person/couple's life if they aren't prepared, so you shouldn't have to worry if it comes off as you not wanting to have kids. (Unless your girlfriend has been pushing you to have kids with her and you're concerned about her feelings on it, etc.) It's you looking out for yourself and your partner for a huge number of reasons. It's very stressful both emotionally and physically for a woman to be pregnant, whether or not you plan on an abortion. Guys also tend to feel that "it's their fault" that their girlfriends became pregnant when it happens, so that becomes immensely stressful as well. Abortions tend to be very rough on a woman's body, not to mention, expensive with our country's economy and lack of good health insurance, so paying for birth control would probably be more within a person's budget as opposed to abortion or raising a child.
I don't feel that it's any more responsibility on the guy's part than the girl's, or vise versa. Sex is a mutual activity, and you can't really get pregnant without both a man and a woman, so safe sex and birth control is of equal responsibility in a committed relationship.
I guess it's okay to pay half and half. I haven't had to pay (yet) for my birth control pills. That'll change though once I'm actually employed and able to. Honestly though, even if I had to pay, I don't care if I have to go half and half or pay the full price myself. I use my birth control for more than just making sure I get no babies before I'm ready. It also helps regulate periods as well, and lessens cramping pains. Which I get severe ones of and was the original reason I got my pills.
great for my.....er...a woman's skin too!
Quote from: Ruby on November 27, 2008, 11:32:28 PM
It also helps regulate periods as well, and lessens cramping pains.
Well, also, couples should look into what type of birth control is ideal for them. I can't take any form of birth control that'd overwhelm me with hormones, as I'd get sick for weeks to months, which tends to get in the way of daily activities. The pill also makes women gain weight, and with me, it caused me to be perpetually nauseous, throw up periodically, cramp on a regular basis from the nausea, etc. It'd also cause me to undergo extreme depression and make me absolutely sick to smoke/smell smoke (though probably most of you wouldn't care about smoking.) TMI. Benefits are that they regulate periods, help prevent acne, protection against ovarian cancer, and of course, prevent pregnancy.
There's other birth contraceptives like depo-provera, nuva ring, the patch, caps, implanons, plan b, IUDs, and condoms.
And there are more advanced, though riskier, birth control methods like learning about fertility awareness, where a couple becomes familiar with the woman's cycle and when they're most fertile, when their period begins and ends, and when it's very unlikely to become pregnant-- but as long as semen comes in contact with the cervix, there's always a risk despite it being unlikely. There's also the withdrawal method, which is safe if done properly, but people do have accidents.
Actually, any contraceptive outside of the pill, depo-provera, and sterilization can possibly become prone to an accident. Anything inserted, including IUDs can move, implanons may fail, condoms can tear, etc. Not to try to make anyone too paranoid, because as important as it is to be safe, stressing over something unlikely isn't healthy, and a lot of people actually avoid having sex because they're too paranoid. :|
As long as both people within the couple are well-educated and responsible enough to maintain safe sex, prevent accidents, and just simply not become pregnant, then it's all good. Unless someone has an STD-- then you'd need condoms for sure.
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on November 27, 2008, 11:30:37 PM
{snip'd to prevent excessive page lenghts}
It was a mutual decision. i've seen the results of having children when you arent prepared, my sister is 30, has two kids, is single and currently unemployed, though that has nothing to do with the kids.
If I see a man buys a box of condoms and the woman opens her wallet and offers to help pay, she's a winner in my book.
Quote from: ININ on December 04, 2008, 12:43:06 AM
If I see a man buys a box of condoms and the woman opens her wallet and offers to help pay, she's a winner in my book.
Feh. Condoms are cheap compared to the kinds of birth control women have to put up with. That, and relying on condoms alone is pretty damn stupid. Not as stupid as unprotected sex, but still stupid since condoms can break, develop holes, etc.
It's the man who helps out the woman with the cost of her birth control who's the winner.
Quote from: Stormfalcon on December 04, 2008, 09:22:09 AM
Feh. Condoms are cheap compared to the kinds of birth control women have to put up with. That, and relying on condoms alone is pretty damn stupid. Not as stupid as unprotected sex, but still stupid since condoms can break, develop holes, etc.
Yeah, there are risks with pretty much any birth control though, except sterilization or regular dosage of bc pills. Condoms, for the most part, are very reliable, and only tend to break if you don't use them properly... e.g. poor application, "double bagging", passed expiration date, etc. It's good to play safe, but being too paranoid could take away from the experience. Condoms are usually are enough. If an accident occurs, there's always Plan B, and in regard to how often an accident with a condom
would occur, having Plan B would probably be more practical.
Quote from: ININ on December 04, 2008, 12:43:06 AM
If I see a man buys a box of condoms and the woman opens her wallet and offers to help pay, she's a winner in my book.
In my book, paying for the condoms without sharing the responsibility of bringing them isn't enough to qualify as "win". What if, in the heat of the moment, the boy suddenly realizes that he ran out of condoms? There are some very major differences between birth control pills and condoms, and I wouldn't consider the situation you described to be a winning scenario. It's not enough to just buy the condoms: they have to be on hand at the right times too. By itself, putting down money doesn't fundamentally solve any problems. With the nature of humankind these days, money seems to be far easier to come by than responsibility.
In any case, I believe that anybody of any gender who wants to be having sex (and isn't trying to have a baby) should buy their own condoms and keep some on hand. Unlike birth control pills, condoms are still useful no matter who brings them. If either party fails to bring condoms, it's still useful for the other to be able to provide. (In contrast, if the girl doesn't take her birth control, the boy's just out of luck.) The only good reasons for any active heterosexual to not carry their own condoms are (1) they want children or (2) they're sure that they would prefer to not have sex.
Again, everybody who wants to have sex should carry their own condoms. It's just that important.
Quote from: Stormfalcon on December 04, 2008, 09:22:09 AMrelying on condoms alone is pretty damn stupid. Not as stupid as unprotected sex, but still stupid since condoms can break, develop holes, etc.
Frankly, it's "pretty damn stupid" to expect to have sex without also expecting some possibility of conception. Conception is
always a gamble (whether you want it or want to avoid it). Even with birth control, condoms, AND morning-after pills, conception can still happen, especially among people who want sex the most. (Raging hormones seem to correspond with high fertility.) The overall success rate of the morning-after pill is only around 75%. The success rate of condoms (with perfect use) is only 97%. The success rate of birth control pills (with perfect use) is 96%. That still leaves a 0.03% chance that, even if a couple uses pills and condoms perfectly all the time and get a morning-after pill as a backup plan, conception can still occur. At "typical use", the chance is closer to 2%. Doing the math, if a couple has sex merely once per week, then they're still statistically likely to conceive within a year assuming "typical use" of
all three methods combined.
I think people should talk about their opinions about what to do with a potential baby before having sex at all, no matter how much birth control is used.
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 04, 2008, 03:14:32 PMIt's good to play safe, but being too paranoid could take away from the experience. Condoms are usually are enough.
I agree that it's good to play it safe and that condoms are usually enough (where "usually" is something like 80-97% of the time). Furthermore, birth control pills are just not an option for some girls because it makes them sick. Hormones mess with the entire body, and medical science doesn't fully understand all the systems that the pills affect. While most girls are fine on the pill (and some, like me, thrive on the pill), it's not always necessarily safe for all girls.
However, I don't think it's "paranoid" or would "take away from the experience" to double-check birth control use before having sex.
In any case, as others have already mentioned, each couple should decide for itself who pays for what. Furthermore, for any given individual, the decision even change from relationship to relationship, or even from stage to stage as a relationship progresses. Depending on the nature of the relationship and reasons for using birth control, someone might want to start off by paying for the whole thing but end up sharing the cost. Deciding how to share financial decisions is just a part of having a relationship.
By the way, here is the original letter:
http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/?uc_full_date=20081001
QuoteDEAR ABBY: My boyfriend and I have been living together for a year. We split all the bills -- rent, utilities, etc. -- in half.
A few nights ago I asked him how he felt about paying for half my birth control pills, which amounts to $40 a month. Because neither of us is ready for children, I think we should share the expense.
Am I out of line to ask my boyfriend to split the cost with me? This has become a hot topic at work. The guys don't agree with me, and surprisingly, most of the women don't, either. What is your take on this? -- ALL IN LOVE IS FAIR
DEAR ALL: As I see it, there are two kinds of expenses when people share a dwelling: joint expenses and those that are personal. Prescription drugs usually fall into the latter category. Unless you are prepared to pay half the cost of his prescription drugs -- including Viagra --- my advice is to back down on this one.
I think the circumstances surrounding the question are important, and I don't see how people can have a serious discussion about the letter without the full details. If "All" thinks it's fair, then I think she has every right -- and every
responsibility -- to bring up the topic and
ask her boyfriend
how he feels about paying half of the birth control. Since they're already at the financial sharing stage, no matter what decisions are made, it's good to open the discussion. I very strongly disagree with Abby and all of the girl's coworkers because they seemed to imply that the girl was wrong to even ask about the boyfriend's feelings on the matter. It makes me wonder if Abby and the girl's coworkers all have problematic relationships. I think good communication is essential to a good relationship, and I don't think it's ever wrong to honestly ask how the other person feels.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 04, 2008, 05:04:48 PM
Doing the math, if a couple has sex merely once per week, then they're still statistically likely to conceive within a year assuming "typical use" of all three methods combined.
This isn't true. If a condom is cited as "97% effective", it does not mean that 3% of women who have sex will automatically get pregnant. See this link (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/477/what-does-it-mean-when-they-say-the-pill-is-99-effective) for an example.
If you want to claim that "combining all birth control methods + human foibles" results in an average of "98% effective", that's one thing (although I'd like a citation). But to claim that "statistically likely to conceive in one year" is outright bad math.
haha I like it. It basically means that it don't matter how often you have intercourse, if you are that 3 in 100, you will get preggo. Actaully, the more you have sex the less likely you are to get pregnant as you become more familiar with the contraceptives and use them more and better. (no study to accompany that conclusion)
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 04, 2008, 05:04:48 PM
Quote from: Stormfalcon on December 04, 2008, 09:22:09 AMrelying on condoms alone is pretty damn stupid. Not as stupid as unprotected sex, but still stupid since condoms can break, develop holes, etc.
Frankly, it's "pretty damn stupid" to expect to have sex without also expecting some possibility of conception. Conception is always a gamble (whether you want it or want to avoid it). Even with birth control, condoms, AND morning-after pills, conception can still happen, especially among people who want sex the most. (Raging hormones seem to correspond with high fertility.) The overall success rate of the morning-after pill is only around 75%. The success rate of condoms (with perfect use) is only 97%. The success rate of birth control pills (with perfect use) is 96%. That still leaves a 0.03% chance that, even if a couple uses pills and condoms perfectly all the time and get a morning-after pill as a backup plan, conception can still occur. At "typical use", the chance is closer to 2%. Doing the math, if a couple has sex merely once per week, then they're still statistically likely to conceive within a year assuming "typical use" of all three methods combined.
I think people should talk about their opinions about what to do with a potential baby before having sex at all, no matter how much birth control is used.
While I agree that couples that engage in sex can still be in some minor risk of becoming pregnant, I don't agree with it being actually
likely of it happening based on
the math, especially with your example of "if a couple has sex merely once per week, then they're still statistically likely to conceive within a year". The statistics refer to all the women who take the pill, rather than each individual's likeliness to become pregnant based on their activity.
EDIT: Sysadmin's link sort of sums it up in basic.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 04, 2008, 05:04:48 PM
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 04, 2008, 03:14:32 PMIt's good to play safe, but being too paranoid could take away from the experience. Condoms are usually are enough.
I agree that it's good to play it safe and that condoms are usually enough (where "usually" is something like 80-97% of the time). Furthermore, birth control pills are just not an option for some girls because it makes them sick. Hormones mess with the entire body, and medical science doesn't fully understand all the systems that the pills affect. While most girls are fine on the pill (and some, like me, thrive on the pill), it's not always necessarily safe for all girls.
However, I don't think it's "paranoid" or would "take away from the experience" to double-check birth control use before having sex.
Perhaps I didn't word it as well as I should've. I do feel that it's necessary to check for security before engaging in sex-- but, like you've mentioned, some girls get sick from taking the pill (unfortunately, I'm one of those girls). Piling on different types of birth control adds to the security, but if it's an inconvenience, like from all the side-effects that some girls experience with the hormones in some birth control, then it would take away from the experience, as well as possibly the rest of their day-to-day lives. I called it "paranoid" because I didn't feel that it's fair for Stormfalcon to say that couples are
stupid for not using more than a condom, which I've mentioned as pretty effective on its own. I don't have anything against people who do go through the lengths to use double or more protection to prevent pregnancy. Security is a good thing. Condoms do a good amount to add to a couple's security. Using condoms by themselves is still reasonable, and not stupid.
*shrugs* I stand by what I said, though. Yes, condoms can be fairly effective, but it's much better to have something else in conjunction with that condom, and just relying on that condom by itself is not a smart thing to do. The number of scares I've had in my youth, when I was in the habit of relying on the condom by itself convinced me of that. Condoms are better than nothing. Condoms when used with other birth control are much, much better than condoms by themselves.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 04, 2008, 05:04:48 PM
In my book, paying for the condoms without sharing the responsibility of bringing them isn't enough to qualify as "win". What if, in the heat of the moment, the boy suddenly realizes that he ran out of condoms? There are some very major differences between birth control pills and condoms, and I wouldn't consider the situation you described to be a winning scenario. It's not enough to just buy the condoms: they have to be on hand at the right times too. By itself, putting down money doesn't fundamentally solve any problems. With the nature of humankind these days, money seems to be far easier to come by than responsibility.
In any case, I believe that anybody of any gender who wants to be having sex (and isn't trying to have a baby) should buy their own condoms and keep some on hand. Unlike birth control pills, condoms are still useful no matter who brings them. If either party fails to bring condoms, it's still useful for the other to be able to provide. (In contrast, if the girl doesn't take her birth control, the boy's just out of luck.) The only good reasons for any active heterosexual to not carry their own condoms are (1) they want children or (2) they're sure that they would prefer to not have sex.
Again, everybody who wants to have sex should carry their own condoms. It's just that important.
What does this have to do with ANYTHING that was posted. It's like you're purposely being confrontational on a comment that meant nothing.
Most of this isn't even realistic or nonsensical. I don't carry around a roll of condoms with me 24/7. I have no reason to. Every single one of your posts, you act like a damned teacher, talking down to children. Look, most of us are adults. This is NOT A SEX ED CLASS... and you are not an authority of ours who needs to explain to us how sex and protection works. This had jack nothing to do with anything... and then you completely changed the flow of this thread by preaching to us math and crap that you ARE WRONG ABOUT.
PS: OBVIOUSLY... we know... a condom is useless unless the guy is wearing it correctly.
QuoteFrankly, it's "pretty damn stupid" to expect to have sex without also expecting some possibility of conception. Conception is always a gamble (whether you want it or want to avoid it). Even with birth control, condoms, AND morning-after pills, conception can still happen, especially among people who want sex the most. (Raging hormones seem to correspond with high fertility.) The overall success rate of the morning-after pill is only around 75%. The success rate of condoms (with perfect use) is only 97%. The success rate of birth control pills (with perfect use) is 96%. That still leaves a 0.03% chance that, even if a couple uses pills and condoms perfectly all the time and get a morning-after pill as a backup plan, conception can still occur. At "typical use", the chance is closer to 2%. Doing the math, if a couple has sex merely once per week, then they're still statistically likely to conceive within a year assuming "typical use" of all three methods combined.
I think people should talk about their opinions about what to do with a potential baby before having sex at all, no matter how much birth control is used.
Your math fails horribly... sysadmin already provided the fun link and others have already explained how you're totally wrong about this.
As for that dear abby stuff... she's actually quite right. Because frankly, you act as if it's so clean cut... "Birth control is for both of us" therefore she has every right to ask about it.
Some girls prefer to be on the pill, where as the guy doesn't care about what kind of birth control is used. Why should the guy be forced to pay for half of her contraceptive when it is her choice what kind she gets. You don't know the situation, and for the most part, this is usually how it goes.
A guy normally doesn't know what kind of contraceptive the girl is on. There are dozens of different kinds. Some are much more expensive than others. The girl usually picks the one she wants, so why should a guy have to pay for it?
In retrospect... should a girl pay for half of the guys bathroom needs? Shaving cream? His body wash etc? It's shared right? He's grooming himself for her just as much as he is for himself.
In certain cases... yeah I agree, a guy should pay for half... but in others, definitely not. It's not that simple.
Quote from: sysadmin on December 04, 2008, 05:30:54 PMIf a condom is cited as "97% effective", it does not mean that 3% of women who have sex will automatically get pregnant.
However, (now that I've read your link) if condoms are cited as 97% effective (in a perfect use scenario), it means that 3% of the women using condoms "perfectly" in their study actually
did get pregnant
within one year. Mathematically, having sex with just condoms for two years means that there has been a 5.91% of getting pregnant during those two years. Doing it for ten years means that there's a 26% chance of getting pregnant. Doing it for 25 years means that couples are "statistically likely to conceive" (over 50% probability of a single conception) by using condoms alone, even in perfect use scenarios, assuming a 97% perfect use effectiveness rate. I
can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply here, but assuming the rules of probability hold, this math is correct.
QuoteSee this link (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/477/what-does-it-mean-when-they-say-the-pill-is-99-effective) for an example.
OK, I stand corrected.
QuoteIf you want to claim that "combining all birth control methods + human foibles" results in an average of "98% effective", that's one thing (although I'd like a citation). But to claim that "statistically likely to conceive in one year" is outright bad math.
Technically, my primary error is "outright bad vocabulary". I didn't know this definition before: "The effectiveness percentage refers to the number of pregnancies that occur per 100
woman-years of contraceptive use."
I can't find the site that was quoting closer to 70% effectiveness rates for typical uses of condoms and pills, but I wasn't examining the source, so you're right that it could've been a biased source, or it could've been the study used a purely teenage sample set or something. Still, 30% * 30% * 25% = 2.25% failure rate, so if we were to assume 70% typical effectiveness of the other two methods, all three methods combined would still mathematically be a 2.25% failure probability. My math is fine, but I do apologize for my poor vocabulary and poor web searching skills.
To go back and correct myself, http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/BI99999/PAGE=BI00051 probably has more authoritative numbers. It claims only 8% for the pill failure and 15% condom failure, which is drastically different from the 30% I had seen elsewhere (and can no longer find).
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 04, 2008, 05:45:41 PMI didn't feel that it's fair for Stormfalcon to say that couples are stupid for not using more than a condom [...] to prevent pregnancy
Quote from: Stormfalcon on December 04, 2008, 07:10:09 PMjust relying on that condom by itself is not a smart thing to do
I agree with both statements. "Birth control" includes preventative methods (such as condoms and pills)
and after-the-fact methods such as abortion. I think "just relying on that condom by itself is not a smart thing to do" because I believe that it's very stupid to not have discussed what Jun called a "Plan B"
before having sex. However, to me, "Plan B" fully qualifies as "more than just a condom" -- in terms of birth control overall (not just pregnancy prevention). In fact, given that conception can happen even with perfect use of three birth control methods (some people are just
that unlucky), I think it's stupid to not have discussed a "Plan B" before having sex, no matter how many preventative measures are taken.
When I mentioned Plan B (http://www.go2planb.com/index.aspx), I referred to the popular brand morning-after-pill. In any case, most serious couples should already be aware of their options if an accident were to occur, e.g. an abortion. There are many different types of birth control, all of which serve their purpose, which includes condoms. Calling it stupid would be saying that relying on just the pill is stupid, relying on just an IUD is stupid, etc etc.
Yes, I feel that it's a smart move to have some back up, which is why I mentioned Plan B, but using more than one birth control method on a regular basis isn't entirely necessary. Say that the pills are $40 a month, and condoms are 50c. Plan B pills are $45 a package. The average couple pretty much has sex about 3 times a week, which would be 12 times a month. Plus, they're using condoms every time. Unless they're having accidents and getting pregnant every single month, using Plan B whenever an accident does happen would mean saving money, being safe, and saving the girl the trouble of taking it everyday and dealing with the extra hormones and side effects.
I'm not trying to convince people NOT to use the pill, though. I think the pill + condoms would be pretty secure, but again, not entirely necessary. Some people are unable to pile on several birth control methods with condoms, except maybe withdrawal. Not every form of birth control works great on every girl, and the ones that release hormones tend to be the most inconvenient, like bc pills, the ring, patches, etc.
Couples in a committed relationship that have sex at all should be smart enough to know how to practice safe sex and know their options. Sex is a huge part of a serious relationship, and discussing it over with a partner should be a normal thing to do as is. A figurative plan B should already be in mind if anything were to happen, but if not, it tends to be discussed and dealt with when the problem arises because the source of information on a person's options with birth control and abortion is readily provided on the internet or local clinic.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 04, 2008, 08:36:24 PM
However, (now that I've read your link) if condoms are cited as 97% effective (in a perfect use scenario), it means that 3% of the women using condoms "perfectly" in their study actually did get pregnant within one year. Mathematically, having sex with just condoms for two years means that there has been a 5.91% of getting pregnant during those two years. Doing it for ten years means that there's a 26% chance of getting pregnant. Doing it for 25 years means that couples are "statistically likely to conceive" (over 50% probability of a single conception) by using condoms alone, even in perfect use scenarios, assuming a 97% perfect use effectiveness rate. I can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply here, but assuming the rules of probability hold, this math is correct.
Your math is still not correct. The 97% means that 3% of the sampled population is likely to use it incorrectly and result in pregnancy. It has
nothing to do with the amount of time using the contraceptive with the exception that the variable of time needed to be held static. If you use it correctly and there is no break or other accidents its is conceivable for it to be 100% effective for you. The 3% accounts for breaks, mis-use, accidents, and idiots.
Quote from: ewu on December 04, 2008, 09:08:37 PM
Your math is still not correct. The 97% means that 3% of the sampled population is likely to use it incorrectly and result in pregnancy. It has nothing to do with the amount of time using the contraceptive with the exception that the variable of time needed to be held static. If you use it correctly and there is no break or other accidents its is conceivable for it to be 100% effective for you. The 3% accounts for breaks, mis-use, accidents, and idiots.
The 3% doesn't account for breaks or mis-use. It accounts for correct usage where the person still got pregnant. It'd be way higher if it accounted for mis-use.
Quote from: ewu on December 04, 2008, 09:08:37 PMThe 97% means that 3% of the sampled population is likely to use it incorrectly and result in pregnancy.
According to the Mayo Clinic link I had above, male condoms result in only 85% effectiveness. 97% is a "perfect use" statistic. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html The FDA sets "typical use" of male condoms at 14% and "perfect use" at 3%. I suppose I could still be wrong about the vocabulary, but it seems reasonable to me that the difference between "perfect use" and "typical use" numbers would be to remove instances of "mis-use" (at a minimum).
QuoteIt has nothing to do with the amount of time using the contraceptive with the exception that the variable of time needed to be held static.
Maybe. That's the part in which I can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply. However, mathematically, if you say that there is a 50% of getting heads on one coin flip, and there's a 50% chance of getting heads on the second coin flip, then you have a 75% chance of getting heads on one of the two coin flips. I can be convinced that probability and statistics aren't very closely related, but that says a whole lot of negative things about what is being passed off as science.
Quoteit is conceivable for it to be 100% effective for you.
Probability deals with the future. Obviously, if you use condoms and never conceived, all the condoms you used up until that point were 100% effective. But, we're talking about probabilities. The fact that all the previous condoms were 100% effective for you doesn't mean that your next condom won't break, no matter how perfectly you use it. Even with "perfect use" of the condom, your next sexual encounter still has a 3% chance of conceiving.
Quote from: ewu on December 04, 2008, 09:08:37 PMbreaks, mis-use, accidents, and idiots.
By the way, I find it fascinating that the Mayo Clinic link I mentioned above (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/BI99999/PAGE=BI00051) claims that the "rhythm method" (aka "Natural family planning -- calendar") is
more effective than male condoms (in typical use scenarios): 87% for the rhythm method and only 85% for the male condom.
Honestly though, does the percentage really matter. In the end you will use contraceptive or you will not. I highly doubt that the percentage value will affect your decision to have sex or not. Yes, it does affect what kind of contraception you will choose, but I am willing to bet you will use whatever is available and convenient for you....still gonna have sex:P
Quote from: ewu on December 05, 2008, 07:40:23 AM
Honestly though, does the percentage really matter. In the end you will use contraceptive or you will not. I highly doubt that the percentage value will affect your decision to have sex or not. Yes, it does affect what kind of contraception you will choose, but I am willing to bet you will use whatever is available and convenient for you....still gonna have sex:P
Ding...
and that's why this thread totally went off topic for no reason.
Not like she can see my replies seeing that she set me to ignore, but wwwwwwwwwwww. This was about birth control usage and shared responsibilities. What a couple does, what people merely shacking up do, who pays for what, and why.
Nyx turned it into "ZOMG CONDOMS ARE MATH, AND YOU ARE STUPID, I HAVE TO TEACH YOU!" for no reason.
If you're asking about me personally, then yes, the percentages matter a lot to me. Percentages do affect my frequency of heterosexual vaginal intercourse and views about alternative forms of play. A lot of sex is in the brain, and I do have to be in a certain head space to enjoy it. I doubt I would be able to enjoy heterosexual vaginal intercourse if abortion were illegal. There are many forms of intimacy that do not risk conception.
For a more general "you", I don't expect the percentages to change anybody's minds about their own sexual behaviors or their own contraception choices, but I believe the information still matters. I think a comparison of these particular percentages can affect attitudes towards people who use the rhythm method. I've heard this joke many times: "What do you call people who use the rhythm method? Parents!" But, according to the Mayo Clinic statistics, they're no more often parents than people who use condoms. Even if the exact numbers aren't important, I think it's interesting that the statistics here are reversed from what popular culture claims.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 05, 2008, 04:23:30 PM
Even if the exact numbers aren't important, I think it's interesting that the statistics here are reversed from what popular culture claims.
Only when the statistics are interpreted incorrectly.
More support, the percentages have even less bearing when people don't even know what the numbers represent or how they correlate, especially to their own lives.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 05, 2008, 04:23:30 PM
If you're asking about me personally, then yes, the percentages matter a lot to me. Percentages do affect my frequency of heterosexual vaginal intercourse and views about alternative forms of play. A lot of sex is in the brain, and I do have to be in a certain head space to enjoy it. I doubt I would be able to enjoy heterosexual vaginal intercourse if abortion were illegal. There are many forms of intimacy that do not risk conception.
For a more general "you", I don't expect the percentages to change anybody's minds about their own sexual behaviors or their own contraception choices, but I believe the information still matters. I think a comparison of these particular percentages can affect attitudes towards people who use the rhythm method. I've heard this joke many times: "What do you call people who use the rhythm method? Parents!" But, according to the Mayo Clinic statistics, they're no more often parents than people who use condoms. Even if the exact numbers aren't important, I think it's interesting that the statistics here are reversed from what popular culture claims.
Like ewu noted, I think you're confusing what the numbers are representing. Take for example, the statistics shown for a vasectomy are 99%
or more, but for the large majority, it is 100%. However, that 1% is still there, for those with complications with getting a vasectomy and somehow having it fail, etc etc etc... that 1% doesn't necessarily apply to you.
Outside of the subject of poorly interpreted maths and statistics, I've done both withdrawal and the "rhythm method" before for quite a long time without fail, but I still acknowledged the risks. As long as one pays extremely close attention to their ovulation periods and has adequate control, it could be done easily, but with its high risks (despite what statistics say, I'm basing this off of
circumstances) I wouldn't advocate it. I only stopped this method because my ovulation schedule was knocked off-track from stress from other things, and plus, using other forms of protection offers better peace of mind for my partner, as he isn't the one that does the ovulating.
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 05, 2008, 05:44:56 PMLike ewu noted, I think you're confusing what the numbers are representing. Take for example, the statistics shown for a vasectomy are 99% or more, but for the large majority, it is 100%. However, that 1% is still there, for those with complications with getting a vasectomy and somehow having it fail, etc etc etc... that 1% doesn't necessarily apply to you.
While I agree that statistics don't apply to any individual in general, many modern sciences seem to usually use them as a guide in estimating probabilities. If someone is deciding on whether to shell out money for a vasectomy, then I think it matters that something might go wrong. Furthermore, until the person either conceives or dies off, he doesn't know whether or not he is that 1%. What we
do know is that people who have had vasectomies succeeded in conceiving.
As I said earlier with lines like "I can be convinced that the rules of probability do not apply here" and "I can be convinced that probability and statistics aren't very closely related, but that says a whole lot of negative things about what is being passed off as science", I can be convinced that many modern sciences are just plain wrong.
QuoteI've done both withdrawal and the "rhythm method" before for quite a long time without fail, but I still acknowledged the risks.
Condoms have risks too, and it seems like people don't understand how much. "Lowest Expected Rate of Pregnancy" statistics (ie "perfect use" or "method was always used correctly with every act of sexual intercourse") for "Male Latex Condom" is "3%", while it's "1-9%" for "Natural Family Planning".
This is an interesting link: http://skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-08-22.html
However, it's actually book review, and it doesn't get into the probability and statistics discussion until about halfway through. So, I'll just quote certain pieces:
QuoteThe statistics vs. clinical intuition debate has ensued for decades in psychology. Where one sides in the debate is largely determined by what one makes of a single phrase: "Group statistics don't apply to individuals." This claim, widely believed, ignores many of the most basic concepts of probability and statistics, such as error. Yes, individuals possess unique qualities, but they also share many features that allow for predictive power. If 95% of a sample with quality X has quality Y, insisting that someone with quality X may not have Y because "statistics don't apply to individuals" will only decrease accuracy. Insistence on certainty decreases accuracy.
QuoteUncertainty is exactly why statistics apply to individuals: they give us the best guess available given the level of uncertainty at hand. It does not behoove anyone to ignore uncertainty and pretend it is not there.
If people want to read the statistics discussion without reading the whole book report, skip down to "Group statistics don't apply to individuals". The discussion goes briefly into why people who go around saying that the statistics don't apply aren't improving their accuracy.
The basic problem is there is a very fine line between the fact that statistics don't apply to any individual and the uncertainty that makes statistics become reasonable probabilities for individuals to use when making decisions.
Just arguing Schrodinger's Cat, now. In any case, the statistics and percentages only apply because you're unsure of whether or not you're prone to actually be part of that 1%, that 3%, that any %, which is the only reason to be concerned. Most people already take the precautionary measures to prevent being a part of the percentage of people who fall into the risks, but it's still undeniable that some people just aren't part of them to begin with.
Best way for birth control is
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
.
Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.
JMO
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 09:31:36 AM
Best way for birth control is
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
.
Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.
JMO
Should I explain how incredibly stupid this is? Not only that, this is the second time you've said it now...
Masturbation is pretty much well accepted every where in the world(don't bother citing places or religions where it's not, because it's besides the point... as even within these places it still happens). Secondly... despite it being regular practice, it doesn't change anything. Masturbation is not an adequate replacement for sex. If it was, people wouldn't bother having sex, as they would get the exact same pleasure out of masturbation, thus wouldn't have to go through all the effort to get sex.
Your proposal doesn't even help the problem, because it's more about feigning ignorance than educating people into making better decisions. It's the same idea as Nyxyin or whatever's proposal to remove racism by forcefully make everyone mix breed. It's an idea of forced alternative than tolerance and education.
But uhm, just to explain. Try asking these pregnant teens if they've ever masturbated, and if they masturbate regularly. 99.999% of them will say yes.
Just because someone masturbates, doesn't mean they don't want to, nor don't have sex.
(Secret, I masturbate... and so does probably everyone on this forum. I still enjoy sex more, and have sex).
So, what was your point again?
Quote from: PyronIkari on December 14, 2008, 11:47:29 AM
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 09:31:36 AM
Best way for birth control is
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
.
Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.
JMO
Should I explain how incredibly stupid this is? Not only that, this is the second time you've said it now...
Is it really? I lost count ;-)
Quote
Masturbation is pretty much well accepted every where in the world(don't bother citing places or religions where it's not, because it's besides the point... as even within these places it still happens). Secondly... despite it being regular practice, it doesn't change anything. Masturbation is not an adequate replacement for sex. If it was, people wouldn't bother having sex, as they would get the exact same pleasure out of masturbation, thus wouldn't have to go through all the effort to get sex.
Your proposal doesn't even help the problem, because it's more about feigning ignorance than educating people into making better decisions. It's the same idea as Nyxyin or whatever's proposal to remove racism by forcefully make everyone mix breed. It's an idea of forced alternative than tolerance and education.
So, what was your point again?
You missed the point :(.
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 04:51:56 PM
You missed the point :(.
What? Okay, let's relay on what you had posted.
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 09:31:36 AM
Best way for birth control is
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
.
Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.
JMO
You're implying that people should just masturbate in place of sex to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is ridiculously stupid because... masturbation isn't a replacement for actual sex. It's temporary relief to curb sexual urges.
Like Mikey mentioned, most people who have sex, masturbate along with sex, and most of those who masturbate would prefer sex. There's no comparison. And even then, people are ABLE to have sex while preventing pregnancy with AVAILABLE technology. Why should they masturbate instead when they have the option to have safe sex?
You mentioned how it'd supposedly be better if masturbation is acceptable in society. Are you saying that people have sex in place of masturbation because they're forced to by society? Pfffffffffffffffff. No. People masturbate to put off sexual tension. People have sex because they want to
have sex. If they couldn't responsibly have protected sex and prevent themselves from pregnancy and STDs, that's their own damned fault, but masturbation isn't a solution to it. People will continue to have sex and prefer it over masturbation, which is natural.
Why did you even bring up this utterly pointless suggestion? How does this contribute ANYTHING at all?
I take it that you've never had a sexual partner, otherwise you wouldn't be saying so god damned stupid.
Girl: Hey honey, let's
do it.
Guy: No thanks. I'm gonna go jack off because I don't want to get you pregnant.
Girl: What? But I have a condom...
Guy: NO, I don't want to take the chances! Masturbation prevents pregnancy!
Girl: But I can't get pregnant if you wea--
Guy: SHUT UP, YOU'RE RUINING THE MOOD!
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 04:51:56 PM
You missed the point :(.
Oh then, please explain the point... because you realize, these posts are about on par as with Leslieloveschu with their, non-inherent messages, seemingly baseless ideas, and going ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE in any attempt to explain... but instead replying with one line answers that accomplish NOTHING?
Good job mod!
You are welcome! Happy holidays ;D
Quote from: PyronIkari on December 14, 2008, 05:59:27 PM
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 04:51:56 PM
You missed the point :(.
Oh then, please explain the point... because you realize, these posts are about on par as with Leslieloveschu with their, non-inherent messages, seemingly baseless ideas, and going ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE in any attempt to explain... but instead replying with one line answers that accomplish NOTHING?
Good job mod!
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 04:51:56 PM
Quote from: PyronIkari on December 14, 2008, 11:47:29 AM
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 09:31:36 AM
Best way for birth control is
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.
.
Seriously, if that was more acceptable in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place.
JMO
Should I explain how incredibly stupid this is? Not only that, this is the second time you've said it now...
Is it really? I lost count ;-)
Quote
Masturbation is pretty much well accepted every where in the world(don't bother citing places or religions where it's not, because it's besides the point... as even within these places it still happens). Secondly... despite it being regular practice, it doesn't change anything. Masturbation is not an adequate replacement for sex. If it was, people wouldn't bother having sex, as they would get the exact same pleasure out of masturbation, thus wouldn't have to go through all the effort to get sex.
Your proposal doesn't even help the problem, because it's more about feigning ignorance than educating people into making better decisions. It's the same idea as Nyxyin or whatever's proposal to remove racism by forcefully make everyone mix breed. It's an idea of forced alternative than tolerance and education.
So, what was your point again?
You missed the point :(.
I'd like it, as a moderator, for you to elaborate your thoughts, instead of posting one liners that hold nothing to the debate at hand. Thanks
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 06:31:16 PM
You are welcome! Happy holidays ;D
Awesome... I love forums where moderators don't follow the rules, troll, and then try to get the people they are trolling banned.
Quote from: lyricaldanichan on December 14, 2008, 06:31:16 PM
You are welcome! Happy holidays ;D
Okay, I did not see this post when I was posting my initial warning. Stop posting stuff that obviously does not help the discussion grow. This is a discussion forum, not a place to troll.
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 14, 2008, 05:20:50 PMYou mentioned how it'd supposedly be better if masturbation is acceptable in society. Are you saying that people have sex in place of masturbation because they're forced to by society?
That's a huge leap. It's like someone saying "It'd be nice if I'm allowed to have chocolate cake whenever I want" and you then asking "Are you saying that you want to be force-fed chocolate cake all the time?" "Acceptable" doesn't mean "forced".
QuoteI take it that you've never had a sexual partner, otherwise you wouldn't be saying so god damned stupid.
You've just proven lyricaldanichan's point that masturbation is not accepted. The second someone says that masturbation might be equivalent to sex, they're accused of not having had sex or at least not being very good at it. People get socially put down when they say such things. Such attitudes against masturbation are no different from bigotry against homosexuality.
I don't think we know how many people would naturally prefer masturbation over sex if they weren't socially pressured to do so by all the peer pressure asserting that sex is somehow better. I think some people do talk themselves into considering masturbation inferior to sex because they're insecure enough to listen to people who tell them that considering sex and masturbation equivalent is "god damned stupid". If such attitudes against masturbation were gone, we would at least stop people (especially teenagers) from trying to "score" just because they want to prove something. Fixing attitudes would stop the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon. Better yet, social acceptance of masturbation would prevent problems in those who keep doing it because it wasn't really that good for them (and may never been that good for them -- maybe autosexuality is as valid a preference as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality), but they're told that it's only because they're doing it "wrong", and it's some amazing holy grail if they do it right, so they do riskier and riskier things (like trying it without condoms) trying to get it "right".
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 14, 2008, 10:22:24 PM
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 14, 2008, 05:20:50 PMYou mentioned how it'd supposedly be better if masturbation is acceptable in society. Are you saying that people have sex in place of masturbation because they're forced to by society?
That's a huge leap. It's like someone saying "It'd be nice if I'm allowed to have chocolate cake whenever I want" and you then asking "Are you saying that you want to be force-fed chocolate cake all the time?" "Acceptable" doesn't mean "forced".
Do I honestly need to go into what a terrible analogy that is? She implied that people would be preventing pregnancy moreso than they do by masturbating in place of sex, but CAN'T because it isn't "socially acceptable". But *gasp*, it already is! And yet.... PEOPLE ARE STILL HAVING SEX?
AND MASTURBATING? And guess what, people masturbate because they want to masturbate, not because they're trying to prevent pregnancies.
QuoteQuoteI take it that you've never had a sexual partner, otherwise you wouldn't be saying so god damned stupid.
You've just proven lyricaldanichan's point that masturbation is not accepted. The second someone says that masturbation might be equivalent to sex, they're accused of not having had sex or at least not being very good at it. People get socially put down when they say such things. Such attitudes against masturbation are no different from bigotry against homosexuality.
How does that prove her point? It doesn't. And HOW IN GOD'S NAME, IS THAT COMPARED TO BIGOTRY AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY? Really, how do you even come up with this nonsensical crap. Here's a heads up... masturbation DOESN'T equate to replacing sex. They're two completely different activities, and don't even compare outside of it sharing the goal for orgasm. I didn't speak ill of people who masturbate, or masturbation itself-- I said that because it was a STUPID suggestion. Let's do a recap on what the suggestion was before you start misinterpreting things again.
Her suggestion was that the solution to unwanted pregnancies and STDs are... *drumroll* MASTURBATION! Anyone with knowledge of both masturbation and sex would be able to understand how that suggestion is utterly stupid. But apparently, implying that she lacks knowledge means that I'm just as bad as homo-beating narrow-minded conservatives. Oh my!
QuoteI don't think we know how many people would naturally prefer masturbation over sex if they weren't socially pressured to do so by all the peer pressure asserting that sex is somehow better. I think some people do talk themselves into considering masturbation inferior to sex because they're insecure enough to listen to people who tell them that considering sex and masturbation equivalent is "god damned stupid". If such attitudes against masturbation were gone, we would at least stop people (especially teenagers) from trying to "score" just because they want to prove something. Fixing attitudes would stop the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon. Better yet, social acceptance of masturbation would prevent problems in those who keep doing it because it wasn't really that good for them (and may never been that good for them -- maybe autosexuality is as valid a preference as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality), but they're told that it's only because they're doing it "wrong", and it's some amazing holy grail if they do it right, so they do riskier and riskier things (like trying it without condoms) trying to get it "right".
Again, masturbation and sex are two different things. Both are enjoyable, but they DO NOT replace each other. There is nothing wrong with masturbation itself, but saying that it is a replacement for sex
is god damned stupid. I think you read it as "Oh no! Jun is saying masturbation is stupid." No. If you could comprehend it for what it was, I had said "Saying that masturbation is a solution to unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs is stupid". See the difference?
Masturbation is something that people enjoy, already is accepted, and is a healthy thing to do. It is NOT a equal replacement for sex nor is it a solution for pregnancy and STDs. Masturbation is done solely for pleasure and relief to one's own sexual urges. Sex is a mutual activity both for pleasure, and an expression of love between two people. Bottom line, masturbation =! sex.
Not that she can read this... lololol she ignored me, BUT!
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 14, 2008, 10:22:24 PM
You've just proven lyricaldanichan's point that masturbation is not accepted. The second someone says that masturbation might be equivalent to sex, they're accused of not having had sex or at least not being very good at it. People get socially put down when they say such things. Such attitudes against masturbation are no different from bigotry against homosexuality.
Uh. How did she prove at all that masturbation isn't accepted? The second someone says that masturbation might be the equivalent of sex... THAT SHOWS THEY HAVEN'T HAD SEX OR THEY AREN'T GOOD AT IT. Because in reality... they aren't comparable. People get socially put down when they say such things... because it's STUPID! Such attitudes isn't even close to being bigotry. It's a plain statement.
It's like saying "Kissing is great and all, but it's not like sex at all". ZOMG... I am being a bigot towards kissing now, aren't I. I am TOTALLY PROVING that kissing is not socially accepted. Because I am stating that they are not the same, and one is a better physical sensation than the other! PS... it's scientifically proven.
That's like bigotry towards homosexuals too... right?
QuoteI don't think we know how many people would naturally prefer masturbation over sex if they weren't socially pressured to do so by all the peer pressure asserting that sex is somehow better. I think some people do talk themselves into considering masturbation inferior to sex because they're insecure enough to listen to people who tell them that considering sex and masturbation equivalent is "god damned stupid". If such attitudes against masturbation were gone, we would at least stop people (especially teenagers) from trying to "score" just because they want to prove something. Fixing attitudes would stop the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon. Better yet, social acceptance of masturbation would prevent problems in those who keep doing it because it wasn't really that good for them (and may never been that good for them -- maybe autosexuality is as valid a preference as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality), but they're told that it's only because they're doing it "wrong", and it's some amazing holy grail if they do it right, so they do riskier and riskier things (like trying it without condoms) trying to get it "right".
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Masturbation has proven to be less stimulating, sex has been proven to be more stimulating ala studies. They measure brain activity blah blah blah blah besides the point.
Sex is "somehow" better? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh man. This is just hilarious. Someone who has sex, and also masturbates knows the difference. There's no social pressure about it. There are advantages to masturbation, and everyone knows and accepts that. But there is no social pressure in "preference". You realize that... right? Even if someone says they like sex better to be all cool and fit in(hypothetically of course, because this is just ridiculous, and a conversation that NEVER COMES UP) to their friends while talking about which they prefer, sex or masturbation...
...That doesn't reflect into practice.
If people merely stated they preferred sex, why are so many guys going out there trying to get women? Why are so many girls at bars trying to get picked up by a guy? Why do guys get prostitutes?
If your little stupid rant were even remotely true... no one would go pay money for prostitutes because it's only a "social pressure" that they like sex more. But this isn't a social issue, because these issues are private. Most guys aren't showing videos of themselves sleeping with prostitutes to friends to show how much they love sex over masturbation.
Well I will give you a positive... you didn't sound too much like a teacher this time.
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 14, 2008, 05:20:50 PM
And even then, people are ABLE to have sex while preventing pregnancy with AVAILABLE technology. Why should they masturbate instead when they have the option to have safe sex?
Why did you even bring up this utterly pointless suggestion? How does this contribute ANYTHING at all?
Not that I disagree with you and pyron about how acceptable masturbation is in most societies but don't be so quick to dismiss her idea. She was probably thinking about masturbation as a way of abstinence. For those who can't shake their minds off that 1%-3% it's an option with a 100% success rate and to say it's stupid/outdated is silly. It may not work for you but for other couples it's just fine.
Anyways, on the original topic of whether or not guys should split the cost... tsk whatever I'll pay for it. What's a $40 to a G, amirite fellas?
Quote from: RaddaX2 on December 15, 2008, 12:27:09 AM
Not that I disagree with you and pyron about how acceptable masturbation is in most societies but don't be so quick to dismiss her idea. She was probably thinking about masturbation as a way of abstinence. For those who can't shake their minds off that 1%-3% it's an option with a 100% success rate and to say it's stupid/outdated is silly. It may not work for you but for other couples it's just fine.
Anyways, on the original topic of whether or not guys should split the cost... tsk whatever I'll pay for it. What's a $40 to a G, amirite fellas?
Abstinence != Masturbation
It isn't silly, nor outdated. Abstinence is for those that want to practice it. It's not stupid per say... but isn't what the subject is about.
She said that masturbation isn't accepted. Once again... isn't abstinence. Abstinence isn't not accepted, but it's not promoted as the greatest thing in the world or anything like that.
The issue with this is that, it goes against the ideas of "educating". If people want to have sex, or if they feel they should have sex, they will. So it's about educating people about it. It's about teaching people how to practice safe sex. Everyone knows abstinence is the best form of birth control, but telling people that isn't going to help someone who is going to have sex prevent pregnancy.
Gender aside, how is mutual masturbation different from homosexual sex?
QuoteHer suggestion was that the solution to unwanted pregnancies and STDs are... *drumroll* MASTURBATION! Anyone with knowledge of both masturbation and sex would be able to understand how that suggestion is utterly stupid.
And yet, "the doctors at The Cleveland Clinic Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology" didn't recognize the suggestion as being "utterly stupid" enough to correct when they did a peer review of this:
Quote from: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/masturbation-guideMasturbation also is a safe sexual alternative for people who wish to avoid pregnancy and the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases.
It's also partly a semantic problem. Going back to the first line of this response, depending on which dictionary people use, "coitus" is defined to require a male penis inside a female vagina, and "masturbation" is defined to be any genital stimulation short of "coitus". Logically, this makes homosexual sex a subset of masturbation. Saying that "masturbation" isn't equal to "sex" would be saying that homosexual sex isn't equal to sex as well.
QuoteBut apparently, implying that she lacks knowledge means that I'm just as bad as homo-beating narrow-minded conservatives.
At the very least, implying that lyricaldanichan lacks knowledge about sex seems likely to be simply wrong. She's married. http://forums.fanime.com/index.php/topic,4039.msg89697.html#msg89697
yes masturbation may work as a form of abstinence, but for how many? That is why so many educators are against an abstinence-only sex ed program. It does not work.
Teens that take pledges or are educated in abstinence-only programs are more likely to get pregnant. Those that don't get pregnant are either very very lucky or have used contraceptives (that they have not been educated about).
an interesting site tho:
http://aclu.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=683 (http://aclu.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=683)
and a nice BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3846687.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3846687.stm)
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 15, 2008, 03:13:27 AM
Gender aside, how is mutual masturbation different from homosexual sex?
QuoteHer suggestion was that the solution to unwanted pregnancies and STDs are... *drumroll* MASTURBATION! Anyone with knowledge of both masturbation and sex would be able to understand how that suggestion is utterly stupid.
And yet, "the doctors at The Cleveland Clinic Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology" didn't recognize the suggestion as being "utterly stupid" enough to correct when they did a peer review of this:
Quote from: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/masturbation-guideMasturbation also is a safe sexual alternative for people who wish to avoid pregnancy and the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases.
It's also partly a semantic problem. Going back to the first line of this response, depending on which dictionary people use, "coitus" is defined to require a male penis inside a female vagina, and "masturbation" is defined to be any genital stimulation short of "coitus". Logically, this makes homosexual sex a subset of masturbation. Saying that "masturbation" isn't equal to "sex" would be saying that homosexual sex isn't equal to sex as well.
THEN IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SEX, NOT MASTURBATION. If two homosexuals were engaging in sex, and "masturbating" each other... IT WOULD BE SEX. Sex isn't just a man sticking his penis in a woman's vagina. It's a shared activity between two people with the mutual goal of gaining pleasure by engaging in sexual activity, regardless of gender, sex, and orientation, with mental aspects of love and lust.
And yes, it
is a sexual alternative, which I never said it wasn't. If you want to bring up a broad category, anyway, but again, missing the point. What else is a sexual alternative? Oh yeah, oral. What else? Feeling each other up, humping, making out, it goes on.... They're all sexual alternatives, but they're still DIFFERENT THINGS.
It's stupid to imply that they would be a great alternative to sex to prevent pregnancy and STDs... despite there being methods of having sex while still preventing the same. The only reason why it'd be an adequate replacement for sex if it were for the sake of abstinence, if people refused to have sex before marriage.
QuoteQuoteBut apparently, implying that she lacks knowledge means that I'm just as bad as homo-beating narrow-minded conservatives.
At the very least, implying that lyricaldanichan lacks knowledge about sex seems likely to be simply wrong. She's married. http://forums.fanime.com/index.php/topic,4039.msg89697.html#msg89697
And yet, it still doesn't change the stupidity of the suggestion. Just because someone is married doesn't mean they are an exception to stupidity and poor sexual savv.
Exactly.
Sex is so blurred that people forget that there is consequences with doing "it". I guess it is so un-cool and un-sexy to have birth control? If people are pounded in the head about sexual education, we will still have issues with unexpected pregnancies. The movie Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/) explain this aspect very well.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 14, 2008, 10:22:24 PM
QuoteI take it that you've never had a sexual partner, otherwise you wouldn't be saying so god damned stupid.
You've just proven lyricaldanichan's point that masturbation is not accepted. The second someone says that masturbation might be equivalent to sex, they're accused of not having had sex or at least not being very good at it. People get socially put down when they say such things. Such attitudes against masturbation are no different from bigotry against homosexuality.
I don't think we know how many people would naturally prefer masturbation over sex if they weren't socially pressured to do so by all the peer pressure asserting that sex is somehow better. I think some people do talk themselves into considering masturbation inferior to sex because they're insecure enough to listen to people who tell them that considering sex and masturbation equivalent is "god damned stupid". If such attitudes against masturbation were gone, we would at least stop people (especially teenagers) from trying to "score" just because they want to prove something. Fixing attitudes would stop the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon. Better yet, social acceptance of masturbation would prevent problems in those who keep doing it because it wasn't really that good for them (and may never been that good for them -- maybe autosexuality is as valid a preference as homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality), but they're told that it's only because they're doing it "wrong", and it's some amazing holy grail if they do it right, so they do riskier and riskier things (like trying it without condoms) trying to get it "right".
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 15, 2008, 09:30:50 AMTHEN IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SEX, NOT MASTURBATION.
I'm trying to say that masturbation (at least mutual masturbation)
is sex. As long as "masturbation" is not considered "sex", then it does not qualify as sufficiently "socially accepted". Saying masturbation is a sexual alternative that is still not sex is the exactly the same "separate but equal" situation in which people are saying that "domestic partnership" is just as good as "marriage".
I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
Mutual Masturbation (e.g., you pleasuring yourself along with someone else doing the same to themselves), is nothing more than a time killer with a friend. Sure, it feels good, but in the end, it's not nearly as fulfilling or stimulating as a cooperative sex act. If the other person is doing the act on you, while you're doing it to them, then it IS a sex act, even if it's at the lower end of the scale. Sex certainly does not require penetration, as the real measure of it is being intimate with another person(s).
the great thing is that mutual masturbation can still transfer STDs:) fluids from one person to another....Kids, that's how cooties spread!
Re: cortana. Thank you for using explicit definitions. You have every right to your definitions, and I acknowledge them. If I were to translate the way I read lyricaldanichan's words to yours, they would read "If 'non-penetrative sex' were more accepted as 'real sex' in society we wouldn't have so many teens having babies and people who shouldn't have kids in the first place".
As I mentioned, it's partly a semantic argument: people -- and even dictionaries -- differ on what they consider to be "masturbation". There is no real overall difference between masturbation and sex except in people's concept of the words, and such concepts vary from person to person (and from dictionary to dictionary).
Quote from: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.manual stimulation of the genital organs (of yourself or another) for sexual pleasure
Quote from: Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.the stimulation, by manual or other means exclusive of coitus, of another's genitals, esp. to orgasm.
Quote from: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionSexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.
Quote from: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton Universitythe act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Quote from: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical DictionarySexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina
Quote from: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract
Depending on which dictionaries people use, "masturbation" can be any genital stimulation that doesn't involve a male penis going into a female vagina, which can include touching the other person. If "non-penetrative sex" is sex, then "masturbation" is also sex for people who use those dictionaries. Words change meaning when they cross from person to person. The people who think masturbation is not a substitute for sex may be hung up on their definition that masturbation means not touching the other person or something, but it doesn't make people stupid for following a different dictionary and having a different definition of masturbation.
Words are very often confusing. For example, what do people think "prodigal" means? Now, look it up in a dictionary. People have been using the term incorrectly so often and long that the "common" definition has started to make its way into a few dictionaries. However, the now-common usage was originally not correct, and so the word is now ambiguous when used. I came across a case in which "prodigal" was used correctly, in the dictionary sense, and a bunch of self-appointed "grammar gurus" jumped all over how "stupid" the usage was, with a whole lot of people joining them, even though the majority of the dictionaries still reflect the original usage, not the now-common parable-based one. I recognize the validity of both prescriptive and descriptive usages, and I recognize the validity of people having a preference for one over the other, but I do not recognize the validity of calling people stupid for their preference.
In any case, thank you for explaining your terms, and semantics aside, we seem to fully agree about the underlying concept that sex does not require penetration -- or risk of pregnancy. So, I go back to my interpretation of 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.
If people are using different definitions of words, it might mean that they're only unfamiliar with the terminology used by the active "in crowd", not that they're "stupid".
Quote from: ewu on December 15, 2008, 06:42:09 PM
the great thing is that mutual masturbation can still transfer STDs:) fluids from one person to another....Kids, that's how cooties spread!
Yes, I noticed that earlier, but I figured I took care of it with the "semantic" paragraph. Technically, lyricaldanichan didn't say anything about STDs, only birth control, so mutual masturbation seems to be included in lyricaldanichan's version of "masturbation". It's JunWatarase who initially stuck in the STD bit, and when using her version of the word "masturbation", the term doesn't seem to include mutual masturbation. I apologize for relying on context and not explicitly notating the definition of the terms when I used them. I knew the definitions were a problem, and I thought I said so, but I seem to have failed to be sufficiently explicit in my clarification.
Wow. So. Well. I'll do it. I'll participate in the hijack.
But first, to respond to the actual topic, which was about Abby's advice:
I think Abby is wrong. It depends a bit on whether the BCPs are being used as a contraceptive, true. But in general, contraception protects both partners, and so it's not unreasonable for one to ask for help from the other in paying for it.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 15, 2008, 03:13:27 AM
Gender aside, how is mutual masturbation different from homosexual sex?
One is a subset of the other, in common usage. My answer is "mostly different".
QuoteAnd yet, "the doctors at The Cleveland Clinic Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology" didn't recognize the suggestion as being "utterly stupid" enough to correct when they did a peer review of this:
Quote from: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/masturbation-guideMasturbation also is a safe sexual alternative for people who wish to avoid pregnancy and the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases.
Correct, but they state nothing about its efficacy. That's the biggest drawback to that strategy, charming though it is. It's advice of the same quality as "shooting at your enemy can win a war."
QuoteIt's also partly a semantic problem. Going back to the first line of this response, depending on which dictionary people use, "coitus" is defined to require a male penis inside a female vagina, and "masturbation" is defined to be any genital stimulation short of "coitus".
You are correct, but in common usage, masturbation is almost always defined as self-stimulation, usually manual.
QuoteLogically, this makes homosexual sex a subset of masturbation.
Right, but that usage of the word is not common. That's a deduction based on a false premise.
QuoteSaying that "masturbation" isn't equal to "sex" would be saying that homosexual sex isn't equal to sex as well.
It... isn't... even using your definition. Homosexual sex is a proper subset of sex, and so the two are by definition unequal.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 16, 2008, 01:42:07 AM
The people who think masturbation is not a substitute for sex may be hung up on their definition that masturbation means not touching the other person or something, but it doesn't make people stupid for following a different dictionary and having a different definition of masturbation.
Not necessarily - they could still be wrong under their definition!
Pyron may be making the point that no other act can substitute for coitus, regardless of what you call that act.
QuoteWords are very often confusing. ...
There, that was sufficient.
QuoteI recognize the validity of both prescriptive and descriptive usages, and I recognize the validity of people having a preference for one over the other, but I do not recognize the validity of calling people stupid for their preference.
There's a mutual mistake, though:
Pyron is assuming the usage was descriptive, while you're assuming the usage was prescriptive. Frankly, I think it's more reasonable to assume descriptive usage; it's unreasonable to assume people are using the uncommon meanings.
Quotelyricaldanichan'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.
QuoteIf people are using different definitions of words, it might mean that they're only unfamiliar with the terminology used by the active "in crowd", not that they're "stupid".
The solution is simple. "Maybe you misunderstood. What I meant was..."
I hope this has been sufficiently pedantic!
wasn't the original topic of this thread something about sharing the cost of contrceptives? what are the chances of going back to that discussion?
feel free to bring it back...
:: resists urge to say "Im bringin sexy back" ::
partners should share the cost of the contraceptives they use, unless one or the other prefers to pay the cost themselves. i know that i'm willing to split the bill fairly.
now are you willing to take on the entire cost without you partner prompting, on your own initiative?
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.
Quote from: ewu on December 20, 2008, 05:43:32 PM
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.
i agree....guys are oblivious.....like no sarcasm.....for realz. we need to pay attention more.
Quote from: ewu on December 20, 2008, 05:43:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Tony on December 19, 2008, 11:44:26 PM
Quotelyricaldanichan'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?
Quote from: AMKestrel on December 21, 2008, 01:23:29 PM
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.
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....
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.
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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 01:30:54 AM
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.
I'm not sure I understood what was meant, but vasectomies have previously been mentioned in this thread:
Quote from: Jun-Watarase on December 05, 2008, 05:44:56 PMTake 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.
Quote from: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/EctopicPreg_factsheet.htmAmong 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:
Quote from: http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/486.htmlA recent study has estimated that 143 women in 10,000 get pregnant after a tubal ligation
Weird. It didn't warn me that a new post came in while I was typing.
Quote from: PyronIkari on December 22, 2008, 04:15:03 AMWe'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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 04:52:46 AM
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!"
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Runewitt on December 22, 2008, 02:01:50 AM
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:)
Quote from: PyronIkari on December 22, 2008, 06:06:24 AMPeople 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.
QuoteYou 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".
QuoteKids 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.
QuoteOne 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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 04:12:16 PM
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.
QuoteI 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)
QuoteSome 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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: AMKestrel on December 21, 2008, 01:23:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 01:30:54 AM
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.QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 04:52:46 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 04:12:16 PM
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: Tony on December 22, 2008, 09:46:28 PMPersonally, 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.
Quoteyou 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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 01:30:54 AM
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.
QuoteYou 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.
QuoteAnyway, 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.
QuoteDon'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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 23, 2008, 03:45:36 PMThis 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)
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 22, 2008, 01:30:54 AM
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.
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.
QuoteKids 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.
QuoteIf 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...?
QuoteWhat 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.
Quoteand 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.
Quote from: Nyxyin on December 24, 2008, 04:13:11 PM
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.
Actually it is. If you delve deeper in to it, and you read the testimonials of kids you will learn, that the amount of sex in other countries isn't that much different than the US. The number that *IS* different is pregnancy/STDs that occur. Your theory suggests people aren't having intercourse, which actually conflicts with the correlation. You seemed to not have taken statistics classes in school. Statistics do prove things, you just need to know what you're looking for exactly.
Also, the thing is, that... you didn't read. If you did, you'd see that they've investigated reasonings and major differences in causation as well. The groups that did these surveys did more than just take the surveys. They also interviewed, and did testing on it. Their results are the conclusion they came to from said evidence. Once more, yours is just conjecture based on *their* numbers, in which they came a to a different conclusion to.
QuoteIn 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.
Nope, because the pregnancy rate is only half of the equation.
QuoteAlso, 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.
The taboo syndrome only works if there's a positive reinforcement along with the negative reinforcement. It's one or the other. Your theory conflicts directly with the EU idea. In Europe sex is promoted and it's recognized as something amazing and great. Because of that, kids are more willing to be educated about it so that, they can experience it safely.
Theoretically your suggestion gives kids no desire to want to learn about it. Because it is just an act. It's not promoted as something good, so no child will want to actively know about it. They will just eventually run into sex as the opportunity occurs and they don't see a good reason not to(mostly because they won't be fully educated about it).
So basically, you're stating that your idea, that pretty much is impossible, and no country in the world will/has done, is better than an already existing idea that shows extremely good results and practice.
What's with you and impossible ideas anyways? For sex to not be promoted as a positive thing, people would basically not talk about it at all or the opposite, it would have to be talked about so much that it loses absolutely all meaning verbally. However this is impossible, because the act itself is not "normal and passable".
QuoteYes, 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.
Wrong again. For something to be done as taboo, it has to have a positive respect. Kids KNOW that sex is great and feels amazing. Yet they are told not to do it. That's what makes it more appealing. They are told not to do something that they know is supposed to be one of the greatest feelings in the world.
There is nothing wrong with those kind of people. You're right. But guess what, it *IS* human to like sex. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean that it's norm is wrong. If you think it's "US" teens that seem to subconsciously internalizing bad media, then what about every other country?
I've noticed it before, but I never bothered to say it. Your theory, has absolutely nothing to do with pregnancy. It has to do with teenagers having sex. You are pushing for teens not to have sex, more than to do things that are safe. And you are advocating the the "not having sex is just as good, and anyone that says otherwise is wrong.
QuoteNow 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...?
OH MY GOD DAMNED GOD. HOW GOD DAMNED STUPID ARE YOU?!?!??!?!?!?!? Teens are having sex because they want to. YOU BROUGHT UP BIOLOGICAL REASONING AND STRUCTURE. And I stated, in biological reasoning and structure, it's natural for them to want to have sex.
QuoteThat 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.
It's not relevant in the aspect you're trying to associate with. It's relevant in a different way.
QuoteIf 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.
I do, because it's important. You're not a virgin, so basically my theory is right. Thanks for that.
QuoteThere'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.
And I can sum this up to "it's called preference" Very little of it has to do with social/media/peer factors. Yes they influence, but it is minimal. All of the things you mention have been there since the beginning of time. All of the things you mention exist in all cultures of all different times and areas.
People like sex a specific way.
Things I'd like to note.
Not once have you ever promoted sex as a good thing.
Not once have you ever said that educating kids and allowing them to have educated sex is a good thing.
This entire discussion, all you have done is state how sex gets people pregnant, and they should have alternatives to sex instead, because it's just as good and there is no risk at all. Despite there being risks in STD transference, and realistically, it's just easier to spread a lot of STD's through oral and manual sex than it is through protected intercourse.
So I think I'm going to stop even posting, because you're not even trying to spread an idea or really accomplish anything, it looks like you're just bashing people that enjoy sex. Anyone that enjoys intercourse, no matter how safe they are seem stupid in your eyes... so I'll leave it at that.