abstinece-only sex education

You mean a big reduction in the 'unwelcome risks' associated with sex would have no impact on a persons decision making process? You mean to say that if there were no pill tomorrow that woman (and to a lesser extent men - for they don't have to bare the brunt) would carry on unaffected by the increased risk.You seem to be giving women less than due credit in the good sense department.

Is there any reason why they shouldn't pay for dinner and gas?Boy, you ain't scoring points with the sisterhood of any hue tonight Jar.

Like a second bite at answering the question asked Jar?

It helps to take some time to read the quotes you post Schraf.Faith said in your quote of her "scale". Scale doesn't mean 'never happened before' it means 'never happened before to this measure'.Give her a little credit - she's probably read Romans 1 by now

Did you read the context into account here (ie: the content of the post to which Faith was responding to when she wrote this) Schraf?

Miss, MissI did.

D'ya remember when the teacher asked a question and you knew the answer. You'd put up your hand and call out"Miss, Miss!"or "Ma'am, Ma'am"or "Sir, Sir"

Irish-ism to you...woman

I haven't followed the thread much but would agree that telling folk "don't do it" does increase the appeal of something perceived as being enjoyable and increases the likelyhood it being done (no surprise: that was the reason biblical law was given in the first place - to cause 'sin' to increase!).I imagine a well designed abstinance programme wouldn't fall for this obvious error (we talked in the past about the failings of prohibition - as well as free for all when it came to drink and drugs). Health dangers are one thing but they pointlessly attempt to circumvent the "it won't happen to me" syndrome of youth. A syndrome which has our youth kill themselves in car wrecks and take up smoking ("I won't get addicted like my sap of a parent")An different approach to the current Abstinance/free for all ones might be to investigate and analyse (with the young) the methods by which they will be influenced so as to partake in various activities that are 'cool'. Not just sex. All kinds of things. 'Cool' is powerful enough for a person to persevere with the distasteful process of learning to smoke. It has kids wanting the right clothes, the right car, the right education, the right everything. "Fitting in" is the most powerful propellant sitting in a teens tank. It informs their decisions on all kinds of stuff.An ongoing school course from an age whereby kids can comprehend how they are influenced by peers, by the media, politicians, family etc might just open them up to recognise when this is being done to them. And allow them to make informed decisions. "Homework: Write an essay on a decision you made this week and discuss the ways in which your decision was affected by the influence of others". By bringing out into the open (and thus normalising) that our decisions ARE influenced by peers (education starting from an early enough age so that there is less embarrassment/resistance to the idea) you can perhaps dismantle some of the power of blinded-by-peer-influcence. There is nothing wrong with choosing to take on peer views but something inappropriate about following them in order to simply conform.Attempt to make more chiefs and less indians.The big corporations would, of course, have a complete mickey-fit - which would only add to the fun!All without invoking the fatal "don't do that".

We know that big corporations scan the globe looking the 'cool' They analyse what they (for instance) wear and the environment they hang out in. Then they set their advertising around those things. And before you know it the kids are walking around with jeans going south and tops going north. It doesn't seem to matter that all you have is a spare tyre hanging out - that the trend and follow it zillions do.Then you see 40 year olds in the supermarket dressed the same way as their kids only their are stretch marks and caesarian section scars added to the spare tyres. This is cool at work Drugs are fun, so is careering around in a stolen car, so is smoking (or at least you think so) so is getting pissed (getting sick is not an issue so long as getting sick is deemed part of what it is to be cool)How would you not buy the coolness argument unless you were well educated enough at that age and were shown in which ways the influence was working on you. Its a bit late now for you to look back and suppose you weren't influenced.Anyway its not about 1 individual - its whether large numbers of people can be influenced to take a course of action aided by the culture operating on them or whether they are taking it due to own decision

You'd have to take a hi-speed cops and robbers car chase with your best buddy to understand. For myself, sex at an early age had nothing at all to do with her. She was an object - just like the car was. At least with the car chases I had someone to bond with.Down my way you only have to look at the plethoria of single mothers to understand that the bonding gained through young sex had, for many, more to do with the physical than the emotional.As to your questions. The education I was suggesting had to do with "how you will be influenced by others". It would I would suggest begin at an early age. Why not from school start? Its a separate thing from sex or drug or car driving education. Your questions are more relevant to those who are discussing sex education.Having said that, if a person did chose to have sex then whatever you could teach them so as to reduce risk is the loving thing to do. Few mothers want their sons climbing up on a motorcycle - but if they do then by all means get them trained.Sex before marraige. That is a question which stems purely from worldview in which case my world view would teach that it is a sin and like all sin it is designed to steal something from them. It wouldn't be taught in a vacuum.

Depends on what your definition of wrong is I suppose. If wrong is what you suppose it to be then there is nothing necessarily wrong with pornEdited by iano, : insert 'necessarily'

A beautifully structured essay, Sis. I know you know it matters less that you get slaughtered and more that others might see the sense you make and that which lies at the root of such sense.Well done...

I disagree. Holmes is responding to Faith and if you trace back you'll that she too is responding in longish posts. How does one fully respond to a long post by means of a short post - without sidestepping issues raised that it?That's debate for you.