# 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex



## Monkey D. Dragon (Dec 20, 2006)

> NEW YORK (AP) -- More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.
> 
> "This is reality-check research," said the study's author, Lawrence Finer. "Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."
> 
> ...




This Is kind of shocking if you think about It.


----------



## Vegitto-kun (Dec 20, 2006)

Why is it shocking? most normal thing in the world.


----------



## Jackal Iscariot (Dec 20, 2006)

Vegitto-kun said:


> Why is it shocking? most normal thing in the world.



Seconded. I expect even more than 95% >.>


----------



## pedobearr (Dec 20, 2006)

Lol. States is a "whore" country. Lol.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Dec 20, 2006)

Just because it's "normal", doesn't mean it's right.

Fuckin' whores!


----------



## pedobearr (Dec 20, 2006)

^I do agree with you. What if I'm going to say, are you normal? so it's are you right? lol.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Dec 20, 2006)

If normal means fucking around, no, I'm not normal. I'm still a virgin.


----------



## pedobearr (Dec 20, 2006)

You are? Shish. Your not normal. Lol. Hahaha!


----------



## Kisame. (Dec 20, 2006)

the other 5% are retards.


----------



## DJ-Kage (Dec 20, 2006)

The Betrayer said:


> This Is kind of shocking if you think about It.



Why? President Bush _is_ screwing US for years now .


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 20, 2006)

Why is this surprising?


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 20, 2006)

Why is this a big deal? People should be having sex by 17-18 anyway. Marriage doesn't make it somehow morally correct.


----------



## pedobearr (Dec 20, 2006)

Megaharrison said:


> Why is this a big deal? People should be having sex by 17-18 anyway. Marriage doesn't make it somehow morally correct.



I prefer 14. Maybe 13. It starts at that age.(It's not about marriage ok. About sex)


----------



## That NOS Guy (Dec 20, 2006)

Just because people didn't talk about it before doesn't mean it didn't happen.


----------



## Black Swan (Dec 20, 2006)

I live in nyc so the sex ed here is different from most of america, over here they know your gonna do it so they just teach you how to do it as safely as possible. But in other parts of the country I would say the majority of the country they teach abstinence and staying chaste and this really puts a dent into that poitical philosophy b/c whats the point of teaching abstinence to a bunch of students who are sexually active. I heared somewhere the average age of sexual activity in Indiana is 12 and in their school ciricculums they still teach abstinence . 

What really shocks me is the number of older people who did it before getting married:amazed , I thought that old fashioned couples stayed chaste until marriage. Back in the day their was no rubbers so a little bit of fun led to babies.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Dec 20, 2006)

Kisame said:


> the other 5% are retards.



or they are still posting here


----------



## Goodfellow (Dec 20, 2006)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Just because it's "normal", doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> Fuckin' whores!



So, people ain't just sinners then, they are LESBIAN sinners as well o.O? I'm kinda surprised that 95% of USA is Lesbian though.


----------



## Noodle (Dec 20, 2006)

Wowzers:amazed 

Last time I heard it was 70-something?


----------



## Iria (Dec 20, 2006)

In my sex-ed class they showed us a wrapped present and said "This is your virginity and once you open it IT WILL NEVER BE WRAPPED AGAIN!!" Then they proceeded to tear open the package violently and to shreds.

That was the extent of our sexual education.

Half the class was pregnant by Junior Year.


----------



## Masaki (Dec 20, 2006)

If I end up being in the 5%, I will fail at life.


----------



## Circe (Dec 20, 2006)

Iria said:


> In my sex-ed class they showed us a wrapped present and said "This is your virginity and once you open it IT WILL NEVER BE WRAPPED AGAIN!!" Then they proceeded to tear open the package violently and to shreds.
> 
> That was the extent of our sexual education.
> 
> Half the class was pregnant by Junior Year.




 Rep for you...


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 20, 2006)

Iria said:


> In my sex-ed class they showed us a wrapped present and said "This is your virginity and once you open it IT WILL NEVER BE WRAPPED AGAIN!!" Then they proceeded to tear open the package violently and to shreds.
> 
> That was the extent of our sexual education.
> 
> Half the class was pregnant by Junior Year.



In our class we were given dildos and condoms and spent most of the time blowing the condoms up and sword-fighting with plastic penises.

I think we turned out ok.

I've yet to get pregnant.


----------



## Blargal (Dec 20, 2006)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Just because it's "normal", doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> Fuckin' whores!



So you're saying sex is something to be ashamed of, embarassed about, or otherwise guilty about instead of enjoying it given thats what humans have been doing for thousands of years especially before christians came into power, sex, eat, sex, sleep, eat, sex, repeat.


----------



## Lord of Mikawa (Dec 20, 2006)

That kills the Christian Fundamentalist theory that people were less active back in the 1950's and 1940's.


----------



## Zodd (Dec 20, 2006)

Iria said:


> In my sex-ed class they showed us a wrapped present and said "This is your virginity and once you open it IT WILL NEVER BE WRAPPED AGAIN!!" Then they proceeded to tear open the package violently and to shreds.
> 
> That was the extent of our sexual education.
> 
> Half the class was pregnant by Junior Year.



LOL. Post of the week!


----------



## 2citynaruto (Dec 20, 2006)

This is a little less than i would think i would have thought the # would be up like 97 or 98% im a little shocked the # is so little. Here in chicago almost everyone i know has lost their virginity in only know like 2 people who havent. Wow America isnt as sex fed a nation as i thought we were.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Dec 20, 2006)

Blargal said:


> So you're saying sex is something to be ashamed of, embarassed about, or otherwise guilty about instead of enjoying it given thats what humans have been doing for thousands of years especially before christians came into power, sex, eat, sex, sleep, eat, sex, repeat.


That is what I am saying.


----------



## Kayo (Dec 20, 2006)

omg those bastards!


----------



## Robotkiller (Dec 20, 2006)

Kisame said:


> the other 5% are *narutards*.



Fixed


----------



## Hitomi_No_Ryu (Dec 20, 2006)

More reason for uptight people to just get a grip...


----------



## Mizura (Dec 20, 2006)

Duh. Even those who don't sleep around much will probably check out the goods before tying the knot. =\ How many people in a serious relationship put off sex before a marriage, even if they do plan to marry?


----------



## Char-Aznable (Dec 20, 2006)

Man I didn't need a poll to tell me this!  The other 5 percent are retarded!


----------



## 2Shea (Dec 20, 2006)

Haha, nothing wrong with this it all, just hopefully one day it will be 100%.


----------



## call to arms (Dec 20, 2006)

Well it's good to hear things are progressing. I feel sad for those who have to wait until marriage to express their love for each other.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 20, 2006)

what's the original link of this article?

I always knew we were a nation of whores.. I hope more learn this and realize how much of a whore they are... fucking idiots who can't control themselves.



Blargal said:


> So you're saying sex is something to be ashamed of, embarassed about, or otherwise guilty about instead of enjoying it given thats what humans have been doing for thousands of years especially before christians came into power, sex, eat, sex, sleep, eat, sex, repeat.



no, casual sex is no longer necessary for our species' survival. Considering the survivability of our species' children, it's QUITE fine. Which is why sex has become something, at least it was, that only are shared between people who love each other greatly. It's a bond that two share in love and that they share (or should) with ONLY each other. Sharing with another cheapens the bonds and, in turn, makes you a whore. We no longer need to get a woman pregnant everytime they can become pregnant as we don't need to pump out babies that much to have the species survive. The day we became the masters of tools and used our brains to form our world to suit us better was the day it became less important to act as animals. Part of being human is to realize and to control instincts.

Granted, I don't think waiting for marriage is necessary as long as you are sure of the love and sure it will last for life. It should only be shared with one, it's love, it's a loving act, why would you cheapen yourself and the gift you give to your lover by having shared with another? It's like.. buying a romantic present.. say... flowers and a romantic dinner.. and then you do that same thing for ALL your friends. It just makes the gift far more cheap and less special.

But, you should only be sure of your love after a good while of waiting and learning. You shouldn't rush into things. With my ex, I was quite happy waiting before doing anything more than kissing because it's worth the wait to share that thing with only one. Now, I'd love to be back with my ex as I still love her dearly but she's all "relationships suck" and whatnot so... ya... if you can't have patience, you can't control your urges, your instincts, than you are not human, and should be removed from our species.


----------



## Bro Tai Jr. (Dec 20, 2006)

Noodle said:


> Wowzers:amazed
> 
> Last time I heard it was 70-something?



Yeah, well, I had just gotten a new condom and I wanted to try it out.


----------



## Arachnia (Dec 20, 2006)

THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!

for real i find that not surprising...who the hell would wait for marriage to have sex...


----------



## Bro Tai Jr. (Dec 20, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> what's the original link of this article?
> 
> I always knew we were a nation of whores.. I hope more learn this and realize how much of a whore they are... fucking idiots who can't control themselves.



You're just mad because you can't have what Americans have. Go back to you poor hut in Africa and masturbate.


----------



## Shade Luka (Dec 20, 2006)

This doesn't surprise me


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 20, 2006)

Bro Tai Jr. said:


> You're just mad because you can't have what Americans have. Go back to you poor hut in Africa and masturbate.



Fuckin retard I AM AMERICAN. I am just an american with patience and restraint. I am the master of myself. Unlike many of you inbred fools. Read the rest of my post up above, not just that one little bit >.>


----------



## Damselian (Dec 20, 2006)

Iria said:


> In my sex-ed class they showed us a wrapped present and said "This is your virginity and once you open it IT WILL NEVER BE WRAPPED AGAIN!!" Then they proceeded to tear open the package violently and to shreds.
> 
> That was the extent of our sexual education.
> 
> Half the class was pregnant by Junior Year.



Lol, so either roughly every girl in your class was pregnant by Junior year or you got some pregnant men in your class. Pretty badass, if you ask me.


----------



## Lovewitches (Dec 20, 2006)

Wow, so its not like where I live..

Girls are usually "out" when they are 14 or so, when he boys wait until they are like 19.

This world always interesting at times. >_>


----------



## sj2k (Dec 20, 2006)

lol, there is nothing suprising, or wrong with this.  sex is a natural act, one which can't be controlled by religion or the government.  Its time people realized this.  Time they ALL taught safe sex.  Time people realized there is nothing wrong with sex.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 20, 2006)

If you don't mind cheapening it, than sure, be a whore as you wish. If someone wishes to be a whore, that's their choice. I won't get involved (unless it's someone I truly care for). A whore is always seen as bad usually, but I like Shakespeare's quote (which is in that FFXIII versus video), "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so". I just would prefer to see people act human.. act with restraint, control, and patience. There are key things that make us human and animals, well.. animals. Granted, we are animals in ourselves, we are another kind. What makes us unique is that we no longer need to mate everytime a female is ready to give birth as we no longer have predators threatening our children so often that we need so many pumped out to keep the species surviving. We've evolved beyond that, religion, in a way, and governments realize this which tends to be why they put restraints. As too much breeding will result in a large shortage of our supplies. On top of that, wouldn't you rather share such a thing with only a few? Perhaps even one? It really makes it all the more special really. Waiting for marriage, I don't really care about, waiting for the one you will spend your life with.. that's what it should be. But if people wish to not really make it anything special with anyone.. if they want to cheapen it and share it with so many, whatever.. I'll just look down on them as inferior in that aspect. (But not necessarily over all inferior).


----------



## sj2k (Dec 20, 2006)

Vicious-chan, you have one side of the argument.  But look at it this way.  I find the whole use of whore as a 'bad' thing in itself wrong.  A whore is usually implied to someone who sleeps with alot of people.  But to everyone, sex does not equal love.  There is no reason it has too.  If it does, then I understand your view.  But nobody but you says it does.  If someone takes pleasure in sex.  If they are safe, and they simply want to share that pleasure with ohter people, what is wrong with that?  Society will call them a whore, but that is not always bad.  It can be, there are lots of bad reasons to sleep around.  But, there are also good reasons.  I don't think you can make a judgement based on it for everyone.  You have to leave it up to the individual.  AND, if they make up there own mind, aren't influenced by others, we should respect their decicision, whatever it is.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 20, 2006)

That's the problem.. most do it their first time BECAUSE they are influenced by others. In fact, it's rare there are no influences. Our society pressures teen agers to have sex because it's "normal" and "cool" and so many, because we are social creatures, want to be a part of things, to have friends and part of a or _the_ group and so they have sex to be a part of it. Though, really, they are just cheapening themselves. I don't know a guy or girl from my high school class that didn't have sex because they were pressured into it (well those that did). Nor do I know any from college, nor anywhere else. Everyone felt like they HAD to do it to be a part of the group. There are other things which are pleasurable in life that one could go towards as well, but whatever. As I said, they want to be whores, so be it, if I don't care about them (and I don't care about a lot of people) than I won't bother. If I care about them, well I talk to them about it and detour them from such paths. Though, most already detour from such shallow actions themselves, which is why I enjoy their company, similar feelings towards such important topics. (though some differ about other topics which causes for fun debates).


----------



## shinjuu (Dec 20, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> what's the original link of this article?
> 
> I always knew we were a nation of whores.. I hope more learn this and realize how much of a whore they are... fucking idiots who can't control themselves.
> 
> ...




You are writing this as if it were facts, proven by science. Well, SHOCK, its not true. Its a matter of opinion, and its annoying when someone forces their opinion on someone else. Aswell as the fact that its quite useless to wait till the "right" one who is going to be the love of your life. You can't be sure of this untill you are actually both die still loving eachother. Another things is that your oh so special gift, will most likely be one sided since your partner has most likely had sex before (see article, 95%, so yeah chances are pretty big) 

And I don't see why having sex with multiple partners (and by that i do not mean cheating) lessens the bond or speciality of it in any way. Its not the sex that makes the bond its the love. Sex is just a intimate way of expressing and sharing your love. It doesnt get less intimate if you have done it before, and tbh if your good at it its only more intimate.. 



> Fuckin retard I AM AMERICAN. I am just an american with patience and restraint. I am the master of myself. Unlike many of you inbred fools. Read the rest of my post up above, not just that one little bit >.>



Yes you sure are the master of yourself. Controlling your emotions and all, oh no wait you just shouted at someone and called him a "Fucking retard". After that you show your humongous ego, and showing your incredible short and narrowed sight by calling almost everyone inbred fools. 


Modesty is also a human quality, one which you obviously seem to lack. You aren't any better then us, just because you can "control yourself" life is about more then being able to control your urges.

So get of your high horse and please write your posts as if they are opinions, not facts. Its annoying.



> That's the problem.. most do it their first time BECAUSE they are influenced by others. In fact, it's rare there are no influences. Our society pressures teen agers to have sex because it's "normal" and "cool" and so many, because we are social creatures, want to be a part of things, to have friends and part of a or the group and so they have sex to be a part of it. Though, really, they are just cheapening themselves. I don't know a guy or girl from my high school class that didn't have sex because they were pressured into it (well those that did). Nor do I know any from college, nor anywhere else. Everyone felt like they HAD to do it to be a part of the group. There are other things which are pleasurable in life that one could go towards as well, but whatever. As I said, they want to be whores, so be it, if I don't care about them (and I don't care about a lot of people) than I won't bother. If I care about them, well I talk to them about it and detour them from such paths. Though, most already detour from such shallow actions themselves, which is why I enjoy their company, similar feelings towards such important topics. (though some differ about other topics which causes for fun debates).



Maybe its different here in the netherlands then in the USA, but I don't know anybody who felt forced to have sex their first time. Its just something that naturally occurs in a relationship. And in my opinion there is nothing wrong with having sex outside a relationship. Even if the first time was because of outside influence I dont see how it makes someone inferior or a lesser being. Everyone makes mistakes, I make mistakes YOU make mistakes, and EVERYONE is influenced by others. Every action you take is a result of an influence in some way.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 20, 2006)

shinjuu said:


> You are writing this as if it were facts, proven by science. Well, SHOCK, its not true. Its a matter of opinion, and its annoying when someone forces their opinion on someone else. Aswell as the fact that its quite useless to wait till the "right" one who is going to be the love of your life. You can't be sure of this untill you are actually both die still loving eachother. Another things is that your oh so special gift, will most likely be one sided since your partner has most likely had sex before (see article, 95%, so yeah chances are pretty big)
> 
> And I don't see why having sex with multiple partners (and by that i do not mean cheating) lessens the bond or speciality of it in any way. Its not the sex that makes the bond its the love. Sex is just a intimate way of expressing and sharing your love. It doesnt get less intimate if you have done it before, and tbh if your good at it its only more intimate..
> 
> ...



it is quite different than your country as many have felt like they have to have sex when they are in a relationship, others have felt like they have had to have a relationship, and some felt like they just had to have sex. If you don't know know how it is here, shut up then? And it is wrong, people might make mistakes but those are pretty huge ones, if people actually THOUGHT about things rather than just acting on impulse.. if they gave great thought to consequences, than they wouldn't make such horrible mistakes. You think, and you can even shake off most influences as well. 

As for the shouting, it wasn't shouting it was "BIG LETTERS SO IT IS MADE SURE IT IS NOTICED!". I don't shout, rarely have I ever shouted. If you've read my posts, I said, it's their choice. I might find them inferior in that way, but, as I said, not over all inferior. There's a difference. Someone who's good at football compared to another will find the other inferior in that aspect but perhaps the other is far more intelligent when it comes to math or physics or something so the first person is inferior in. Everyone's inferior in one way to another and superior to another. That guy made a retarded post, there for I insulted him in return. He wishes to insult me and, with his comment, all of Africa, he should be insulted himself as he is an idiot. An eye for an eye is a great way to really go. It might leave the world blind, but the lesson will be learned. I find the lesson far more important.

Edit: oh, and by the way, it is agreed upon by all evolutionary scientists that the reason there are such instincts, the reason why most women within the same area of origin (same family even) menstrate on about the same cycle, the reason why men are far more sexual than women on average, was for the survival of the species. I'd go so far to say it is fact considering the evidence given in the world today with all species, with bones found of children all about the same age in a family (meaning they gave birth at the same time), as well as other evidence given. Truth be told, there's no such thing as "fact" if you wanna get technical about it, but it's about as much fact as any other fact out there. It was a method for survival of the species, imprinted on our genetic make up. If you choose to not believe it, than whatever.


----------



## Centeolt (Dec 20, 2006)

Not a surprise anymore. Since a long time.


----------



## sting666 (Dec 20, 2006)

Not a big deal, but I dont think people should have sex until they are around 16 or 17. When I was in Junior High there was a pregnant girl in 8th grade. She killed herself after 3 months of having the baby, this is what happens when people have sex at that young.


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 20, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> Edit: oh, and by the way, it is agreed upon by all evolutionary scientists that the reason there are such instincts, the reason why most women within the same area of origin (same family even) menstrate on about the same cycle, the reason why men are far more sexual than women on average, was for the survival of the species. I'd go so far to say it is fact considering the evidence given in the world today with all species, with bones found of children all about the same age in a family (meaning they gave birth at the same time), as well as other evidence given. Truth be told, there's no such thing as "fact" if you wanna get technical about it, but it's about as much fact as any other fact out there. It was a method for survival of the species, imprinted on our genetic make up. If you choose to not believe it, than whatever.



What has this got to do with having sex before you're married though? 

Also going to point out that you don't have any right to call people whores for having sex before marriage. The aggressive language and self-righteous attitute is unnecessary. If people don't want to wait, that is their choice. If you personally think it's better to wait, that is your _opinion_. When it's very common these days for people to engage in long-term relationships and engagements before settling down, there is nothing wrong with having sex with someone you love and care for. In fact, I think it is probably better in determining whether you have the compatibility to have a lasting marriage if you are fully intimate with someone before tying the knot. That is, of course, my opinion, and I'm not going to try and pass it off as fact as you seem to be doing.

Language like this...



> I always knew we were a nation of whores.. I hope more learn this and realize how much of a whore they are... fucking idiots who can't control themselves.



...is uncalled for. And I hope you realise just how offensive you were.


----------



## DarkFire (Dec 20, 2006)

lol the 5% must be total losers lol


----------



## DeathkillerD (Dec 20, 2006)

> You're just mad because you can't have what Americans have. Go back to you poor hut in Africa and masturbate


lol but didnt u know, africans have more AIDS than anywhere else, they prob get more sex than us, i think that it was more than 70 percent that had aids. well based on this new stdy, i guess america isnt far behind
my sex ed xonsisted of this
[War of the Green Lanterns]


----------



## Mizura (Dec 20, 2006)

> You are writing this as if it were facts, proven by science.


Science shows that sex is good for the health.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 20, 2006)

> it is quite different than your country as many have felt like they have to have sex when they are in a relationship, others have felt like they have had to have a relationship, and some felt like they just had to have sex. If you don't know know how it is here, shut up then? And it is wrong, people might make mistakes but those are pretty huge ones, if people actually THOUGHT about things rather than just acting on impulse.. if they gave great thought to consequences, than they wouldn't make such horrible mistakes. You think, and you can even shake off most influences as well.



your right, and wrong here.  There is certainly pressure, but its to NOT have sex.  that comes to us from the religouse society, who tells us we go to hell if we do.  Hate to break it to them, I think at least 95% of america is going to hell in that case.  

Shinju, and I guess everyone, my point wasn't that there was a huge amount of pressure either way though.  Yes, sometimes a partner puts pressure on you to do it, sometimes it is the opposite though.  The only real constant pressure is from the religouse, who think they should be able to force thier oppinions on us.  My point is, as long as you make the decision, whatever it is, you should be happy with it.  I am trying to respect both choices.  I simply want it to be ok for someone to make up their mind, and for that to be ok.

Also, vicouse, you are kind of a hypocrite.  Someone insults you, after you just called them an inferiour whore.  Gee, why does it make sense that the person you called inferior whore would insult you back?


----------



## Gray Wolf (Dec 20, 2006)

Kisame said:


> the other 5% are retards.



Sir Isaac Newton was a virgin.


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 20, 2006)

Gray Wolf said:


> Sir Isaac Newton was a virgin.



He also believed in alchemy.


----------



## Cuddles the Dark (Dec 20, 2006)

Call me ignorant, but I was expecting the percentage to be around 75%.
...On another note, could you please stop calling the last 5% retards or losers; I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but I'm personally taking as much offense to that as a non-virgin taking offense to the word whore.

Theres nothing wrong with being a virgin, especially if you have no desire for sex.


----------



## Bro Tai Jr. (Dec 20, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> Fuckin retard I AM AMERICAN. I am just an american with patience and restraint. I am the master of myself. Unlike many of you inbred fools. Read the rest of my post up above, not just that one little bit >.>



Just because you can't get any sex doesn't mean that 95% of Americans are inbred, it would actually mean you and that other 5% are inbred.


----------



## TenguNova (Dec 20, 2006)

Cuddles the Dark said:


> Call me ignorant, but I was expecting the percentage to be around 75%.
> ...On another note, could you please stop calling the last 5% retards or losers; I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but I'm personally taking as much offense to that as a non-virgin taking offense to the word whore.
> 
> Theres nothing wrong with being a virgin, especially if you have no desire for sex.



I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Blargal (Dec 20, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> I always knew we were a nation of whores.. I hope more learn this and realize how much of a whore they are... fucking idiots who can't control themselves.


I'm suprised you haven't copied and pasted the bible in this thread,  they are having sex it didn't say they are having babies and btw you use whore out of context so much so stop using it until you actually know what it means.





> no, casual sex is no longer necessary for our species' survival. Considering the survivability of our species' children, it's QUITE fine.


WRONG simply because you associate sex with only the intent of producing children, casual sex is for pleasure not reproduction if you wanted survival of the species then they would be popping babies out like no tommorow, which is not the case. Like that in history sex is done not because you make up "teens being pressured" but because its what people want and what they want to do, they do it and love it.



> It's a bond that two share in love and that they share (or should) with ONLY each other. Sharing with another cheapens the bonds and, in turn, makes you a whore


WRONG... AGAIN... People rarely viewed sex as a bond between two poeple (PRE-CHRISTIAN ERAS). Then christians came and managed to brainwash the masses into thinking its a horrid act to commit by doing what what comes natural and was desired.

If it is between a married couple then I would count it as a different kind such as being romantic sex for the sole purpose of strengthing a relationship and this does not and will never apply to only married couples (as you said aswell), BUT imo romantic sex serves the same purpose, pleasure for loyalty, if it wasn't pleasurable then would people in "love" still do it... no chance in hell. 

Sex before marriage with people you don't particularlly care about, doesn't cheapen anything there are many, COUNTLESS number of married couples who love each other even tho they had sex before they were married with people that they didn't care about, sorry bible belt will not work here.



> We no longer need to get a woman pregnant everytime they can become pregnant as we don't need to pump out babies that much to have the species survive.


Heres where I'd like to put you down, the poll is about sex not pregnancy so kindly stfu with that stupid speech.



> Part of being human is to realize and to control instincts.


Who said it was instinct, an act of pleasure will be repeated this isn't bible mom and dads running around "I WANT CHILDREN LETS MARRY AND CONSENT TO EACH OTHER" no its about "Lets have fun" which is perfectly reasonable as quite frankly it doesn't do a damn thing. Sex never hurt anyone unless of course you count rape as consented sex which I wouldn't be suprised if you did.



> With my ex


My, my now this is intresting, call me Vicisious Blargal Ill see it from your point of view.

So your a bastard and a tool for leaving a person you "loved" and of course how many woman can you fall in "love" with, two, three, a dozen, a hundred, where do you draw the line... What are your standards for love anyway? "HEY SHE LOOKS HOT IM IN LOVE!" ... mm no or she left you and now shes a "whore" because she didn't apparantly love you that much to stay around... well theres INSTINCT for you, move onto the better options or in this case better people for relationships.

Ok maybe I was too harsh now I'm back to Regular Blargal, so what leads you to this conclusion "Vicious-CHan", is this your own opinion made by your own judgement by your own thoughts or is this something you believe because someone made the decision for you? Do not try to bring religion or crazy 0 tolerance morals into this thread or you will lose. (Even tho Its obvious you have an fanatical religion background)


----------



## Tsuuga (Dec 20, 2006)

Iria said:


> In my sex-ed class they showed us a wrapped present and said "This is your virginity and once you open it IT WILL NEVER BE WRAPPED AGAIN!!" Then they proceeded to tear open the package violently and to shreds.
> 
> That was the extent of our sexual education.
> 
> Half the class was pregnant by Junior Year.



Is this an all-girls school or did nearly all the girls get pregnant?



Vicious-chan said:


> Fuckin retard I AM AMERICAN. I am just an american with patience and restraint. I am the master of myself.



And yet you sound like you have a temper.


----------



## tangoOFDOOM (Dec 21, 2006)

*raises hand* ONE OF THEM IS ME!!! ^^


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Blargal said:


> My, my now this is intresting, call me Vicisious Blargal Ill see it from your point of view.
> 
> So your a bastard and a tool for leaving a person you "loved" and of course how many woman can you fall in "love" with, two, three, a dozen, a hundred, where do you draw the line... What are your standards for love anyway? "HEY SHE LOOKS HOT IM IN LOVE!" ... mm no or she left you and now shes a "whore" because she didn't apparantly love you that much to stay around... well theres INSTINCT for you, move onto the better options or in this case better people for relationships.



you have made one stupid ass assumption assuming _I_ ended the relationship, she did. And only because she's all "relationships suck". This comes from friends around her that have fucked up her views on a good relationship, her parents situation and parenting coming into play, as well as other things. Don't ASSUME you know a damn about me and my personal life. I don't give a DAMN about apperances, as I know they are all fleeting and will all degrade with time. And no, she's not a whore at all.. I never said she was, she isn't a whore at all, she hasn't been with anyone since we broke up, don't assume a damn. She moved on to NO ONE because she doesn't want love or relationships. Believe me, we are still close friends, I think I'd know if she was with someone already.

as for my religious background? far from it, take a look at the "if you met god" thread or any religious thread, I hate religion and, if there even was a God, I'd be more than happy to beat him/her down to hell and back up again. My views are from something far different. You all assume far too much, your assumptions make you look foolish. You assume I'm religious, I am not, you assume I care about appearances, I do not, you assume far more than you should. You assume, and you look like an idiot, assumptions are something you should never make so casually as you have.

(yes I know there's more to your post, but right now I'm too tired to deal with it, just that part I figured needs a reply now so maybe you'll stfu about shit you don't know about and stop assuming so wildly shit you don't know. If you've been dumped cause they moved onto someone else right away, too bad for you, not all of us are so easily cast aside). I will say this.. far too many of you blame far too much on the christians. Study history, you'll find that they were not the first. Romans and Greeks might have been rather active in such things, but there were others who preached abstinence until marriage BEFORE Christianity.

Also, look at EVERYONE in this thread who's all "zomg sex with so many is great" they are calling everyone who doesn't, losers. You're drilling into people's heads that anyone who doesn't have sex and with more than one is a loser.. good job.. that's the kinda stuff that increases peer pressure to have sex. It comes from school, friends, family (some yes), TV, and even the internet. You're all adding to the pressure. Those who have premarital sex, to be honest, doesn't bother me, those who share themselves with so many, share themselves with anyone just because they are there or how they look, share for such shallow reasons, are, by definition, whores. I never said it was bad, though I might think it is, but as I've quoted.. there is nothing bad or good, thinking makes it so. So many also agree, as society has instilled into us, that being a whore is bad, so many realize that they are whores and are insulted and perhaps even disgusted at this self realization. If not, why get so pissed off? It's just a word, just something to describe things, simple as that. You think it's bad? don't be a whore anymore then.


----------



## Sengoku (Dec 21, 2006)

not surprised. i would be shocked if it was 30% lol.


----------



## Ssj3_Goku (Dec 21, 2006)

that 5 % will proabably be the only ones who do not have aids! 

i said that because someone in this thread said something about sleeping around as a good thing and tried to stick up for it.. You know sex is cool and all but if you found out your women slept with 300 other guys then you would be proabably in the doctors office the next day for a checkup


----------



## Sengoku (Dec 21, 2006)

very scary thought =\


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> you have made one stupid ass assumption assuming _I_ ended the relationship, she did. And only because she's all "relationships suck". This comes from friends around her that have fucked up her views on a good relationship, her parents situation and parenting coming into play, as well as other things. Don't ASSUME you know a damn about me and my personal life. I don't give a DAMN about apperances, as I know they are all fleeting and will all degrade with time. And no, she's not a whore at all.. I never said she was, she isn't a whore at all, she hasn't been with anyone since we broke up, don't assume a damn. She moved on to NO ONE because she doesn't want love or relationships. Believe me, we are still close friends, I think I'd know if she was with someone already.
> 
> as for my religious background? far from it, take a look at the "if you met god" thread or any religious thread, I hate religion and, if there even was a God, I'd be more than happy to beat him/her down to hell and back up again. My views are from something far different. You all assume far too much, your assumptions make you look foolish. You assume I'm religious, I am not, you assume I care about appearances, I do not, you assume far more than you should. You assume, and you look like an idiot, assumptions are something you should never make so casually as you have.
> 
> ...



Oi! I did not post that, Blargal did. If you're going to have a tirade against someone, make sure you're quoting the right person.  Jesus...

Also you're making the presumption that people who have sex before they're married are promiscuous. It doesn't work like that. People who have sex with their fiancé(e)s are counted as having premarital sex. Even if you have sex with only one or two people with whom you're having long-term, meaningful relationships, is counted as pre-marital sex. People who never get married, but have life-partners are counted as also having premarital sex.

Don't go making sweeping judgements like that and accusing people who have sex lives of promiscuity. Not everyone is a 'whore'. Not everyone wants to get married. Stop dictating your morals as superior when clearly, as your aggressive attitude shows, your morals (and manners) aren't much better than anyone elses.

No one here has been claiming casual sex with multiple partners is great. That's your own invention.


----------



## Yuna (Dec 21, 2006)

I'm surprised the number is as high as 5%. To all of the morons who are calling people whores:
Do *you* intend to stay celibate until you get married?!


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Amaretti said:


> Oi! I did not post that, Blargal did. If you're going to have a tirade against someone, make sure you're quoting the right person.  Jesus...
> 
> Also you're making the presumption that people who have sex before they're married are promiscuous. It doesn't work like that. People who have sex with their fiancé(e)s are counted as having premarital sex. Even if you have sex with only one or two people with whom you're having long-term, meaningful relationships, is counted as pre-marital sex. People who never get married, but have life-partners are counted as also having premarital sex.
> 
> ...



wow, that's wierd, I hit quote for his post, I don't know why your name was put there.. 

anyways, you can't deny that (at least in our society) it's become normal and accepted and even, somewhat, encouraged to have sex. I can't remember a day where there wasn't a talk about sex in my class. I can't remember a TV channel where there wasn't some sort of sexual message being put across (well, I guess Cartoon Network during the day and the Science Channel, Discovery, etc when they aren't talking about sex). It isn't an assumption because I have seen first hand experience how most are about sex. How they don't necessarily care who it's with, how some girls have been instilled to believe that most guys only want sex, and most guys have been driven to believe that's all they should want. There are those that want a real relationship and do have sex with one or two, understandable, by definition, they aren't whores. But, I bet if a new study was done to ask how many they've had sex with by the age 30 or so, you'll find many to have done it with probably over 20 or near 30 people or more. My brother is one, and it disgusts me. He's whored himself, had one night stands, and I think he told me he's been with 28 different women since his first girlfriend. He is, by definition, a whore. But I don't hate them, I've got another friend who's like that, Alex, nice guy over all. I just think people could use more self control. 

People (some) might not be claiming that casual sex with people is great but they certainly are all making the claims that if you don't have sex you're a loser, you can't get any, you can't blah blah blah. They've had it drilled into their heads by society that this is the case. They are a part of peer pressure and I'm sure they don't even realize it.

Anyways, sorry about the quote thing, I definitely quoted him when I was writing it yesterday, dunno why it did that.


----------



## Rise Against713 (Dec 21, 2006)

i'm part of the 5%.


----------



## Yuna (Dec 21, 2006)

Rise Against713 said:


> i'm part of the 5%.


You're 14. Unless you married illegaly, it's still possible for you to have premarital sex.


----------



## Blargal (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> you have made one stupid ass assumption assuming _I_ ended the relationship, she did. And only because she's all "relationships suck". This comes from friends around her that have fucked up her views on a good relationship, her parents situation and parenting coming into play, as well as other things. Don't ASSUME you know a damn about me and my personal life.


Probably a lesbian which is fine too, but yet you still confuse casual sex with producing children instead of desire for pleasure, you have yet to give any exmaple of why you think having sex before being married is wrong and apparantly COMPLETLY UNHEARD OF? Society of sex and people are appauled for a reason they do not know themselves.



> as for my religious background? far from it, take a look at the "if you met god" thread or any religious thread, I hate religion and, if there even was a God, I'd be more than happy to beat him/her down to hell and back up again. My views are from something far different. You all assume far too much, your assumptions make you look foolish. You assume I'm religious, I am not, you assume I care about appearances, I do not, you assume far more than you should. You assume, and you look like an idiot, assumptions are something you should never make so casually as you have.


To think I never thought someone could come up with such strict and completly flawed views of premarital sex on their own. So then so whats your point of completly swearing off sex till marriage (Or with someone you "love") and screaming at others to do the same and cursing others that haven't done so... 



> Romans and Greeks might have been rather active in such things, but there were others who preached abstinence until marriage BEFORE Christianity.


(BC) Romans were a society of sex while marriage did happen and some did believe in one woman it was rare. Greeks I don't know and don't particularlly care.



> Also, look at EVERYONE in this thread who's all "zomg sex with so many is great" they are calling everyone who doesn't, losers. You're drilling into people's heads that anyone who doesn't have sex and with more than one is a loser.. good job.. that's the kinda stuff that increases peer pressure to have sex.


Hypocracy at its best, you call everyone a whore who doesn't follow your own mindset and scream and curse at everyone who doesn't agree with you. Peer pressure o please, some people saying that 5% are losers isn't that, the way I see it, for the most part as a "You're missing out!" instead of trying to force a mind set on someone else. 

"Hey the party was great you should come next time" Is not peer pressure, peer pressure is 

"YOU ARE WHORES IF YOU HAVE PRE MARITAL SEX, WHORES ALL OF YOU, YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND TRUE LOVE, YOU WON'T HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP, WHORES, WHORES, DON'T HAVE PRE-MARITAL SEX, RETARD WHORES (Gosh this looks familiar!)"

Unless of course you would like to change the defination of peer pressure into following a desire which would only make you look more foolish than you have already protrayed yourself.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 21, 2006)

> Half the class was pregnant by Junior Year.



The other half were the fathers....

lol just spotted this:


> YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND TRUE LOVE



What's he on?


----------



## Century (Dec 21, 2006)

I'm part of the percent hehehe


----------



## Soulbadguy (Dec 21, 2006)

in newyork that most likely 99%.but i guess this is just some big change in human lifestyle that happen every 100s years


----------



## That NOS Guy (Dec 21, 2006)

A quick nitpick here



			
				BLARGAL said:
			
		

> WRONG... AGAIN... People rarely viewed sex as a bond between two poeple (PRE-CHRISTIAN ERAS). Then christians came and managed to brainwash the masses into thinking its a horrid act to commit by doing what what comes natural and was desired.



Excuse me if I'm getting this wrong here, but where do you think Christianity got it's roots? (hint: it begins with a "J") That and multiple other cultures had exclusive marriage systems so your statement is extremely overreaching. After all, that's how marriage got it's start: forming a literal legal bond between two people cemented by sex and the resulting children for tribal political purposes.

If you want to say Christianity is a primary motivator for negative views on sex in the current era, go nuts, just don't make claims about antiquity like that.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Blargal said:


> Probably a lesbian which is fine too, but yet you still confuse casual sex with producing children instead of desire for pleasure, you have yet to give any exmaple of why you think having sex before being married is wrong and apparantly COMPLETLY UNHEARD OF? Society of sex and people are appauled for a reason they do not know themselves.



again, good job making an assumption she's a lesbian, when she isn't. Good job making the assumption that I say marriage before sex is wrong, I didn't say that, I say that casual sex is wrong. Learn the difference, sex before marriage doesn't bother me if it's out of love  and not shared so casually with others. It cheapens it, if you enjoy having things cheapened, good for you. If you like that no one puts thought into anything they get you, or even care to it, good for you. 




Blargal said:


> To think I never thought someone could come up with such strict and completly flawed views of premarital sex on their own. So then so whats your point of completly swearing off sex till marriage (Or with someone you "love") and screaming at others to do the same and cursing others that haven't done so...



What man is a man that wouldn't try to change the world for the better? Hmm? I don't scream and curse, large text =/= screaming to me it means "pay attention to this at the very least." There's no emotional attachment to it as screaming necessarily does. I came up with my view because I thought (zomg someone thinking on their own!) I'd prefer to share that with as few as I can, with only 1, if I can. I know people make mistakes, I'm no fool to that. But you see, if you give things time, you give things DEEP THOUGHT (see what I did there? pointing something out) you will more likely not make a mistake, sure a chance might still happen, but the more time you give something, the more thought you put into it, the less likely you are to make a mistake. How this is not logical to people, I can not understand, then again, I find most people don't give any thought to anything really.





Blargal said:


> (BC) Romans were a society of sex while marriage did happen and some did believe in one woman it was rare. Greeks I don't know and don't particularlly care.



True, Romans indulged themselves, but they also only really indulged themselves on slaves, they didn't really see them so much as people but as devices to be used for enjoyment much as you might use a computer or a gaming system. When it came to Roman with another Roman they didn't indulge quite as much and they tried really hard for a huge family values. You would often find 3 generations of a family living together. Granted, sometimes higher in society of roman society they would have arranged marriages with their daughter to another's family to gain more political favor, but that is not all of Roman society. Whenever you hear of "Roman orgies" they weren't always talking of sexual, and very rarely were though. Orgies of food and partying and the likes. If anything, the greeks were the more sexual culture, and also far more tolerant of any kind of sexual choice. Men with little boys, with little girls, women with women, men with men, women with men, it didn't matter to them. (Interesting fact, did you know if a woman was raped in Rome the law was that the man was forced to marry the woman? wanna know why? cause the only ones they could get to were the poor and "less attractive" being they couldn't necessarily keep clean, the rich had bodyguards, perhaps up to 30 bodyguards).




Blargal said:


> Hypocracy at its best, you call everyone a whore who doesn't follow your own mindset and scream and curse at everyone who doesn't agree with you. Peer pressure o please, some people saying that 5% are losers isn't that, the way I see it, for the most part as a "You're missing out!" instead of trying to force a mind set on someone else.
> 
> "Hey the party was great you should come next time" Is not peer pressure, peer pressure is
> 
> ...



I called people whores that have sex with many partners, that is the definition, simple as that. It's not hypocrisy, it's definition. I do not consider those who've had sex with only one person or two people during a loving relationship whores, I follow the definition. Those who have casual sex, those who have sex with multiple partners, those who give themselves freely without thought. Would you not agree those are what whores are? Would you not agree that most do this.. look at college life, if you've even been, look at the drunken frat parties.. people make so many mistakes KNOWING (key here) that it is a mistake, that there could be dire consequences, and they don't even dwell on it until it's too late.. and we wonder why Teen pregnancies are increasing? Pfft

And obviously you have no idea WHAT peer pressure is. There are subtle peer pressures and there are direct open peer pressures. If you can't figure out the two, too bad for you.


----------



## DragonHeart52 (Dec 21, 2006)

The Betrayer said:


> This Is kind of shocking if you think about It.



Rule number one:  No survey should be taken as an absolute truth extended to the population as a whole. _ Of the people who responded to their survey_, 95% had premarital sex.  That doesn't say how the individuals were chosen, how they were interviewed, where they lived, their educational and religious background, etc.

A good introductory course in applied statistics should help keep people from jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Rose&Thorns (Dec 21, 2006)

wow I didnt think it was this high


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> I called people whores that have sex with many partners, that is the definition, simple as that. It's not hypocrisy, it's definition.



Case in point...  I don't think that word means what you think it means, because that is _not_ the definition of a whore.

M-W.com:

1 : a *woman *who engages in sexual acts for *money *; a *PROSTITUTE*

So not only is it offensive to refer to non-virgins as whores (when you call them 'whores', it seems like you're singling out women, even if that is not your intention), it's also technically incorrect.



> (Interesting fact, did you know if a woman was raped in Rome the law was that the man was forced to marry the woman? wanna know why? cause the only ones they could get to were the poor and "less attractive" being they couldn't necessarily keep clean, the rich had bodyguards, perhaps up to 30 bodyguards).



It was more to do with the fact that women who were not virgins were more difficult to marry off, thus it was the rapist's obligation to marry his victim because he'd effectively 'ruined' her chances of marriage (since, back then, that was all women were good for). "You broke it, you bought it," was the attitude at the time. I don't know where you've got the idea that only ugly women who can't get dates are the only ones who ever got raped.



> Those who have casual sex, those who have sex with multiple partners, those who give themselves freely without thought. Would you not agree those are what whores are?



Again, you've really taken hold of the wrong end of the stick. Casual sex =/= premarital sex.

% of America that has premarital sex: 90



Casual sex is an entirely different statistic because it's an entirely different matter. Stop assuming that premarital sex involves promiscuity.  You've merely jumped to the conclusion that people are 'whores' because they have premarital sex, when there is nothing about this survey that has revealed anything about the number of sexual partners these people have had. The only one who is talking about having multiple partners and casual flings is you. It's a separate issue that you have brought up that bears no relation to the survey, and you need to drop it.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Amaretti said:


> Case in point...  I don't think that word means what you think it means, because that is _not_ the definition of a whore.
> 
> M-W.com:
> 
> ...



meanings of words change and get additions to it over time. Today, most would agree a whore (or a slut) are women (or men) who have engaged in sexual acts with many partners, especially in a short deal of time. The reason english is not a dead language is that it is still a changing language. Where as Latin is a dead language (even though still spoken in places) because it has not changed in over 1000 years.





Amaretti said:


> It was more to do with the fact that women who were not virgins were more difficult to marry off, thus it was the rapist's obligation to marry his victim because he'd effectively 'ruined' her chances of marriage (since, back then, that was all women were good for). "You broke it, you bought it," was the attitude at the time. I don't know where you've got the idea that only ugly women who can't get dates are the only ones who ever got raped.



that was one reason ya, but they could (if it was still a rich and/or powerful family) marry off their daughter. But those who were poor were easier targets, after all, the rich had many many bodyguards.





Amaretti said:


> Again, you've really taken hold of the wrong end of the stick. Casual sex =/= premarital sex.
> 
> % of America that has premarital sex: 90
> 
> ...



Perhaps, but I find that, from first hand experience, there are far far more that have casual sex than the statistics seem to show. And in more than just my state. I've traveled in many places of the US and the attitudes and such have been the same. Casual sex is coming more and more common and I would go so far as to blame TV, movies, internet. That number seems awfully incorrect considering what I've seen and hear first hand. (one reason I don't enjoy frat parties or high school parties as they are most of the time getting drunk and having sex...)


----------



## CoonDawg (Dec 21, 2006)

Hmm...

Interesting. It's nice to know traditional values play no role in this world anymore...

I'm going to send any daughters I have to convents.


----------



## Bro Tai Jr. (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> Perhaps, but I find that, from first hand experience, there are far far more that have casual sex than the statistics seem to show. And in more than just my state. I've traveled in many places of the US and the attitudes and such have been the same. Casual sex is coming more and more common and I would go so far as to blame TV, movies, internet. That number seems awfully incorrect considering what I've seen and hear first hand. (one reason I don't enjoy frat parties or high school parties as they are most of the time getting drunk and having sex...)



Wah hoa hoo, lets get this guy a medal, because he is obviously the coolest guy around and has to beat the gays and whores off him with his own iron dick, because according to him he knows all of the percentage AND more of women and men that have had casual sex. Not to mention the fact that he has had first hand experience with penis and vagina. I say we all listen to what he says and not the experts.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Bro Tai Jr. said:


> Wah hoa hoo, lets get this guy a medal, because he is obviously the coolest guy around and has to beat the gays and whores off him with his own iron dick, because according to him he knows all of the percentage AND more of women and men that have had casual sex. Not to mention the fact that he has had first hand experience with penis and vagina. I say we all listen to what he says and not the experts.



See, you act like an ass, I could act like one back, great putting words in my mouth though. I said, from personal experience. I never said that was the statistics of the entire united states but I do draw the conclusion that, since it seems that way from here in New York State down to Florida over to Washington state down to California over to Washington DC to Ohio to Kansas, all over. I've been to all those states and the results have been the same from what I've seen. Granted, this was mostly around the age group from 15 to 25ish. But that's quite a lot. You don't draw conclusions based off your own experiences? I hardly would believe that. And the experts are probably wrong themselves. There's a problem with statistical studies.. a great problem. When they are alone they might lie due to embarrassment. When they are in a group they might lie to be part of the group. If you take any psychology class you'll find that there is a problem with statistics that people will more often lie than tell the truth because they don't want to be seen as bad and, in return, an outcast of society.


----------



## Bro Tai Jr. (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> See, you act like an ass, I could act like one back, great putting words in my mouth though. I said, from personal experience. I never said that was the statistics of the entire united states but I do draw the conclusion that, since it seems that way from here in New York State down to Florida over to Washington state down to California over to Washington DC to Ohio to Kansas, all over. I've been to all those states and the results have been the same from what I've seen. Granted, this was mostly around the age group from 15 to 25ish. But that's quite a lot. You don't draw conclusions based off your own experiences? I hardly would believe that. And the experts are probably wrong themselves. There's a problem with statistical studies.. a great problem. When they are alone they might lie due to embarrassment. When they are in a group they might lie to be part of the group. If you take any psychology class you'll find that there is a problem with statistics that people will more often lie than tell the truth because they don't want to be seen as bad and, in return, an outcast of society.



You do know that most surveys are done anonymously, right?


----------



## RoyalCreed (Dec 21, 2006)

if they didnt want this to happen they wouldnt have made it a law tht u can have sex at 18 marrid or not


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Bro Tai Jr. said:


> You do know that most surveys are done anonymously, right?



you do know that doesn't make them correct, right? People often will, even if anonymously, put the answer they think the survey givers want or society wants to see even if that's not the actual answer. Surveys aren't bad, but they aren't too great either. I choose first hand knowledge more.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 21, 2006)

> Also, look at EVERYONE in this thread who's all "zomg sex with so many is great" they are calling everyone who doesn't, losers. You're drilling into people's heads that anyone who doesn't have sex and with more than one is a loser.. good job..



ok, first of all this is just wrong.  In fact, there is one person in this thread who said casual sex COULD be ok.  that was me.  as far as calling virgins losers, well I consider myself a pretty cool guy.  And, gasp, I'm a virgin.

To the people who don't like casual sex EVER, look at my example.  I simply said it could be ok, and shouldn't always be condemend.  I stand by this.  Yes, there are some times when I will say it might not be right, but I will look at the situation first, because you can't simply group these together.

Also Vicious-chan, why do you get to define whore?  If were not using the dictionary definition, I would say you have to include the fact that it includes the person being bad.  So, either your wrong, or you admit to being a hypocrit by implying that what they did was wrong and bad.  There isn't a way out of this one...

Also, in terms of the survey, I agree that there may be pressures on people.  And I live in MA, which is the most liberal state in the country.  I live in one of the most liberal towns there, and went to one of the most liberal high schools.  And I agree, there certainly is pressure.  Pressure to say no.  To stay a virgin.  That is the pressure society puts on us.  Since there answering anonymosly, there more likely to say they haven't had sex, IMO.  If anything, I would guess that they are probably offset by the liars, but I would say it could easily be higher!

And, assuming it is somewhere between 90 and 100, of course not 100, but I am giving a +/= 5%, I still see nothing wrong with that.  Where do you obtain the right to say that you get to define what sex is supposed to mean.  You don't.  Its really that simple.

People get to decide what it means to them all by themselves.  I would hope that they stick to their principals.  But, whether or not that is sleeping with whoever they want, or staying a virgin, I simply hope they listen to themsevles, and not others.

In such a personal matter, its simply not right to force your opinion on someone else.


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> meanings of words change and get additions to it over time. Today, most would agree a whore (or a slut) are women (or men) who have engaged in sexual acts with many partners, especially in a short deal of time. The reason english is not a dead language is that it is still a changing language. Where as Latin is a dead language (even though still spoken in places) because it has not changed in over 1000 years.



The meaning of the word 'whore' has not changed at all. It still refers to prostitutes, and strictly to women. Your application of the word is _still_ incorrect, because people who have premarital sex are not automatically 'whores' by ANY definition. And as I have said repeatedly, premarital sex IS NOT the same as casual sex. You can be counted as having premarital sex, even if you've only given your fiancé a blowjob on the night before the wedding. Seriously, get it through your head that having sex before you are married does not make you promiscuous in any way. Having sex with multiple partners repeatedly is what makes you promiscous - and plenty of married people engage in this. You cannot - repeat: CANNOT - call people whores just because they don't want to wait till they're married to make love to the man/woman they love. It's out of line. 



> that was one reason ya, but they could (if it was still a rich and/or powerful family) marry off their daughter. But those who were poor were easier targets, after all, the rich had many many bodyguards.



*sigh* No. That law is based on Christian law from the bible. It is enforced because a women who has lost her virtue is considered unfit to be married. To give you an idea of how much virtue is valued - women who are found not to be virgins on their wedding night are to be stoned to death immediately. That is how screwed you are if your virginity is taken before you are married. THAT is why the law exists - to protect women from total ostracization, because having your rapist as a husband is better than the alternative. Women who cannot marry do not have many career options. Without a husband to provide for you, most women in that situation would wind up in prostitution.

The law was not, as you seem to think it was, designed to bag husbands for the poor, unclean and ugly who couldn't get one through the usual means. 

(Besides which, where is your source for this? As far as I know, Rome treated rape as a serious crime - one that was punished by death and/or confiscation of property/money. Rome is actually infamous for urging rape victims to commit suicide. Look at Lucretia for instance. Marrying your rapist is something ordained in the bible, but even after the christian take-over of Rome, I'm not entirely certain it was a commandment ever enforced by Roman law.)



> Perhaps, but I find that, from first hand experience, there are far far more that have casual sex than the statistics seem to show. And in more than just my state. I've traveled in many places of the US and the attitudes and such have been the same. Casual sex is coming more and more common and I would go so far as to blame TV, movies, internet. That number seems awfully incorrect considering what I've seen and hear first hand. (one reason I don't enjoy frat parties or high school parties as they are most of the time getting drunk and having sex...)



I'm sorry, but this is your _perception_ only. I'm going to have to go with the people who actually researched the issue rather than you who seems intent to demonise anyone and everyone who's ever had sex outside of marriage.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Dec 21, 2006)

and I'm one of the 5 percent who hasn't........


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Amaretti said:


> The meaning of the word 'whore' has not changed at all. It still refers to prostitutes, and strictly to women. Your application of the word is _still_ incorrect, because people who have premarital sex are not automatically 'whores' by ANY definition. And as I have said repeatedly, premarital sex IS NOT the same as casual sex. You can be counted as having premarital sex, even if you've only given your fianc? a blowjob on the night before the wedding. Seriously, get it through your head that having sex before you are married does not make you promiscuous in any way. Having sex with multiple partners repeatedly is what makes you promiscous - and plenty of married people engage in this. You cannot - repeat: CANNOT - call people whores just because they don't want to wait till they're married to make love to the man/woman they love. It's out of line.



wow, you're thick headed, when did I say people who have sex before marriage are whores? I say people who have sex with tons of people are whores. And that is what society (come on, don't you ever go to a comics club or talk to friends or anything? everyone seems to be in agreement of what a whore is) has determined a whore to be these days. Dictionary.com doesn't necessarily have all the definitions for words these days. Don't assume it does. It certainly is missing a lot of slang words, that I assure you, will eventually become part of the english dictionary. Lots of our words were slang from their "proper" form a long time ago. Hence, a changing language.




Amaretti said:


> *sigh* No. That law is based on Christian law from the bible. It is enforced because a women who has lost her virtue is considered unfit to be married. To give you an idea of how much virtue is valued - women who are found not to be virgins on their wedding night are to be stoned to death immediately. That is how screwed you are if your virginity is taken before you are married. THAT is why the law exists - to protect women from total ostracization, because having your rapist as a husband is better than the alternative. Women who cannot marry do not have many career options. Without a husband to provide for you, most women in that situation would wind up in prostitution.
> 
> The law was not, as you seem to think it was, designed to bag husbands for the poor, unclean and ugly who couldn't get one through the usual means.
> 
> (Besides which, where is your source for this? As far as I know, Rome treated rape as a serious crime - one that was punished by death and/or confiscation of property/money. Rome is actually infamous for urging rape victims to commit suicide. Look at Lucretia for instance. Marrying your rapist is something ordained in the bible, but even after the christian take-over of Rome, I'm not entirely certain it was a commandment ever enforced by Roman law.)



that law in Roman times was around long before christianity came into the world. (assuming that's the law you're talking about cause that's the law you quoted, which dealt with roman society about rape)

Not ONCE did I say it was so the "ugly" could "bag a husband" no.. it was, as another said, to force a man who did such to take care of the one they raped as well as punishing them into poverty. No woman in roman society would bring anything to a family in terms of items/money.

And my sources on this were my history teachers, my latin teacher, LATIN TEXT FROM ROMAN TIMES which I have translated and I have read translations from. I had taken a lot of Latin classes in my studies and I do know it pretty well.


----------



## Bro Tai Jr. (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> you do know that doesn't make them correct, right? People often will, even if anonymously, put the answer they think the survey givers want or society wants to see even if that's not the actual answer. Surveys aren't bad, but they aren't too great either. I choose first hand knowledge more.



Well, the people who put "No" even if it is a none public survey, are too stupid to be even counted as a vote.


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> wow, you're thick headed, when did I say people who have sex before marriage are whores?



Boy you have a short memory. It was the very first thing you said.



			
				 Your first post in this thread said:
			
		

> I always knew we were a nation of whores.. I hope more learn this and realize how much of a whore they are... fucking idiots who can't control themselves.



The survey was about the overwhelming number of people who have premarital sex. Your first response is to call everyone a whore. Note: no one at that point had even mentioned casual sex, or sex with 'tons of people' (least of all the survey). It was strictly a debate about sex before marriage, and then you blundered in, labelling everyone a whore as your reaction to the survey.

It's pretty damn clear that you associate premarital sex with whoring.



> I say people who have sex with tons of people are whores. And that is what society (come on, don't you ever go to a comics club or talk to friends or anything? everyone seems to be in agreement of what a whore is) has determined a whore to be these days.



I try not to say anything about people who have multiple sex partners, as it's really none of my business. But if I know an easy girl, she's just a 'slut'. No one has a particularly bad word for men who sleep around a lot (unfortunately). But 'whore' is not accurate here. It carries female connotations that in this instance do not fit. When you call someone a whore, people will assume you are talking about a woman. Using it in this instance makes it seem like you are singling out women especially. 




> Dictionary.com doesn't necessarily have all the definitions for words these days. Don't assume it does. It certainly is missing a lot of slang words, that I assure you, will eventually become part of the english dictionary. Lots of our words were slang from their "proper" form a long time ago. Hence, a changing language.



Oh, I get it! The dictionary is the one that's wrong, not you! Ah... that makes perfect sense!

It's funny how I've yet to find any dictionary that has your definition of 'whore' in it.




> that law in Roman times was around long before christianity came into the world. (assuming that's the law you're talking about cause that's the law you quoted, which dealt with roman society about rape)



Uh... no it wasn't. Pagan Rome had pretty clear attitudes to rape (having been founded on the rape of the Sabine women). Men who raped were either executed or their possessions confiscated, and rape victims often killed themselves (Lucretia - look her up). I can find no source anywhere that says anything about rapists marrying their victims. 



> Not ONCE did I say it was so the "ugly" could "bag a husband" no.. it was, as another said, to force a man who did such to take care of the one they raped as well as punishing them into poverty.



You said:



			
				what you said... said:
			
		

> if a woman was raped in Rome the law was that the man was forced to marry the woman? wanna know why? cause the only ones they could get to were the poor and "less attractive" being they couldn't necessarily keep clean,



This is simply incorrect. You're saying that poor women are the _only _ones vulnerable to rape. That's just ignorant. Even if what you're saying about the law is true, there would have been middle-class girls who were perfectly comfortable financially but without the protection the uber-rich had. What you're saying is that men have to marry the women they rape because the only women they can get their hands on are dirt poor. That makes _no_ sense at all.



> No woman in roman society would bring anything to a family in terms of items/money.



Uh... you do know what a dowry is, right? In Rome, it was customary for husbands to receive a dowry from his wife's family after the marriage.



> And my sources on this were my history teachers, my latin teacher, LATIN TEXT FROM ROMAN TIMES which I have translated and I have read translations from. I had taken a lot of Latin classes in my studies and I do know it pretty well.



Yes, yes, that's nice. I'd still like a source to read to verify your claims.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 21, 2006)

first of all, there is one source which almost supports your definition viscious, but its also completley run by users, so it can't be totally trusted.  Only people who know about contribute to it.  But, because I am fair, I will point it out.  the urban dictionary.  However, it always refers to the person as a female, so there goes your definition.  Also, there are many definitions, so you can't just use the one you want, you have to be prepared for all of them.  It would be one thing if you simply stood by what you said.  But you have backtracked, tried to make yourself look good, blatantly lied, and weren't even smart enough to cover your tracks by editing the stuff you lied about out.  Now its too late because your already quoted.  Sigh, what will we do with you.

I am not going to point out all the dumb things you said, but get to the point at hand.  Which is, why can't people who want to have pre-marital sex have it.  There is nothing wrong with it.

One more thing, you realize according to you your a whore too, since you weren't married to you GF.  Just wanted to point that one out


----------



## wanderround (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious,
You are saying you have amazing restraint and all but you are being a complete disrespective Asshole

You call everyone whores,sluts,Idiots and all.

People have their own Opinions and values and were giving you a fair go with your beliefs until you started to abuse anyone who has a different view. If you were politer to those who are "inferior" to you as you are making it seem then no one here would be argueing you. your view would be considered and respected as a opinion. 

But instead you insult others and try to justify it with your own "facts"  

Respect everyones opinions without insulting them and no one would be abusing you


----------



## Blargal (Dec 21, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> I called people whores that have sex with many partners, that is the definition, simple as that. It's not hypocrisy, it's definition. I do not consider those who've had sex with only one person or two people during a loving relationship whores, I follow the definition. Those who have casual sex, those who have sex with multiple partners, those who give themselves freely without thought. Would you not agree those are what whores are? Would you not agree that most do this.. look at college life, if you've even been, look at the drunken frat parties.. people make so many mistakes KNOWING (key here) that it is a mistake, that there could be dire consequences, and they don't even dwell on it until it's too late.. and we wonder why Teen pregnancies are increasing? Pfft


So then whos the one pumping out assumtions, thinking that 95% of the people are whores who have casual sex or just had sex before they were married, hypocracy yet again.

And yes teen pregnancies are up because people make such a fuss about sex and make it seem like everyone should fear it and be ashamed of it which imo would cause a majority of teens to not use protection as they would be embarassed about buying a condom or something of the sort.



> And obviously you have no idea WHAT peer pressure is. There are subtle peer pressures and there are direct open peer pressures. If you can't figure out the two, too bad for you.


Sorta how you use the word whore completly out of contex, if you refuse to accept the meaning of it then too bad for you.

I'd quote the rest but I am getting quite tired of this.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 21, 2006)

Amaretti said:


> Boy you have a short memory. It was the very first thing you said.
> 
> 
> The survey was about the overwhelming number of people who have premarital sex. Your first response is to call everyone a whore. Note: no one at that point had even mentioned casual sex, or sex with 'tons of people' (least of all the survey). It was strictly a debate about sex before marriage, and then you blundered in, labelling everyone a whore as your reaction to the survey.



yes, I came into this thread and didn't specify well enough. But I bet you that it is higher than 80% that have had sex with many many partners.





Amaretti said:


> I try not to say anything about people who have multiple sex partners, as it's really none of my business. But if I know an easy girl, she's just a 'slut'. No one has a particularly bad word for men who sleep around a lot (unfortunately). But 'whore' is not accurate here. It carries female connotations that in this instance do not fit. When you call someone a whore, people will assume you are talking about a woman. Using it in this instance makes it seem like you are singling out women especially.



obviously very few here realize that there are many words these days which are changing in meaning. Many times I've seen a man being called a whore (hence man-whore which most just shorten straight to whore) or a slut and most of the time they take it with pride. Obviously, so many here don't realize words have a change of meaning, fuck originally meant something different than "to have sex". As it is most commonly used for in our society. The dictionary (especially online, come the fuck on.. do you really consider the internet a completely credible source of information? I don't. Some sites MIGHT have a bit more credibility than another, but it's easy to hack sites, so there's no reason I care to take it for complete truth) is not always kept up to date, a lot are rather old, and most don't actually take in the meaning which society will use a word for quite a long time. If you can't figure that out... go find a word which is commonly used in society that has multiple meanings and find a non-online dictionary with the definition YOU know others have used. Whore, fuck, slut, ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) are all words that most dictionaries give a definition other than what society uses.





Amaretti said:


> Uh... no it wasn't. Pagan Rome had pretty clear attitudes to rape (having been founded on the rape of the Sabine women). Men who raped were either executed or their possessions confiscated, and rape victims often killed themselves (Lucretia - look her up). I can find no source anywhere that says anything about rapists marrying their victims.



lemme guess, you are only using internet searches, you haven't given any thought to translating actual latin texts of roman times, and you haven't consulted any historian, eh? You search the internet for anything Roman and you're bound to get more websites than you'll really search through anyways.




Amaretti said:


> This is simply incorrect. You're saying that poor women are the _only _ones vulnerable to rape. That's just ignorant. Even if what you're saying about the law is true, there would have been middle-class girls who were perfectly comfortable financially but without the protection the uber-rich had. What you're saying is that men have to marry the women they rape because the only women they can get their hands on are dirt poor. That makes _no_ sense at all.



Middle-class women were also rarely raped.. there really wasn't much of a middle class in Roman times, not like our society where the majority is middle class. There were some but they were able to buy at least one bodyguard or lived in the city where there were plenty of Roman guards. There were far more poor and even more slaves in Rome's society during the Roman Empire.




Amaretti said:


> Uh... you do know what a dowry is, right? In Rome, it was customary for husbands to receive a dowry from his wife's family after the marriage.



originally, no, they might, if anything got a gift from the family of the daughter but that was it. The daughter, herself, held no wealth or power or any real possessions. It was all in the name of the Husband, Father, Brother, or Son. Rarely (if ever) in the name of the woman.



sj2k said:


> One more thing, you realize according to you your a whore too, since you weren't married to you GF.  Just wanted to point that one out



How? I didn't do anything with her other than sleeping (real sleeping), kissing, and just going out having fun at movies and whatnot. We didn't have sex. For her though, it was religious, she wants to wait for marriage, so if she wants that, I didn't mind waiting. I said, SEVERAL TiMES in this thread that I don't really care too much about waiting until marriage, more about people who give themselves so freely to others and who share sex with many many people. They are whores, and yes, that term has started to become towards men. Granted most will say "Man-whore" but most I've seen just straight up will call another guy a whore (usually jokingly) and the man will often take it as a compliment. My own friend, Alex, I've called him a whore in joke when he's talked about going to a frat party and seeing such hot chicks he wanted to do and he would smile and laugh and be like "hell ya I am". I'm suprised others here have never seen or heard anyone else call a man a "whore". I've seen it more and more as time passes.



wanderround said:


> You call everyone whores,sluts,Idiots and all.



I haven't directly called anyone a whore or slut. Not directly. I call anyone who has had sex with many many partners a whore or a slut (those two terms are seemingly becoming more and more the same as time goes by). I seemed to have made one assumption which has become a problem for some of you, I take the meaning of the word as society tends to use it in common conversation, where as most here are just using dictionary.com's meaning, which is a slightly older meaning. I also seemed to have made the mistake of assuming you people understood that words have change in meaning, or a new meaning for the words, or that our language as a whole has been changing even today.

Those I've called idiots are most that seem to not know history as well as they are claiming and are now trying to justify themselves through the internet where they can't find something necessarily rather than actually reading latin texts or talking to a historian or a history teacher who might know. It seems that they assume the internet is completely right and infalible. The others I might have called an idiot are those that have made such idiot comments (aka, the guy who said "go back to africa" or whatnot).


----------



## sj2k (Dec 21, 2006)

> But I bet you that it is higher than 80% that have had sex with many many partners.



sources, ability to back it up?  you don't have any.  Pure guess work.  And, you continue to ignore my point.

Assuming we agree with you about the definition of whore, you still said it is not supposed to be negative unless we choose to take it that way.  You would be correct if it simply meant multiple sex partners.  However, if we are using society's meaning, it means someone looked down upon because of multiple sex partners.  The way society uses it, a whore is bad, and not ot be respected.  So, you are saying anyone who has multiple partners is bad.  Please address this one.

And your not bad simply for having multiple partners.  Is group sex automatically out?  that does make you abd?  because you want to have a good time?  Sleeping with more than 1 person is very diffrent from sleeping iwth hundreds, so don't try to say it is the same thing.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 22, 2006)

sj2k said:


> sources, ability to back it up?  you don't have any.  Pure guess work.  And, you continue to ignore my point.
> 
> Assuming we agree with you about the definition of whore, you still said it is not supposed to be negative unless we choose to take it that way.  You would be correct if it simply meant multiple sex partners.  However, if we are using society's meaning, it means someone looked down upon because of multiple sex partners.  The way society uses it, a whore is bad, and not ot be respected.  So, you are saying anyone who has multiple partners is bad.  Please address this one.
> 
> And your not bad simply for having multiple partners.  Is group sex automatically out?  that does make you abd?  because you want to have a good time?  Sleeping with more than 1 person is very diffrent from sleeping iwth hundreds, so don't try to say it is the same thing.




True, I am basing off the first hand knowledge only right now, not from a poll or statistics (though I bet some could be found given enough work). Basing it from the people I know personally and people I meet in college and have met in high school. Going to parties, hearing people talk about a party (ones I didn't feel like going to), or whatever. That might not be the majority but considering I've seen the same from many different parts of the country, I'd say it's a safe bet to make.

And, society doesn't always view whores as bad. Again, you call a man a whore or a slut, you'll find most (well in the 15 to 22ish age) will smile and be like "hell ya!" because society has driven people to believe (at least for males) that if they have sex with many they are winners and great and that it's cool to talk about it between guys, and then in turn, society has made women believe if they have sex with many guys they are whores and should be quiet about it for the most part. A woman who has sex with many is looked down upon where as a man will more often be praised. That's just the double standard which society has, one of many double standards. I am not a fan of double standards either. It should be either both are looked down upon or both are praised. I'm sure you can guess where I lean on that. 

Group sex is still multiple partners, just all at once. I'd consider it bad, yes, most would probably consider it a "whore-ish act". Especially those who are older or religious, true. But there's another double standard. A woman who has sex with many men at once would be called a whore but if a man had sex with two chicks at once he's praised, loved, respected, seen as "THE MAN!" and other crap like that. Would you not agree?


----------



## Trov (Dec 22, 2006)

I'm saddened by this. Isn't anyone waiting til marriage anymore? I am.  It seems like more and more people just want it and it's really sad. I know people are going to reply back to me saying "Why wait?" Or something similar, but why not wait? It's only until you find someone you care about and want to marry. I know some people are HEATHENS(haha, ok no, joking)  But still.


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 22, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> yes, I came into this thread and didn't specify well enough. But I bet you that it is higher than 80% that have had sex with many many partners.



a) Your _guess_ does not agree with actual research

b) _My_ personal experience tells me that the ones claiming to have lots of casual sex are exaggerating. Everyone exaggerates - even I do. If someone asks me how many girlfriends I've had, I'll say six, when in fact I've only had three. Most of the people I know have had between 1-6 relationships.

c) You came to this thread about premarital sex and didn't specify that when you called everyone a whore, you were talking about something completely different?

No, you presumed everyone who had premarital sex was a 'whore' because apparently. You were the one who made the connection between the subject of this thread and casual, meaningless sex. You were the on who brought it up, as if one is the same as the other.

Stop backtracking. If you're going to make offensive statements, at least have the guts to stand by them.




> Whore, fuck, slut, ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) are all words that most dictionaries give a definition other than what society uses.



Let's see what m-w says about these words...
_
Whore: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money

Fuck: to engage in coitus with -- sometimes used interjectionally with an object (as a personal or reflexive pronoun) to express anger, contempt, or disgust

Slut: a promiscuous woman (in Britain, it also means an untidy/unclean woman)

^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".): usually disparaging : ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".): a male homosexual
_

Those definitions seem to fit society's definition perfectly. But then, you seem to have a strange definition for 'whore' so it wouldn't surprise me if you had a different definition for the other words too. 



> lemme guess, you are only using internet searches, you haven't given any thought to translating actual latin texts of roman times, and you haven't consulted any historian, eh? You search the internet for anything Roman and you're bound to get more websites than you'll really search through anyways.



Then quote me some latin texts that support your claims. I'm asking for a source. Rather than get arrogant and patronising, give me a little evidence because I'm not going to take your word alone. If what you say is true, it will be recorded somewhere.



> I haven't directly called anyone a whore or slut. Not directly. I call anyone who has had sex with many many partners a whore or a slut (those two terms are seemingly becoming more and more the same as time goes by).



Again, another word aimed at women. You may be using it as a word to denote men and women, but that doesn't mean the rest of society is. In my area, 'knobbing' is a word to denote anything from kissing to screwing and it's been in popular use for many years, yet it isn't in the dictionary. Why? Because one area using a word in a certain way does not constitute a whole shift in the entire english language.



> I seemed to have made one assumption which has become a problem for some of you, I take the meaning of the word as society tends to use it in common conversation, where as most here are just using dictionary.com's meaning, which is a slightly older meaning. I also seemed to have made the mistake of assuming you people understood that words have change in meaning, or a new meaning for the words, or that our language as a whole has been changing even today.



The meaning of the words have not changed. You're the only one who seems to think it has. Society does not agree with you, because the definition that society follows is the one that goes in the dictionary, and like I said, I've yet to find a dictionary (even ones updated frequently) that supports your definition.



> Those I've called idiots are most that seem to not know history as well as they are claiming and are now trying to justify themselves through the internet where they can't find something necessarily rather than actually reading latin texts or talking to a historian or a history teacher who might know. It seems that they assume the internet is completely right and infalible. The others I might have called an idiot are those that have made such idiot comments (aka, the guy who said "go back to africa" or whatnot).



You mean me? I took history at GCSE level, and oddly enough, we didn't cover the customs and laws governing rape in ancient Rome. I'm not going to go out and consult a historian or buy a book simply for a stupid little debate on NF forums, so I'm going to use google. The internet is the biggest source of knowledge on the planet, and I found plenty of articles on the Roman laws. None of them supported your claims, so I quite politely asked for your source.

So because I took the time to investigate and only found evidence that was contrary to your claims, I'm an idiot? Grow up, Viscious. I asked politely what your source was and you responded arrogantly and patronisingly. Why should I believe anything you say when you're so quick to spew aggressive, mysogynistic language at people you don't know? You've not given me a source for your info. You've essentially said 'take my word for it' and given me nothing.

So until you provide something - a book, a website, an ancient latin tablet, ANYTHING - I'm not going to trust what you're telling me.


----------



## Yoofie (Dec 22, 2006)

I don't find this shocking. Everyone and their loser brother has had premarital sex.I don't see how having sex for the first time within marriage makes it any more special or sacred.

What could the 5% be?  Christians? Not sure, but they only tested 38,000 people, that's not a lot compared to the rest of the American population. Another thing, if they just tested people from the same area, then they're views on sex would be different then other's who live in different areas, or states, for that matter.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 22, 2006)

Amaretti said:


> Let's see what m-w says about these words...
> _
> Whore: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money
> 
> ...



^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) is short for ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) which meant a bundle of sticks (and still does). Slut used to mean just an unclean women, not refering anything to sexual referance (and there are some who would use it as such). The literal meaning of rape is basically "to steal forcefully" and yet in society today, rape is used to mostly account for a forced sexual experience. If you can not believe that words change, that words take on new meanings than you are a fool. Do you even watch TV or go to a comics club? Comedians, I've heard, from time to time will talk about a man being a whore. Again, you do know there's a term "man-whore" and most just shorten it down to calling a man a "whore". I'm very shocked you are refusing to believe that any word these days are not given multiple meanings and new meanings and that even new words are being created. Most slang words tend to eventually become integrated into the accepted dictionary. 




Amaretti said:


> Then quote me some latin texts that support your claims. I'm asking for a source. Rather than get arrogant and patronising, give me a little evidence because I'm not going to take your word alone. If what you say is true, it will be recorded somewhere.
> 
> So until you provide something - a book, a website, an ancient latin tablet, ANYTHING - I'm not going to trust what you're telling me.



you don't want to consult a historian or find a book for this debate, why do you ask me to do the same? Lemme guess.. the place you go to check for the information on rape was wiki? Do you know Wiki can be changed by anyone at any time? Not a good place for information. You don't care enough to check books and history teachers or anything other than the internet, I, too, don't really care to go dig through my books, through my notes, call up my history teachers and latin teacher and ask them about this. It's far more work than I care to put in just as you don't care to put in any work to find a non-internet resource for this subject. There's a reason most teachers won't allow internet resources if you are doing a paper, it's because anyone can make a site on the internet claiming something which might not be accurate.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Dec 22, 2006)

Err, vicious, speaking from a person who comes from a historical background not every website is wiki, and Amaretti isn't your run of the mill stupid shit. Trust him(her?).

Internet resources are viable most of the time actually, it's usually just not from a run of the mill .com or a site like wiki.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Dec 22, 2006)

I'll agree it's possible he's right and I could be wrong. I do remember translating text with account of rape and whatnot during my latin classes as well as other text (personally I enjoy translating epics far more), and perhaps there was a change of law. That seems quite likely, when it comes to Rome. That the law changed when the Christians came into the mainstream. I will have to do more research on this since it's peaked my curiousity.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Dec 22, 2006)

So you're making a claim based on supposition with no evidence in support? 

Remember Augustine's _Confessions_? That was done in 397 CE IIRC, and that talked of a rather loose society even while Christianity was the offical religion of the Empire. That suggests the contrary IMHO.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 22, 2006)

I would have to go with Am on this one.  Simply because I know that what Am says is always backed up by sources/facts.  And not just wiki.  So, unless you can show me that you are right more often than Am, of you can show a source, I see no reason not to trust Am.

Also, there is nothing wrong with group sex.  People who don't like premarital sex need to understand something.  For you sex and love may be the same thing.  But there not hte same thing to everyone, in fact I would say to most people.



> I'm saddened by this. Isn't anyone waiting til marriage anymore? I am. It seems like more and more people just want it and it's really sad. I know people are going to reply back to me saying "Why wait?" Or something similar, but why not wait? It's only until you find someone you care about and want to marry



lots of thing are a problem ehre.  First of all, if you want to wait, I say more power to you.  However, you shouldn't judge a person because they don't want to wait, or because they do.  Its there choice, if they come to it by themselves you should repsect that.

Also, you do realize people can go through life without getting married.  Or what if they are homosexual?  or if marriage is just no in there plans.  Should they be discriminated against for having a different view on marriage than you?

Also, just a random theory for you.  I read a study, don't have source going on memory here, about how nature actually intended it to be multiple men and one women.  If you look at the average time it takes female to orgasm, and the average time it takes men, according to the study it shows that multiple men should be there.  Now, I am not saying this is right, just throwing it out there.  Also, I don't think we should get on anyone for it, men or women, in either case.  You should simply do what you enjoy, that simple when it comes to sex.


----------



## Omolara (Dec 22, 2006)

It's not something that ANYONE can say that they are absolutely right about. If you believe in a certain way of life, hold fast to it and don't worry about how 95 percent *of the people surveyed *have had premarital sex. Such a number is not completely representative of the population as a whole anyway. And does it even matter? 

*To those of you who act like virginity is a bad thing/ immature*

Who are you to make a judgement on someone's chosen lifestyle? It's not your business. It's okay to ask why, but not to badger and ridicule. It's idiotic so just STOP IT. 

*To the other side:*

It is also their choice to make, not yours. If they are having sex before marriage, then so be it. Do you believe that it is wrong? Well, present a civilized argument for why you have chosen your lifestyle. Don't argue over it, discuss.

Personally, I do not believe in sex before marriage for both religious and non-religious reasons. I feel that your body, which has been given to you by God is a very precious gift to be given only to one whom you love and are committed to - and who is the same for you. It also reduces your risk of disease. I feel that too many people dismiss just how sacred the body is. It's the only one you have and you should be very particular about what you bring to it. The act should be one of love an action done to convey what words cannot, and not just to feel good. I also feel that one should also be ready for the responsibilities of sex. Since I take it so seriously and am morally convicted to do so, I have chosen to wait. 

I also believe in sex education in place of abstinence - only classes. People are going to do it anyway regardless of moral conviction, so they should be equipped with the tools to protect themselves. 

If we're going to discuss this topic, let's do it in an insightful way because right now, far too many of you are being very immature about it. So stop the name-calling and the belligerence!


----------



## Amaretti (Dec 22, 2006)

Vicious-chan said:


> ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) is short for ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) which meant a bundle of sticks (and still does). Slut used to mean just an unclean women, not refering anything to sexual referance (and there are some who would use it as such). The literal meaning of rape is basically "to steal forcefully" and yet in society today, rape is used to mostly account for a forced sexual experience. If you can not believe that words change, that words take on new meanings than you are a fool. Do you even watch TV or go to a comics club? Comedians, I've heard, from time to time will talk about a man being a whore. Again, you do know there's a term "man-whore" and most just shorten it down to calling a man a "whore". I'm very shocked you are refusing to believe that any word these days are not given multiple meanings and new meanings and that even new words are being created. Most slang words tend to eventually become integrated into the accepted dictionary.



You're not getting it, Viscious. No one's denying that words change and their meanings change and the dictionaries reflect the new usage. However, I've yet to find any that give the new definition you're using, and I've yet to find anyone (apart from you) who thinks 'whore' is a gender-neutral word referring to anyone engaging in indiscriminate sexual activities.

The reason why they add 'man' to the beginning of 'whore' should tip you off to the fact that 'whore' is not gender neutral, and if you shorten it back down to 'whore' it's back to being a word that refers to women.




> you don't want to consult a historian or find a book for this debate, why do you ask me to do the same? Lemme guess.. the place you go to check for the information on rape was wiki? Do you know Wiki can be changed by anyone at any time? Not a good place for information. You don't care enough to check books and history teachers or anything other than the internet, I, too, don't really care to go dig through my books, through my notes, call up my history teachers and latin teacher and ask them about this. It's far more work than I care to put in just as you don't care to put in any work to find a non-internet resource for this subject. There's a reason most teachers won't allow internet resources if you are doing a paper, it's because anyone can make a site on the internet claiming something which might not be accurate.



Yes, because Wiki is the only source of information on the net. 

Here's some articles I found:

"The Roman civil law punished rape with death and confiscation of goods (Cod. L. IX. tit. 13)."

"In Western history, ancient Roman law also recognized compensation as a means of resolving a rape dispute, but it took a more patriarchal approach: it found that the father (or other male authority) of the rape victim was owed damages because rape implied his inability to protect the woman (Dripps 1992, 1780-81)."



I haven't found any that support your claim that Rome followed mosaic law (or something similar). I don't rule out the possibility (that's why I'm asking you for a source, so that I might be enlightened, and there's no reason to get snotty about that). And if mosaic law (or similar) was enforced by Rome at any point during its history, it is exactly for one reason only - raped virgins are damaged goods and unmarriable - therefore the rapist must make ammends by providing marriage or a dowry large enough to tempt someone else to marry the 'ruined' girl. That's the whole reason for that kind of law. It has nothing to do with what you suggested - _"cause the only ones they could get to were the poor and "less attractive" being they couldn't necessarily keep clean, the rich had bodyguards." _That explanation doesn't actually explain anything, besides being utterly incorrect in that rape victims weren't always poor and 'unclean'. 

And I humbly apologise that I cannot read latin, only I've been busy over the last ten years learning English. If this grevious error makes me an idiot, as you said, I hope you can somehow find it in your heart to forgive my ignorance.


----------



## Shanksx (Dec 22, 2006)

the post should rather be called "5 percent of Americans DIDN'T have sex before marriage", cuz that's what's strange really


----------



## makeoutparadise (Dec 22, 2006)

how come I'm not part of that 95% ?T-T 
oh! thats right: Naruto, School, and the fact that I'm fat and have no life XD


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 23, 2006)

I do believe that sex is best saved for the person you are certain you want to spend the rest of your life with.  Sex can still be enjoyed between two loving people regardless of previous sexual activity, but the first time is different.  If you've never had sex, the initial feelings are far more intense than when you're more experienced, and while not entirely necessary, it is very nice to share those new feelings with that somebody special in your life rather than on a whim or with somebody you are casually dating - particularly if you feel that sex has to be part of the dating process.  It really doesn't have to be and saving it for the person you commit your life to is a wonderful thing.

Sex _is_ natural and enjoyable, but that doesn't mean you have to have sex with a person you are casually dating.  Casual sex opens you up to risks such as STDs and unintended pregnancy.  There is only one 100% protection against STDs and unintended pregnancy and that is not having sex at all.  There is no contraceptive that can guarantee your absolute safety against STDs and pregnancy.

For those who feel casually about pregnancy because abortions are available and you don't believe that a fetus is a life, consider that your casual lover may not agree.  Consider also that an abortion is a risky and invasive procedure - potential side effects include (among others) infertility, infection, uterine perforation, cervical incompetence in future pregnancies, hemorrhage, and even death.  There is also the risk of PAS (Post Abortion Syndrom) which is very similar to post traumatic stress disorder but includes nightmares relating to the abortion and intense feelings of guilt.

As for the study, I don't find it entirely accurate.  The study group was relatively small and incredibly unbalanced.  This group clearly is not an accurate representation of the American population.  After all, the group was 87% women.  Women do not make up 87% of the American population.  



Black Swan said:


> I live in nyc so the sex ed here is different from most of america, over here they know your gonna do it so they just teach you how to do it as safely as possible. But in other parts of the country I would say the majority of the country they teach abstinence and staying chaste and this really puts a dent into that poitical philosophy b/c whats the point of teaching abstinence to a bunch of students who are sexually active. I heared somewhere the average age of sexual activity in Indiana is 12 and in their school ciricculums they still teach abstinence .
> 
> What really shocks me is the number of older people who did it before getting married:amazed , I thought that old fashioned couples stayed chaste until marriage. Back in the day their was no rubbers so a little bit of fun led to babies.



I find this interesting considering statistical data from just a few years ago ranks New York with the 14th highest pregnancy rate in the nation among 15-19 year olds and one of the highest abortion rates among the same age group second only to New Jersey.  Indiana, on the other hand, is ranked 31 in pregnancies and 38 in abortions in the same age group.

North Dakota comes in with the fewest teen pregnancies in the nation ranking in at 50 and their state SOLs include only health related effects of sex - more closely along the lines of abstinence education.  There is no accounting for birth control lessons in the North Dakota SOLs.

Back in what day??  Condoms have been around since the 1600s and the type you are probably most familiar with have been around since the 1930s.  Oral contraceptives have been on the market since the 1960s.


There is far more to love than sex.  If you can't love somebody without having sex with them, then it's not really love.


----------



## Lain (Dec 23, 2006)

Couple things to point out that are universally true.

1) Premarital sex is not bad.
2) Preteen sex is bad
3) Having sex without proper sex education is bad.
4) Teen pregnancies are bad.
5) Religious values don't dictate sexual behavior for most Americans, which is good.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 23, 2006)

Anaiya, while STD's are another thing, in terms of pregnancy a birth controll method and condom are 99.9% effective.  Yes, abstinence is more effective, but then again if you never left your house you would have a lower chance of being run over by a car.  Also, your facts on abortion are a little misleading.  As long as you go to a good clinic, if it hasn't been bombed by psychos, the risks are very very low.  Also, there is always the morning after pill.  That is given out in many public schools, and I am very glad at that.

Also, the pregnancy stats you gave are also misleading.  They don't take into account the social circumstances.  You would have to look at a school in NY which only tought abstinence or a more comprehensive plan.  The states you gave are far more conservative, and therefore no matter what kind of education IMO are going to have lower rates.  Also, how can you say a comprehensive education is bad?  If it is truly an education it will point out that the only 100% effective way is to stay abstinent.  BUT if the teens choose not to stay that way, it will also educate them.


----------



## blueradio (Dec 23, 2006)

No shocker there.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 23, 2006)

> when you're so quick to spew aggressive, mysogynistic



I almost looked that word up...then realised I'd look stupid...

V-chan...if anyone called me a whore, I'd hit them. Twice. Once for the definition and insulting side of the word 'whore', and once for being called a woman (not that I have any problems with ladies...)



> Lemme guess.. the place you go to check for the information on rape was wiki? Do you know Wiki can be changed by anyone at any time? Not a good place for information. You don't care enough to check books and history teachers or anything other than the internet, I, too, don't really care to go dig through my books, through my notes, call up my history teachers and latin teacher and ask them about this. It's far more work than I care to put in just as you don't care to put in any work to find a non-internet resource for this subject. There's a reason most teachers won't allow internet resources if you are doing a paper, it's because anyone can make a site on the internet claiming something which might not be accurate.



So instead of saying where you get your own info...you slag off his/her probable source....



> Also, there is nothing wrong with group sex.



Hear, hear!



> And I humbly apologise that I cannot read latin, only I've been busy over the last ten years learning English. If this grevious error makes me an idiot, as you said, I hope you can somehow find it in your heart to forgive my ignorance.



rofl


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 23, 2006)

sj2k said:


> Anaiya, while STD's are another thing, in terms of pregnancy a birth controll method and condom are 99.9% effective.  Yes, abstinence is more effective, but then again if you never left your house you would have a lower chance of being run over by a car.  Also, your facts on abortion are a little misleading.  As long as you go to a good clinic, if it hasn't been bombed by psychos, the risks are very very low.  Also, there is always the morning after pill.  That is given out in many public schools, and I am very glad at that.



Let's consider that 99.9% effective rate for a moment.  I will use the US for an example.  The population of the US is estimated to be 300,489,797 in 2006 with 100,022,845 males and 100,413,484 females between the ages of 15 - 64.  If all of these sexually mature citizens use a birth control method and a condom, their combined sexual activity would result in roughly 100,413 women unitnentionally pregnant and 100,023 men unintentionally becoming fathers.  That is roughly 200,436 lives disrupted by an unwanted pregnancy (300,849 if you consider the baby regardless of outcome, as well).  People see 99.9% and think it can't happen to them because that 0.1% seems so small, but there's roughly 200,436 people in the US alone in 2006 who found out it could indeed happen to them and anybody having casual sex runs the risk of being one of those 200k people.  This isn't even taking into account the risks of STDs.

It is not reasonable to avoid all risks in life.  Never leaving your home to avoid getting hit by a car is not a reasonable expectation.  However, abstaining from sex when you are not prepared for the known possible consequences of that activity is absolutely reasonable.  We even have alternative methods of relieving our physical desires, making abstinence even more reasonable.  

As for the risks of abortion, I simply listed them without indicating levels of the risk involved.  I did not mislead and say that they were exorbitantly high.  The risks of abortion are about as risky as invasive surgery.  However, doctors are bound by law to discuss the risks of invasive surgery with a potential patient whereas it has been an uphill battle to enact similar laws regarding abortion.  Shouldn't a woman or couple seeking abortion be just as aware of the risks as a patient facing invasive surgery?  

The latest methods of determining the effective rate of ECs (emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill) show that they are only 75% - 89% effective and they are not well-tolerated with 50% of patients experiencing at least one common side effect (not necessarily a severe effect).  Considering the nature of the calculations required to determine the effective rates and the fact that abortion rates are stable or higher in areas where ECs are available compared to when the ECs were not available, I would hazard to believe that the effective rates are probably even lower than these estimates.



sj2k said:


> Also, the pregnancy stats you gave are also misleading.  They don't take into account the social circumstances.  You would have to look at a school in NY which only tought abstinence or a more comprehensive plan.  The states you gave are far more conservative, and therefore no matter what kind of education IMO are going to have lower rates.  Also, how can you say a comprehensive education is bad?  If it is truly an education it will point out that the only 100% effective way is to stay abstinent.  BUT if the teens choose not to stay that way, it will also educate them.



As for 
"how can you say a comprehensive education is bad?"

I didn't.  I never said any such thing.  

I have posted elsewhere that I believe parents should give their kids the whole truth - the effects/consequences of sex as well as safety precautions.  I'm not sure this is possible in public schools considering how those schools have already screwed up sex education no matter which state.  In my opinion kids need to learn first and foremost that sex is natural and is not taboo.  They absolutely need to know the consequences of sexual activity at different times in their lives and they need to know the benefits of waiting.  They also need to know about the safety measures they can take when they do have sex.  _That_ is comprehensive sex education.  

"We know you are going to have sex so here is a condom, some birth control pills, and an EC" is not comprehensive sex education.  "Don't ever have sex or you'll die of AIDS" is also not comprehensive sex education.

Black Swan's post seemed to indicate that 'contraception education' states were proving more successful than 'abstinence education' states.  According to the data I included a link to, that isn't the case and the teen pregnancy rates in 'contraception education' states continue to remain high.  There's plenty more data in that link than I posted (which is why I included the link so you all could learn more for yourselves).  That 'contraceptive education' is succeeding  in lowering teen pregnancies significantly is a common misconception.

I would like to mention one quick point, though.  You mentioned taking into consideration social circumstances.  Are you aware that taking each state as a whole, even considering the slums of NY, Indiana and the Dakotas have a substantially lower standard of living?  Many studies call the people in these states the "rural poor".  The data I posted are for these states as a whole and do not separate social circumstances out.

I want you all to be as educated as possible before you make that decision to have sex or not.  I'm not saying don't have sex, I'm just saying educate yourselves first and make an educated decision about it.  My information is a bit biased, not only because of my own opinion on the matter, but because I'm seeing a lot of the other side here and I don't need to say that part.  It's already been said and repeating it yet again is not necessary.


----------



## *** (Dec 23, 2006)

Peer pressure, hedonism.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 23, 2006)

I agree a comprehensive education is a good thing.  However, for a lot of the states you mentioned, in some areas, it is limited to "don't have sex or you will die of aids"  I mean the current administration, while not that extreme, basically wants it that way.

Also, when I said social circumstances I wasn't really thinking economically.  I realize I probably should have used a better word, but I was thinking of religion and their views on sex.  In a more liberal state, like NY, you will simply find more people accepting of it than in SD.  I am not saying there aren't both people everywhere, there are, but NY will be more liberal about it, that is why there known as a liberal state.

I am simply advocating, not that everyone should have sex,  but that people should be informed, and then we should respect their choice WHATEVER IT IS.  If it was the other way around, 95% of people didn't have sex, my opinion wouldn't change.  I want both people to be expected.  But, the majority of people (like v-chan, not you so much) who say wait also condemn those who don't, calling them whores etc.

Also, I will repeat my message, everywhere I go people shoot me down for it, and the majority of people ignore it (probably because they are sensible), but there is nothing wrong wiht group sex.  Its not dangerouse, or imoral, and it doesn't make you a whore.

EDIT:  Anaiya, I love the animaniacs, I remember when they were on, sigh, my childhood


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 23, 2006)

The best 'sex education' I got waas from older friends (that I still have a lot of)...plus, boarding a few nights a week from age 11....
By the time I got a decent "sex ed" from a teacher, I knew it all already...
(And I remember getting a booklet and loads of info on puberty when I was 14...thanks a bunch. lol schools suck at that stuff)


----------



## sj2k (Dec 23, 2006)

yeah, but again, while I hate to blame one particular group I feel like I have to, it is because of the religous far right.  Those who think the pill, condoms, and the day after pill are all evil (I leave abortion out of this because it is about after pregnancy, though of course they hate it too, but rational people also don't like it).  I mean, a book about 2 penguins, 2 FUCKING PENGUINS, was recently banned by these crazies.  I mean when they ban books, (sigh, I wish that had only been from the dark ages), you know something is wrong.

While this one is a little off topic, remember who the last person was to promote burning books who had a large power base?  oh yeah, this guy named HITLER, sigh, when will people learn.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 23, 2006)

lol...no matter how just, Hitler comparisons always seem to lose impact online...

But I don't think a book should be banned....then again should a videogame be banned? (Gears of War in germany)...what about other forms of entertaiment/information?


----------



## sj2k (Dec 23, 2006)

see the cencorship thread for banning stuff.

Also, you have a point on the hitler thing.  However, never tried it online before, so didn't realize that one.  Good to know for the future.  Odd, because it works so well in real life.  Though my fav. one is from the movie the life of david gale, so brilliant.

Also, peopel just respect others decision.  Not hard to too (or its shouldn't).  Either way.  This applies to lots of stuff.


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 23, 2006)

sj2k said:


> I agree a comprehensive education is a good thing.  However, for a lot of the states you mentioned, in some areas, it is limited to "don't have sex or you will die of aids"  I mean the current administration, while not that extreme, basically wants it that way.



My point was only that 'contraceptive education' is not any better than 'abstinence education' like so many people think.



sj2k said:


> Also, when I said social circumstances I wasn't really thinking economically.  I realize I probably should have used a better word, but I was thinking of religion and their views on sex.  In a more liberal state, like NY, you will simply find more people accepting of it than in SD.  I am not saying there aren't both people everywhere, there are, but NY will be more liberal about it, that is why there known as a liberal state.



That directly relates to sex education in schools.  Liberal states are going to teach liberal sex education in their schools while the conservative states will teach conservative sex education.  Those numbers take in all teens in the age groups, not just those in public schools; so that would include even those in conservative parochial schools, homeschoolers, dropouts, etc.  The majority of students in all of the states I mentioned, however, attend public schools and if the sex education in a liberal state was indeed working to curb teen pregnancy there would be a drop in the rates regardless of the overall views of the state.  It may not solve the problem entirely, but the public school systems in this country have the power to make a significant impact on such things if they could only understand when and what kids really need to learn in order to make a truly educated decision.



sj2k said:


> I am simply advocating, not that everyone should have sex,  but that people should be informed, and then we should respect their choice WHATEVER IT IS.



I think we agree on this point.  I don't have to agree with somebody's choice to accept that it is their choice to make.  

I do get a little grumpy at times regarding the negative impact some of these choices have on the economy and society, but that is the price we pay for free will and the freedoms we enjoy in the US and many other countries.



sj2k said:


> Also, I will repeat my message, everywhere I go people shoot me down for it, and the majority of people ignore it (probably because they are sensible), but there is nothing wrong wiht group sex.  Its not dangerouse, or imoral, and it doesn't make you a whore.



I would have to disagree with you on this to some extent.  Those who participate in group sex tend to be more promiscuous and encounter a higher rate of STDs than those who do not participate in group sex - making it more dangerous than some other types of sexual activities.  Of course, the lowest rate is among those who participate only in a monogamous relationship, though I would hope that would be blatently obvious.

I assume you are referring to group sex in which all parties are entirely willing, but I would point out that group sex in which one or more of the parties involved are not entirely willing can cause psychological damage, as well.



sj2k said:


> EDIT:  Anaiya, I love the animaniacs, I remember when they were on, sigh, my childhood



What are we gonna do tonight, Brain?
The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!


----------



## sj2k (Dec 23, 2006)

> My point was only that 'contraceptive education' is not any better than 'abstinence education' like so many people think.



What do you mean by conrtaceptive education?  In my experience, contraceptive education includes abstinence education.  However, it also teaches about contraceptives in case the kids choose to have sex.

Also, on the liberal conservative sex thing I disagree.  First of all, I am from the most liberal state in the country, MA.  We recieved the type of sex ed I talked about.  It tought the only 100% way to prevent sex is abstinence.  There is no other option that is that effective.  None.  However, if we did choose to engage in sex, it also tought us about how to do it safely.

I would simply guess, no numbers to back this up, that people who live in a society in which sex before marriage is more accepted, which will also likely be a society that teaches more than abstinence only, will have more kids having sex, thus more pregnancies.  I think we should look at the percent of kids who have sex who get pregnant.

But, in theory, I agree contraceptive only education isn't the best (though probably better than abstinence only), however I don't think, or at least I'm not aware, of any contraceptive only educations going on.

Also, granted with more people there is a higher chance of STD's, but if you know the people, then not really.  Also, you in terms of being promiscuous, I think you need to look at indiciduals.

Also, I don't think it matters what kind of sex, if a participant is unwilling, thats what we call rape.  And that is never a good thing.

Also,

Are you pondering what I'm pondering?


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 23, 2006)

sj2k said:


> What do you mean by conrtaceptive education?  In my experience, contraceptive education includes abstinence education.



In my experience, contraceptive education might mention abstienence very briefly, but goes on to focus heavily on contraceptives and how to use them.   I'm not referring to more comprehensive sex education, but the more extreme liberal education that focuses so heavily on contraceptives without much if any information regarding the risks of teen sexual activity and the benefits of waiting.  A mere mention of abstinence doesn't constitute teaching abstinence, in my opinion.  In many places the focus is not balanced.



sj2k said:


> Also, on the liberal conservative sex thing I disagree.  First of all, I am from the most liberal state in the country, MA.  We recieved the type of sex ed I talked about.  It tought the only 100% way to prevent sex is abstinence.  There is no other option that is that effective.  None.  However, if we did choose to engage in sex, it also tought us about how to do it safely.



I merely meant this is the tendency, not necessarily an absolute in every instance.  

Now consider what you just said there and go back and look at those numbers I linked to.  MA, despite being an incredibly liberal state, ranked 40 in the nation for teen pregnancy rates.  That tells me that even though MA is a liberal state and would be more likely to accept premarital sex and the like, the sex education in that state is making an impact and reducing the rates of teen pregnancy.  Consider what would happen across this country if a more comprehensive sex education plan similar to the one you get in MA were implemented in every state.  I believe the impact would be incredible.



sj2k said:


> But, in theory, *I agree contraceptive only education isn't the best (though probably better than abstinence only)*, however I don't think, or at least I'm not aware, of any contraceptive only educations going on.



That's where I disagree with you.  The states that focus heavily on contraceptive education are still experiencing higher teen pregnancy rates than states that focus heavily on abstinence only training.  I'm not saying "contraveptive only", but it might as well be considering the lack of education regarding the benefits of abstinence and risks of sexual activity.  Like I mentioned already, simply mentioning abstinence isn't teaching it (likewise, simply mentioning contraceptives doesn't teach that either).



sj2k said:


> Also, granted with more people there is a higher chance of STD's, but if you know the people, then not really.  Also, you in terms of being promiscuous, I think you need to look at indiciduals.



You can lower your risks by sticking with one familiar group, but the general tendency of group sex participants is to not be quite that picky.  Kudos to you if you are.



sj2k said:


> Also, I don't think it matters what kind of sex, if a participant is unwilling, thats what we call rape.  And that is never a good thing.



While this is true, I meant more along the lines of a participant who felt pressured into joining in group activities, not necessarily one that was unwilling to have sex.  For example, a girl who doesn't like the idea of group sex joining in just to please her boyfriend/husband.  

I've actually seen this on a handful of occasions and I was actually surprised at the level of emotional trauma suffered by these girls.  It's difficult to define.  They don't believe they were raped or forced.  It wasn't about the sex itself - one girl even told me she would have been willing to have sex with each of the participants individually, but having sex in a group was traumatic for her.

Of course, that is only a handful of examples and finding any kind of difinitive numbers on that would be difficult considering most people in this type of situation aren't likely to report it.  I'm just saying it has happened, the risk is there whether or not how minimal, and it might be something to be watchful for if you are concerned about the emotional well-being of the people you intend to participate with.



sj2k said:


> Also,
> 
> Are you pondering what I'm pondering?



I think so, but where am I going to find lederhosen at this hour?


----------



## Hoon ♥ (Dec 24, 2006)

i plan to be a minority.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 24, 2006)

Well, MA rocks!  I think that is what we should take from that.  If your reading this TAKE THAT BELIEVE IT!!!!! (sorry, he was ragging on MA)

I simply think a sex ed class that doesn't teach both won't work.  That simple.  However, I don't think your figures look at what I mentioned.  They may, in which case I am wrong, however is it percentage of teens who get pregnant, or percetage of teens who HAVE sex who get pregnant.


----------



## Lain (Dec 24, 2006)

innocuous ♥ said:


> i plan to be a minority.



Well yay you.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 24, 2006)

Your decleration NOOOOOOO WHYYYYYYYYYYY


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 24, 2006)

sj2k said:


> Well, MA rocks!  I think that is what we should take from that.  If your reading this TAKE THAT BELIEVE IT!!!!! (sorry, he was ragging on MA)



Don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to say anything positive about MA, just that the numbers indicate they must be doing something right when it comes to sex ed!  

Seriously though, for such a liberal state to be so well rated in the teen pregnancy statistics is pretty impressive and it just goes to show that well balanced sex education does, indeed, have an impact.



sj2k said:


> I simply think a sex ed class that doesn't teach both won't work.  That simple.  However, I don't think your figures look at what I mentioned.  They may, in which case I am wrong, *however is it percentage of teens who get pregnant, or percetage of teens who HAVE sex who get pregnant.*



Ok, I admit it is getting very late here and I am uber tired, but _what_?  Isn't the percentage of teens who get pregnant the same as the percentage of teens who have sex who get pregnant?  I mean, there aren't any teens out there not having sex and getting pregnant.  I guess I must've misread that, but I'm just not seeing how.  You're gonna have to spell this one out for me.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 24, 2006)

> In my experience, contraceptive education might mention abstienence very briefly, but goes on to focus heavily on contraceptives and how to use them.



How do you teach abstinence? Meditate away your sexual desires??



> i plan to be a minority.



I plan to be an individual.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 24, 2006)

> In my experience, contraceptive education might mention abstienence very briefly, but goes on to focus heavily on contraceptives and how to use them.



How do you teach abstinence? Meditate away your sexual desires??



> i plan to be a minority.



I plan to be an individual.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 24, 2006)

well, yes, all teens who get pregnant have sex.  However, if 100 teens have sex, you will have more pregnancies than if a 10 kids have sex.  So, if there are 1,00 kids in both ND and NY, and in NY 10 kids get pregnant, and in ND 5 kids do.  10/1000 is more than 5/1000 right?  however, 10/100 is ALOT less than 5/10.  Now, the numbers I used are random, but htey show the reason.

of course, if you tired then numbers probably won't help, lol

ok, if more kids have sex, than there are more pregnancies.  However, if you take pregnancies out of all kids, and not just kids who have sex, you don't really measure the effect of sex ed on kids who have sex, only if they have sex.


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 24, 2006)

Akkarin323 said:


> How do you teach abstinence? Meditate away your sexual desires??



Here are a few examples:

-Teaching teens the risks of sexual activity at their age and the benefits of waiting.  
-Teaching that there are alternatives to intercourse for relieving sexual desires.  
-Teaching that love and sex are actually two different things and while they tend to go well together it is possible to have one without the other.  
-Discussing that sex can be meaningful and why.
-Discussing that sex can also be meaningless depending on the circumstance.

There's far more to sex than just having a good (or bad) screw.

Simply stating that abstinence is the only 100% protection against STDs and pregnancy isn't enough.

@sj2k, I think I see what you are saying, but the actual rankings on that chart are supposed to be based off of the percentage rates, so it accounts for teen pregnancies in relation to the teen population rather than simply relying on the estimated number of teen pregnancies without taking into consideration that estimate in relation to the overall teen population.  Only the birth and abortion rates are based on the estimated numbers of teen pregnancies indicated in the pregnancy column.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 24, 2006)

> -Teaching teens the risks of sexual activity at their age and the benefits of waiting.



The benefits of waiting??



> -Teaching that there are alternatives to intercourse for relieving sexual desires.



Hmm...



> -Teaching that love and sex are actually two different things and while they tend to go well together it is possible to have one without the other.



I think kids know this pretty well...



> -Discussing that sex can be meaningful and why.



Only be associating it with love.



> -Discussing that sex can also be meaningless depending on the circumstance.



...

To be honest I don't see much teaching of abstinence there...or that can be done...


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 24, 2006)

Akkarin323 said:


> The benefits of waiting??



Are you telling me that you don't know any?



Akkarin323 said:


> I think kids know this pretty well...



Some might, but I think a great deal don't.  I've seen plenty that don't.  



Akkarin323 said:


> Hmm...





Akkarin323 said:


> ...



Are these supposed to mean something?



Akkarin323 said:


> To be honest I don't see much teaching of abstinence there...or that can be done...



I'm talking about teaching teens the information they need to understand that abstinence is beneficial, particularly while they are young, so they can make the best educated decision on the matter.  If you would say something more than "hmm..." or "..." I might understand if you are missing particular bits of information that could help you understand what I am talking about.  I don't mind trying to explain it differently if that is necessary.


----------



## Suzumebachi (Dec 24, 2006)

> Are you telling me that you don't know any?



I'd like to know what they are too.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 24, 2006)

> Are you telling me that you don't know any?



You mentioned the risks of having sex before marriage...probably STDs or w/e else you might mean...but the benefits of waiting...I'm not seeing any.



> Are these supposed to mean something?



Well the 'Hmmm..' was because I can't really see much happening...
Kids know very well there are alternatives to intercourse...
And to I didn't get the 'sex can be meaningless or meaningful' one...how does that help?


----------



## sj2k (Dec 24, 2006)

wait anaiya.  There isn't much more to teach besides it is the only 100% effective way.  The point of school is not to force religouse morals on the children.  Besides that, I can't really think of any HEALTH benifits, only moral benifits that many people disagree with.  And if the school tried to preach that stuff, it wouldn't work.  People would simply not pay attention to ANY of the benifits.

And honsestly, there aren't many besides the no pregnancy and no STD's.  I mean, when do kids get sex-ed.  In 5th grade we learned what sex was, but not really anything about it.  Or at least it didn't stick, lol.  Then in 8th grade we did a more in depth thing, which probably helped the most.  I mean, yeah some kids are having sex in middle school, but most of it is in HS.  And in HS we did some more, but this was more in depth stuff.

For example, we talked about what losing virginity actually was.  It couldn't simply be conventional sex, what about lesbians?  clearly they can lose their virginity.  So, did the same standard apply to everyone?  it was actually quite interesting, much better than I thought it would be.  Oh yeah, I also had the greatest teacher ever 

But honestly, I am also wondering, what are the benifits of abstinence besides no STD's and no pregnancy.  In my mind, those are certainly good benifits, but we weren't really taught more than that.  I guess the kids in MA are simply smarter about sex than those in other states.  Once again proving that the best state is MA.  Best on the west coast has to be CA.  and hawaii comes in third.  Just in case you were wondering, lol.

But yeah, there aren't really any other benifits. For example I read the FRC page on it.  It was full of misleading information.  Granted they are an extremist group that I would not associate with the typical person, but I assume they would be the most gung-ho about it.  For example, they pointed out how there is increased depression in teen girls who have sex, failing to point out that the depression is ALREADY THERE for the most part BEFORE sex, and the sex is in fact a sympton of the depression.  I know my depression stuff.

Also, they were furious that a program would try to teach you how to put a condom on a bannana.  Well, the reason condoms used aren't as effective as they should be is because people don't know how to use them.  Learning how to use one is NECECARY in a good sex ed class.  Of course, being crazies they were mad that homosexuality was brought up, but we won't go there, seeing as that is just crazy.

There were 3 advantages they showed me I feel confident repeating.  
1. Lower rate of pregnancy (duh).  
2. Lower rate of STD's (again, no brainer)
3. Lower number of sexual partners.  This is true, but I wouldn't call it an advantage.

Basically, a good sex ed program should teach abstinence is the only 100% safe way.  However, it should not abdicate it for children 16 and under, as after 16 its up to you and the school should have no say, otherwise it is simply using religion.  It should also teach you about safe sex, which includes how to be safe IF you choose to engage in sex.  It shouldn't promote either, simply give you your options.

Again, the FRC can't be trusted, they say the only good sex ed is abstinence only, but even they can't give me more benifits.  would love to hear what you have


----------



## s0id3 (Dec 24, 2006)

nothing shocking about it...only religous ppl bitch about it cuz they think everyone has to conform to their religion...


----------



## Darkhope (Dec 24, 2006)

Welcome to America: Free Sex Here

Or New York at least. Number one state with HIV/AIDS cases. =/


----------



## -Bakkun- (Dec 25, 2006)

That's how it should be.


----------



## 5peedy (Dec 25, 2006)

two choices.

Prom Night.

or

After Prom.


----------



## Kitty (Dec 25, 2006)

Sex is when a boy sticks his peepee in my vajayjay and gives me pleasure. It really isn't that huge a deal and I'd rather be a "whore" than sexless any day. No one has provided a good enough reason to abstain from sex - I don't believe my body is "precious" (its a sack of meat to me) and I'll only be young and cute for so long, so why hold it off until I'm sagging in my 30s? The results to the survey are only mildly shocking to me as I'd think my grandmother's generation had less premarital sex but apparently they got it on too.


----------



## P-Nut (Dec 25, 2006)

Kisame said:


> the other 5% are retards.


----------



## Kitsunin (Dec 25, 2006)

Oh noes!! Usa is so, SO immoral it makes me shiver to think there's only an ocean separating me from that unholy free fuck land =/


----------



## shadowtyphoon23 (Dec 26, 2006)

im glad to finaly see a stat that lives up to real life.


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 27, 2006)

sj2k, I didn?t mention anything about religious morals.  I?m not entirely certain that was directed at me, but it seemed to be.  I personally don?t think public schools should be teaching religious morals.  Perhaps some level of secular morality in general, but not religious morals.

Kitty, as for your body being ?precious?, I?m not sure I would use that term specifically, but it is true that taking care of your body now is likely to make you a more healthy adult.  Even live meat has to be cared for to be healthy (and who said anything about waiting for sex until your 30s??). 

Now back to the discussion of sex education -

I get the impression that some here think I am pushing hardcore abstinence be taught in schools and that is not where I stand.  Perhaps my own personal beliefs for myself are showing through, but allow me to explain.  I am not trying to tell any of you that you should abstain because I say so or because I think it?s right to do so.  I?m saying the information about abstinence should be made available to you as well as the information on contraception and safe sex practices so that you can make the best possible decision for yourself.  As I?ve mentioned before, schools should teach a comprehensive program.  It should be balanced and include abstinence education and contraception education.  Schools should be providing all of the information possible so that teens can make an educated choice.  

Short and sweet, I believe each individual needs a comprehensive understanding of the matter and each individual needs to take that information and make their own decision.  

As for more information on abstinence - 

The most obvious benefit of waiting until you are an adult, as many of you already mentioned, would be that you eliminate your risk of contracting STDs as a teen and of becoming a teen parent or having to make the choice of whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.  Simply stating that doesn?t give all of the information, though.    

Waiting until you?re an adult reduces the number of partners you are likely to have, which lowers your lifelong risk of STDs.

Waiting until you are in a long-term monogamous relationship further reduces your lifelong risk of STDs.

There are also possible side effects associated with nearly all forms of contraception that I would hope you all learn in contraception education.  Abstaining from sex until you are ready to be a parent eliminates your risk of suffering those effects.

Also, intercourse for the first time is more intense than once you are more experienced.  When you find a person you are ready to commit yourself to, those feelings of love can intensify the pleasures of sex, especially new feelings.  For many people, the chance to share in the personal discovery of sex together is very gratifying.  By waiting until you are in a committed relationship, you give yourself the opportunity to discover that.

The teen years are a time of change; a time of growing from a child to an adult.  Never again in your life will you experience so much change in just a few years.  Most of the life changing events you will experience in your lifetime will occur during and directly following your teen years - events that may change your perspectives and opinions.  Your body and mind have a lot to go through and abstaining from sex gives your body and mind one less thing to deal with until they are better prepared for it and reduces your risk of making a decision now you will grow to regret later.  

During the teen years, your hormones are also changing.  For most people, there is a period of time during which hormones ebb and flow; sometimes they are a very intense influence and sometimes they back off and you hardly know they are there.  This is part of the body?s chemical growth into adulthood when the hormones finally balance.  Not only do your hormones effect your desires for sex, but sex also effects your hormones.  If you wait until your hormones are balanced, you lower your risk of deciding to have sex based on a hormonal outburst and you give your hormones the chance to balance without the additional influence of sex.

sj2k mentioned the relationship between depression in teen girls and sex, noting that sex often results from the depression and not necessarily the other way around.  This is true to a point.  Depression is often highest in teens because of the body?s chemical and physical changes.  Depression is also affected by outside influences, such as having sex.  The rate of depression is often higher in teen girls who have sex as opposed to those who don?t have sex because of the vicious cycle of depression - depression makes you feel like you have to do a particular thing, you do the thing to reduce the depression or because you feel you have to, then you become depressed about having done it.  If you make a conscious decision to abstain from sex while you are a teenager, you reduce your lifelong risk of depression induced by or intensified by sex.   

Along with this sort of information, schools need to teach the risks associated with pregnancy (actually being pregnant) at any age and the risks particular to the teen years.  Teens should also know the risks of abortion and the risks of contraceptives (including the risks of using them improperly).  Teens should know what is involved with becoming a parent while a teen, including the risk of lifelong underachievement and the intense responsibility of parenthood.  Even adults become overwhelmed by raising children and becoming a parent as a teen can end a life of aspirations and success.  I think it would be smart for schools to have parenting classes right alongside sex ed classes, so teens get a better understanding of what it means to be a parent and so they are better prepared to be parents no matter what age they are when they do become parents.  I would hope this would decrease the number of stupid parents or at least the number of stupid decisions made by parents regardless of any influence it may have on sex education.

All of this is about physical and emotional health, and a lot of it boils down to ?the only 100% protection is abstinence?, but it is a lot more specific information to consider when making your decision.  Having the most comprehensive information gives you the opportunity to make the best possible choice for yourself.  

One of the problems with teens having sex is that many of them aren?t making an educated decision about it.  Some have sex because they feel pressured or think they have to in order to ?fit in?.  Some are misinformed or uninformed about the risks.  Some do it because they think sex is the way to prove to someone that you love them.  As I?ve mentioned before, if you can?t love somebody without having sex with them, then it isn?t really love.  If you're feeling pressured into having sex, giving into that pressure is not making the best choice.  Choosing to have sex should be of your own free will without influence of peer pressure and without lack of adequate information.

Akkarin323, you mentioned on a couple of occasions things that ?kids know?.  You might know these things and many of your friends might know these things, but there are plenty of kids out there who don?t realize these things.  There are plenty of times in school where the teacher is teaching something you already know but the kid down the row hasn?t quite ?gotten it? yet, so you have to sit through it anyway.  The same goes for sex education; there?s going to be some kids who know more than others about it and some kids who really need the information spoon fed to them to be well-educated on the matter.  I think if schools are going to take on the responsibility of teaching sex education, they need to teach it comprehensively.  

Akkarin323, you also mentioned that you didn?t think that teaching that sex can be meaningful or meaningless was helpful.  It may not matter to you, but whether a sexual experience is meaningful will matter to many people.  The fact that it doesn?t matter to some and does matter to others opens the door to miscommunication in which one party is satisfied with a particular sexual event while the other is left emotionally crushed.  Teens need to know that it isn?t important to everybody for sex to be meaningful and if it is important to you, you need to educate yourself on what events will be meaningful and which ones won?t and if it isn?t important to you, you need to be aware that it is important to some people and your decision to have sex with such a person can have a significant impact on them.

Sex education needs to cover a far wider knowledge base than it does now.  It should include physical and emotional health, abstinence, contraception and its proper use, the nuances of sexual relationships and how they differ from person to person (like some people needing sexual experiences to be meaningful, for example), etc.  I think it may also be beneficial for a sex ed class to cover the socioeconomic impacts of sexual activity in teens.  Teens should know they aren?t the only one affected by their having sex.		

Whew, ok, enough for now.  Did I miss anything?


----------



## Akkarin323 (Dec 28, 2006)

> I’m saying the information about abstinence should be made available to you



It is...if you dont let a man put his penis into your vagina, you wont get pregnant. If you dont engage in sexual activity, you won't get STDs...



> you reduce your lifelong risk of depression induced by or intensified by sex.



To me you just sound like you're reinforcing the point. Like: You tell us that "when you walk into oncoming traffic there is a high probability you will be injured or killed." Your next point is: "Not walking into oncoming traffic increases your chances of not being injured or killed"...
make any sense?



> The same goes for sex education; there’s going to be some kids who know more than others about it and some kids who really need the information spoon fed to them to be well-educated on the matter. I think if schools are going to take on the responsibility of teaching sex education, they need to teach it comprehensively.



lol. You reminded me of a sex class I sat through when I must have been...12ish. Maybe a bit younger/older. It amused me that I knew more about a "woman" than a girl in the class...
I'd say it was done very comprehensively though...all though I did go to a private school...



> you also mentioned that you didn’t think that teaching that sex can be meaningful or meaningless was helpful.



Ahh...no, you explained it fine. I just thought you meant saying: "Look kids. Sex can be meaningful, or meaningless..." end of class. But sure, giving examples would be a good idea even.



> . I think it may also be beneficial for a sex ed class to cover the socioeconomic impacts of sexual activity in teens



Maybe expecting a bit much there...



> Whew, ok, enough for now. Did I miss anything?



Yes. You contradicted yourself:


> Short and sweet


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 28, 2006)

Akkarin323 said:


> It is...if you dont let a man put his penis into your vagina, you wont get pregnant. If you dont engage in sexual activity, you won't get STDs...



What I'm trying to say is that is only part of the information.  The more details you are made aware of, the better educated your decision will be.  (By 'your' I mean any teenager in general, not necessarily you specifically.)



Akkarin323 said:


> To me you just sound like you're reinforcing the point. Like: You tell us that "when you walk into oncoming traffic there is a high probability you will be injured or killed." Your next point is: "Not walking into oncoming traffic increases your chances of not being injured or killed"...
> make any sense?



Reinforcement is part of education.  It's actually a teaching tool taught to potential teachers prior to certification.  I may not be perfect at it, but I try! 



Akkarin323 said:


> lol. You reminded me of a sex class I sat through when I must have been...12ish. Maybe a bit younger/older. It amused me that I knew more about a "woman" than a girl in the class...
> I'd say it was done very comprehensively though...all though I did go to a private school...



See, she needed that class!  You are likely to have gotten a better sex education at a private school than many teens get at public schools.



Akkarin323 said:


> Ahh...no, you explained it fine. I just thought you meant saying: "Look kids. Sex can be meaningful, or meaningless..." end of class. But sure, giving examples would be a good idea even.



No, no, I'm definately against the half-assed approach of not explaining it! 



Akkarin323 said:


> Maybe expecting a bit much there...



Probably, but I personally think that is unfortunate.  Wouln't it be nice if people made decisions not only based on the effect on themselves but also on the effects of the people around them?



Akkarin323 said:


> Yes. You contradicted yourself:



I stated only that one point as short and sweet!  I didn't say the whole thing would be.  

Did I make you suffer enough?


----------



## Traveler (Dec 28, 2006)

Not shocking to me at all...


----------



## sj2k (Dec 28, 2006)

well, first of all ainaya, you did show a few things about abstinence that I did not include.  However, most of them appear self-explanatory to me.  Also, no the religouse stuff was directed at the FRC, even if they can't resond.

So, there are a few more things.  However, I don't think it will be that different from what it is now.  Of course, pehaps since stuff like that is at my school, and I have not encountered the kind of education you think is out there, I could be all wrong.  Basically it should be done like it is in MA, lol.  but don't get our kind of governor, romney.  Not because he is conservative or republican, but because he is simply using MA.  He spent more time out of the state campaigning for his future presidential bid this year ('06) then he did in the state.  Its really quite sad.

Also, I do have a problem with this



> If you make a conscious decision to abstain from sex while you are a teenager, you reduce your lifelong risk of depression induced by or intensified by sex.



Its really not that simple.  I don't know if you have experienced depression, for your sake I hope not, but it is not as simple as making a decission.  If it was, people could just decide that they will be happy, and they would be better.  Its not that simple at all.  However, as you said you were trying to shorten it, so I will let it go, for now....


----------



## T4R0K (Dec 28, 2006)

Asked tens of times but again... Why is it schocking ? Most of the PLANET has premarital sex, even a consequent number of hypocrites advocating virginity before marriage.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 28, 2006)

I don't think it shocking, at least to me its not, however some people want to change it.


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 28, 2006)

sj2k said:


> Its really not that simple.  I don't know if you have experienced depression, for your sake I hope not, but it is not as simple as making a decission.  If it was, people could just decide that they will be happy, and they would be better.  Its not that simple at all.  However, as you said you were trying to shorten it, so I will let it go, for now....



I'm actually very familiar with depression.  I have had depression for more than twenty years and have recently been 'upgraded' so to speak to Schizoaffective Disorder due to additional symptoms that have occured in more recent years.  I have spent a great deal of time with others who have suffered similarly and have spent a great deal of time researching the subject.  I'm quite the stickler for having all the information I can on a given subject that affects my life.   

Please note I said "reduces" and not "eliminates".  I also never said that making a decision will make depression go away.  However, there are decisions you make in your life than can have an impact on depression.  Depression is often intensified by self-destructive behaviors and, for some people - particularly those more prone to disorders such as depression, sex is or can become a self-destructive behavior.  Sex can even be a trigger for a depressive episode.  What I'm saying is that making the choice to eliminate sex from the mix while you are a teen reduces the risk of sex intensifying any depression you might already have and the risk of the possibility of sex triggering depression. 

As for some things seeming self-explanatory to you, like I mentioned already to Akkarin323, what might seem evident to you is giong to be something that entirely slips the mind of somebody else.  You've already had a better sex education than many other public school teens, so there are probably a lot more things that seem apparent to you that would not be apparent to a large number of teens across the country.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 28, 2006)

and of course, thing are simply more evident to me, because well, I'm me


----------



## Anaiya (Dec 28, 2006)

sj2k said:


> and of course, thing are simply more evident to me, because well, I'm me



LOL

You may not be the most humble poster, but you are among the more intelligent.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 28, 2006)

while this doesn't apply to me, I am nowhere close to the level of dominance, in well anything, that he was, as mohamad ali proved, when you back up all your talk, its ok


----------



## SHiNiGaMiSHiNoBi545 (Dec 30, 2006)

Yeah, not very surprising, but still! Can't they wait until they're married to have sex?! I mean, 12, 13? You have the rest of your life to get laid! Sexual frustration? Go masturbate or something! Just don't lose your viriginity until you get married, I mean, sex _is_ for reproducing after all.


----------



## sj2k (Dec 30, 2006)

> I mean, sex is for reproducing after all.



what century do you live in, lol.  Sex is for pleasure.  We can now reproduce without sex at all, its completely unnececary for reproduction.  and if you want to wait till you get married to have sex, I say go for it, theres nothing wrong with that.  Its telling other people they have to do that that is bad.

Plus, once you get into HS your probably old enough.  In some cases before that.  And of course, there are cases when your not mature enough for a while.  It all depends on the individual.  But because were not going to look at every single person and say well you are /are not mature enough to have sex, we simply have to educate them, and trust them to make the best decision for themselves.

No, bottom line is I can see no reason besides religion to wait untill marriage as long as your smart and safe.  And if thats your religion then go for it!  but we can't force religion on others.


----------



## Saosin (Dec 30, 2006)

SHiNiGaMiSHiNoBi545 said:


> I mean, sex _is_ for reproducing after all.



lol **


----------



## lemonlime (Dec 31, 2006)

Can you seriously trust 12-13 year olds to practice having sex in any sort of safe manner? No doubt they'll be elated that you're giving them the go-ahead to fuck their brains out, why should they show any restraint? Some of them are just so young. Enjoy your _childhood_, sex is for later. Shit, I mean you really do have the rest of your life to get laid. Maintain your innocents while you can.

It's not as if you're causing yourself any harm by not starting early, it's not _Unnatural_ to wait, especially while you're still developing.

Personally I agree that there is no other reason to wait other than Religious beliefes; however, I find that I have the utmost respect for self-control and the people who practice it. It's decent, thats all I'm saying. There _is_ a such thing as "Too much of a good thing."

And no offense but how much of this forum do you think actually occupies that 5%, eh?


----------



## sj2k (Dec 31, 2006)

First of all, I don't think we were talking about 12 year olds.  More like 15+, IF I had to choose a random age, 15 sound about right.  And actually, I would say its unnatural to wait.  Not wrong, but unnatural.  That is what society does to us, it makes us act in unatural ways that we think will benifit the society.  So, while restraint isn't bad, neither is going out and having a good time.

and I don't think you can call it decent.  Maybe no going out and fucking the brains out of everyone you see, but not waiting can still be decent.

Also, as to how many people on the forum are in the 5%, I am, but as to people who are say, 18+ (which is the age your supposed to have sex), certainly more than 5%, but not that much more.  Fact is, people have sex.  Alot.  I could go and do it now (not litterally at this moment, eh, give it half and hour) if I wanted too.  But I don't.  I want my first time to be special (not marriage, but to mean something).  BUT thats my choice.  I choose to do that.  And to force others to do that, or to condem them for not doing that, is well, wrong.

Also, I plan to be in southern california next year!  Pitzer here I come!


----------



## carbo-fation (Dec 31, 2006)

Interesting thread.....but I had a feeling the number of people who had premaritel sex would be this high. I personally think, it's just wrong and very animalistic to have intercourse with so many different people, esp. at such a young age.  Waiting until marriage, and only have intercourse with one person seems more civilized, but to each its own.


----------



## Love Mitarashi Anko (Dec 31, 2006)

Megaharrison said:


> Why is this a big deal? People should be having sex by 17-18 anyway. Marriage doesn't make it somehow morally correct.



I agree.. it is not a big deal.. but i haven't had sex yet. When it happens, it happens. My girlfriend don't want to have sex before we are married, but i really don't care about sex. It's really not necessary for me. I love her and she is the one i will marry someday, so we will have sex someday in the future, but i really don't care when. I'm just happy to be with her ^^


----------



## sj2k (Jan 1, 2007)

> Waiting until marriage, and only have intercourse with one person seems more civilized, but to each its own.



eh, I think limiting yourself to one person, and putting a random arbitrary date onto when you will have sex, which has no logical reason behind it besides irrational religion is uncivilized, but to each there own.

Actually, I think its civilized to do whatever you want, as long as your safe and smart about it.  However, saying one option is more 'civilized' is clearly not civilized, and its simply throwing an insult at someone because there moral views are slightly different.  It kind of sounds like the days when religions ran countries and people had to have perfect morals.  Except, america isn't like that, is it?

Make your choice, I respect it either way.  Its getting down on someone for making a different choice, or saying there wrong, which you did both of, thats wrong, not when you have sex


----------



## Anaiya (Jan 1, 2007)

Choosing to have sex with only one person is just as natural as choosing to have sex with numerous people.  90% of the the world's bird population is monogamous, 5% of the mammal population other than humans is monogamous, and there are even monogamous aquatic and reptile species.  The strong psychological desire in many humans for a lasting emotional connection and lifelong stability make monogamous relationships all that much more natural - and that is based solely on a scientific view without regard to religion or morals.  Scientests have long pointed to these psychological conditions of humans as the basis for dual parent relationships in which there are two parents to raise children in order to further the species - again having nothing to do with religion or morality.  Human babies are incredibly fragile and need a great deal of care (something very difficult for a single parent to provide).  Humans generally have a natural instinct to connect and bond to each other that is in our psychological makeup and does not lie solely with religion or morality.

Saying "sex is for pleasure" is no more accurate than saying "sex is for reproduction".  Neither statement is entirely true while both contain only a partial truth.  Sex serves both purposes and many scientists believe that the pleasures of sex are _primarily_ for furthering reproductive purposes.  

sj2k, no offense, but you got onto carbo-fation for insulting those who choose to have multiple partners right after you insulted SHiNiGaMiSHiNoBi545 for views well upheld by the scientific community.  Perhaps a word in her statement that implied that reproduction was not the _only_ purpose met by sex would have made you feel better about it, but simply dismissing reproduction as a primary purpose of sex is unreasonable.  Scientific advances in in vitro fertilization do not nullify the validity of sex for reproduction nor does it wipe away our natural instict to procreate through sex.  It also doesn't make us infertile - making reproduction entirely possible any time a man and a woman have sex, even if that was not the primary function for the sex in the minds of the man and woman who had it.


----------



## sj2k (Jan 1, 2007)

as for SHiNiGaMiSHiNoBi545, I was laughing at the statement.  I didn't mean any insults and I appologize for it.  As for carbo, yeah I did rip into him/her, we have a little bit of a history.  I guess I should keep it to the appropriate thread though.... waht can I say, it was really late (or early depending on how you look at it).



> many scientists believe that the pleasures of sex are primarily for furthering reproductive purposes.



as for this, I must say though I would have to disagree.  Scientists have been unable to prove that pleasure exists in sex for many other animals.  While certainly possible, I would say that it is not neccecarily true.  And, in todays modern times where we have artificial insemination, my only point is in TODAY's culture, sex is primarily for pleasure.  Not for everybody, but for the majority of people.  Not saying its right or wrong, but it is.

Also, in terms of two partners, I must also disagree.  In female's it is basic instince.  But from what I have heard, in males the basic instinct is to spread there sead as often as possible with as many partenrs as possible to insure that there line goes on.  IF 2 partners was entirely natural, why would we have so much natural polygamy?

Everything I have read says polygamy is more natural.  Not neccecarily better, and for me personally (for cultural reasons or other) I would want to be in a monogamous realtionship.  Then again, just because something is natural does not make it right or good, its simply natural.

so, again, SHiNiGaMiSHiNoBi545, didn't mean to rip into you if it was interperted that way, perhaps I just got a bit enthusiastic 

As for carbo, well its tough, made comments in a thread, and then asked we don't comment on those comments..... so I guess it had to come out somewhere


----------



## KuKu (Jan 1, 2007)

This isn't anything wierd, wierd would be if you wait till the marriage.


----------



## Goblincar (Jan 1, 2007)

Do you know that losing virginity for boys is around 16-20..u will wait till marige when u be 40 ....we live in 21st century jezus


----------



## Amaretti (Jan 1, 2007)

carbo-fation said:


> Interesting thread.....but I had a feeling the number of people who had premaritel sex would be this high. I personally think, it's just wrong and very animalistic to have intercourse with so many different people, esp. at such a young age.  Waiting until marriage, and only have intercourse with one person seems more civilized, but to each its own.



As I think has been pointed out before, premarital sex is not the same as underage sex or promiscuous sex. It's simply sex before marriage. And since people are waiting longer to get married than they used to, or choosing not get married at all, it's to be expected.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Jan 1, 2007)

> I could go and do it now (not litterally at this moment, eh, give it half and hour)



Rofl...not sure what you meant by that, but it made me smile.

I don't really see any problems with having sex before you meet your "one true love", or before you get married. If anything it might help you be more...caring for your partner.


----------



## Anaiya (Jan 1, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Scientists have been unable to prove that pleasure exists in sex for many other animals.



Before I remark on this statement, I want to say that I appreciate that you have the balls to appologize when you've said something insulting.  I admire that.

To the statement, note my previous statement was "*many* scientists *believe*".  Very little of science is actually proven.  Even still, in the last decade, scientists have discovered that animals participate in a wide array of sexual activities for a wide range of purposes - everything from social dominance and pleasure to reproduction.  We've learned more about "natural" sex in just the last few years than was ever observed previously (or at least was ever made public).  Many animals participate in in homosexual behaviors and even necrophelia, either for relief of sexual tension or for pleasure.  Most observed animal species that reproduce in pairs show desire for sex and many engage in behaviors indicitave of pleasure.




sj2k said:


> Also, in terms of two partners, I must also disagree.  In female's it is basic instince.  But from what I have heard, in males the basic instinct is to spread there sead as often as possible with as many partenrs as possible to insure that there line goes on.  IF 2 partners was entirely natural, why would we have so much natural polygamy?
> 
> Everything I have read says polygamy is more natural.  Not neccecarily better, and for me personally (for cultural reasons or other) I would want to be in a monogamous realtionship.  Then again, just because something is natural does not make it right or good, its simply natural.



There is plenty of material out there on the side of polygamy as well as on the side of monogamy.  Science has been unable to _prove_ it either way.  The way I see it, it is much easier to attribute a specific behavior to a specific species of the animal world than it is to humans.  Humans in and of themselves vary to greatly and may find more than one of a certain type of behavior natural.  What is true for one is not always true for another.  There are those that believe that it is in the instinct of males to spread seed among multiple partners while there are others who have observed the instinct to bond with a single woman for lifelong stability.


----------



## Ichiban-nin (Jan 3, 2007)

You can't mould a person's will against what their bodies intend to do. To what extent of time do you have to achieve to have had an "Abstinent" status? Will it even matter that you were abstinent for 30 years to only end up having over 20 sexual partners in a lifetime?


----------



## Anaiya (Jan 3, 2007)

Ichiban-nin said:


> You can't mould a person's will against what their bodies intend to do. To what extent of time do you have to achieve to have had an "Abstinent" status? Will it even matter that you were abstinent for 30 years to only end up having over 20 sexual partners in a lifetime?



I assume you are asking me?

My argument here was regarding teen sexual activity and we are teens for far less than 30 years.  Even still, a longer abstinence _typically_ reduces the lifelong number of partners an individual will have.  I expect there may be exceptions to this rule but it is reasonable to believe that the individual in your scenario would have had a great number more than 20 partners had he or she started sooner or would not have ended up having 20 sexual partners total following a 30 year abstinence anyway.  Your scenario is atypical.


----------



## naruto-x demon (Jan 3, 2007)

See the thing is, i that im betting that most of those people are teens under 20 right? Seriously, they see sex as a cool, pleasureful, thing to do. Im hinting at fact most teens wanna get laid, i mean you see it in movies like american pie(not flaming this) and stuff. I mean 1 its also a natural urge, but 2 they can't do it responsibly. so plz kids use a condom or jack off in bed for 20 more years, until u actually get laid. lolz.


----------



## naruto-x demon (Jan 3, 2007)

sj2k said:


> .
> 
> Also, in terms of two partners, I must also disagree.  In female's it is basic instince.  But from what I have heard, in males the basic instinct is to spread there sead as often as possible with as many partenrs as possible to insure that there line goes on.  IF 2 partners was entirely natural, why would we have so much natural polygamy?
> 
> ...


----------



## EXhack (Jan 3, 2007)

Sex, eating and fighting are the original ways to have fun. Having fun doing them is what separates us from the animals.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Jan 3, 2007)

> most teens wanna get laid, i mean you see it in movies like american pie(not flaming this) and stuff. I mean 1 its also a natural urge, but 2 they can't do it responsibly. so plz kids use a condom or jack off in bed for 20 more years, until u actually get laid.



Why do you say they can't do it responsibly? I mean...sure...15,16, I'll agree with you, but i don't see why a 17,18 or 19 year old can't be mature enough where a 20 year old can.


----------



## Yondaime Hokage (Feb 21, 2007)

Vegitto-kun said:


> Why is it shocking? most normal thing in the world.



^ took my words.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 21, 2007)

wow, this is an old thread, lol.  But it was a good one.  Again, no suprise, and not bad.


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 21, 2007)

not surprising...


----------



## Instant Karma (Feb 21, 2007)

Well...yet another majority i'm apart of. Oh happy day.


----------



## Neco (Feb 22, 2007)

Not much of a surprise todays media has put out the idea of "test driving before purchesing"


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Feb 22, 2007)

holy crap, and I'm not sure about this but isn't pramaritial sex banned in the bible, and the US being a Christian (as in major religion) should have smaller numbers.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 22, 2007)

> holy crap, and I'm not sure about this but isn't pramaritial sex banned in the bible, and the US being a Christian (as in major religion) should have smaller numbers.



dude, common.  People SAY they are christian.  But some people use it to take away others right, to say they are better, and in their private lives they don't really follow it.  Anyways, the bible says you can stone your kid to death for being disresepectful, but you don't see that happening, lol.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Feb 22, 2007)

well i really didn't read the bible, but some of my christian friends give me an idea about stuff that I ask about


----------



## Schnurz (Feb 22, 2007)

I have no problem with it. But that the US-Americans have double moral standards is nothing new.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 22, 2007)

sj2k said:


> dude, common.  People SAY they are christian.  But some people use it to take away others right, to say they are better, and in their private lives they don't really follow it.  Anyways, the bible says you can stone your kid to death for being disresepectful, but you don't see that happening, lol.




I wish you'd stop doing that. I'm in that 5 percent. Sex isn't cool or hip. It's a big risk and potential commitment. 

You pretend that all Christians are hypocrites.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 22, 2007)

Indignition, I have said in this thread repeatedly, the only right thing to do in this issue is to be true to yourself.  You haven't had sex, neither have I.  I am in the 5%.  I don't mine, since its not my desire to go out and get laid as soon as possible.  And if we look at my quote



> dude, common. People SAY they are christian. *But some people* use it to take away others right, to say they are better, and in their private lives they don't really follow it. Anyways, the bible says you can stone your kid to death for being disresepectful, but you don't see that happening, lol.



I said some people so people would know I wasn't referring to all christians.  I even went back and made sure it said that.  And it did.  And nobody realized it 

yes, it it is not clear, I said some on purpose.  There are some people out there who really mean what they say.  As this study shows, its not most of them, especialy when it comes to sex.

And just to say it again, I am part of the 5%, and it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother you either.


----------



## kimidoll (Feb 22, 2007)

I still have 3 more yeard to go >.>


----------



## Goongasnootch (Feb 22, 2007)

```

```



Vicious-chan said:


> That's the problem.. most do it their first time BECAUSE they are influenced by others. In fact, it's rare there are no influences. Our society pressures teen agers to have sex because it's "normal" and "cool" and so many, because we are social creatures, want to be a part of things, to have friends and part of a or _the_ group and so they have sex to be a part of it.



No.  The first time I had sex was because I had a girlfriend and a boner.

Cheap?  No.  Birth control can get expensive!

And my current girlfriend says that she had sex the first time because she had a boyfriend and he had a boner (it'd be weird if she had a boner).

Nothing really having to do with "being cool" or whatever.  It was more of a "I'm horny" kind of thing.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 22, 2007)

I just popped in to post this:
the PV

As to the topic, I think it's worth waiting for, but I also think people need to make up their own minds.  *shrugs*


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 22, 2007)

It is wrong but I mean everyone dose it...


----------



## YamazakiSusumu (Feb 22, 2007)

The only reason people think premarital sex is wrong is because the Bible told them so. If you think about it with reason and itellect instead of obeying a book, then there's nothing surprising or shocking about this. It's human (animal) nature to have sex.

Edit: I'm not saying that any kid should go out and have sex, though, because there are consequences and responsibilities that come along with having sex, namely babies.


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 22, 2007)

Why do you only say  Bible what about the Koron and the Torah.


----------



## YamazakiSusumu (Feb 22, 2007)

Well those, too. Sorry. lol 

I'm thinking in majority terms instead of including all three major religions. Woops! XD


----------



## Adonis (Feb 22, 2007)

Indignation said:


> I wish you'd stop doing that. I'm in that 5 percent. Sex isn't cool or hip. It's a big risk and potential commitment.
> 
> You pretend that all Christians are hypocrites.



Wow, you sound so bitter and hypocritical. From the way you make it sound, sex isn't cool or hip because you're not having it.

Before you say it, I'm in the 5% too. I have it all planned, though; 17 is the age I go wild.


----------



## Marguerite Perrin (Feb 22, 2007)

Well that's a shock! :amazed


----------



## Birdhouse_05 (Feb 22, 2007)

Well if you take the population into consideration thats still alot of people who wait till marriage. Plus with the information age it is so easy to get information about sex or see it that this can breed curiosity in young individuals. Plus then add in the taboo factor, that being that when someone tells you that you shouldnt be doing something they want to do it more. Its not surprising really but, it wouldnt be soo bad if these kids knew the risk of STDs and Teenage pregnacy.

If you want to scare kids straight show them a side show of STD infections. Heck if it dont turn them off casual sex all together it will atleast make the kids knowledgeble in all that junk and protect the ones that actually listen. Sex is natural we are wired to pro-create so give people the knowledge so they have better chances in not fucking their lives up. 

Lol sorry kinda got into a rant.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 22, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Wow, you sound so bitter and hypocritical. From the way you make it sound, sex isn't cool or hip because you're not having it.
> 
> Before you say it, I'm in the 5% too. I have it all planned, though; 17 is the age I go wild.



No. Sex isn't cool or hip because of STDs, unwanted pregnancy and overpopulation. Your group rather have a abortion whenever ya get pregnant rather than not fuck.


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 22, 2007)

Not everyone agrees with abortion you know like me.


----------



## Birdhouse_05 (Feb 22, 2007)

Abortion is a delicate subject. I really wish things didnt come to that choice because it is an ugly one. Its usally have an unwanted baby and chance it having a horrible childhood or get rid of it and stop an innocent from being born. When it comes down to that issue i leave it up to the people involved to decide.


----------



## Sound Village Chuunin (Feb 22, 2007)

I think of abortion two ways and it matters about the reason.


----------



## Giovanni Rild (Feb 22, 2007)

Birdhouse_05 said:


> Abortion is a delicate subject. I really wish things didnt come to that choice because it is an ugly one. Its usally have an unwanted baby and chance it having a horrible childhood or get rid of it and stop an innocent from being born. When it comes down to that issue i leave it up to the people involved to decide.



I'm not for telling people what to do. But not getting pregnant or not having sex sounds a hell of a lot better than abortion.


----------



## Birdhouse_05 (Feb 22, 2007)

Yeah but, with that you got to realise that its a primal instinct and we can ignore but, its still there. If it done properly pregnacy can be almost completly avoided. Just gotta use a condom and get the girl on the pill. That should almost tottaly protect you if both are used right and theres always a vasectomy for guys who dont mind shooting blanks for a while.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 22, 2007)

Birdhouse_05 said:


> Yeah but, with that you got to realise that its a primal instinct and we can ignore but, its still there. If it done properly pregnacy can be almost completly avoided. Just gotta use a condom and get the girl on the pill. That should almost tottaly protect you if both are used right and theres always a vasectomy for guys who dont mind shooting blanks for a while.



If you're not ready to deal with the possiblility of pregnancy you shouldn't be having sex.  All methods of birth control can fail some percentage of the time.  Now, if you are going to have sex, use a condom, but be aware that there's a small chance of pregnancy or STD transmission.  (Other forms of birth control aren't really a consideration for casual sex as disease can still be transmitted).

And for those thinking vasectomy you should know that even if it's reversed later, you'll have a greatly reduced sperm count (roughly 50% as I understand it).


----------



## Birdhouse_05 (Feb 22, 2007)

Oh i know there are negitive side effects if you get it and reverse it just. That probably what i am going to do once my life is set out for me. There are never 100% fixes just if you use the right stuff and make sure the person you are doing it with isnt a run of the mill whore you have fairly good odds in your favour.


----------



## Beau Logan (Feb 22, 2007)

The other five percent or either single or Fred Phelps.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 22, 2007)

Birdhouse_05 said:


> There are never 100% fixes just if you use the right stuff and make sure the person you are doing it with isnt a run of the mill whore you have fairly good odds in your favour.



everybody knows who's Captain Planet!...
"If you have the test and it's negative you'll gain a tenth of a point.  If it's positive you'll lose-- nearly a hundred right?"

There is a simple 100% fix, don't have sex.  Anything else and there's a chance of pregnancy and disease.  If you're not at a place in your life that you're ready for the ramifications of these you should think about it very carefully before having sex.

At the end of the day, it's up to the people involved.  But I think the world would generally be a better place if people think about the consequences of their actions.


----------



## uby (Feb 22, 2007)

There's another stat that I think would be more beneficial than this one:

Of those in the survey, what percentage go on to marry the first person they have intercourse with? What percentage go on to marry either the first or second?

I'd guess you see two trends: a group of people who wait for the "right person" and have sex with that person before a predictably likely marriage, and then the group of people who have sex with more than several partners before marrying any single one. I'd like to know what the proportions are for those groups.

If I had to guess, it's probably different for men and women. Men would be more likely to be in the second group than women, and vice versa with respect to the first group.

I'd guess, overall, that more people are squarely in the second group than the first group. Perhaps as high as 75%


----------



## sj2k (Feb 22, 2007)

Uby, I think you have a romantic view of it.  My guess is you wouldn't be able the difference.


----------



## Akkarin323 (Feb 22, 2007)

> If you're not ready to deal with the possiblility of pregnancy you shouldn't be having sex.



Lies....where do you get this from?


----------



## Adonis (Feb 22, 2007)

Indignation said:


> No. Sex isn't cool or hip because of STDs, unwanted pregnancy and overpopulation. Your group rather have a abortion whenever ya get pregnant rather than not fuck.



Yeah, because "sex" is synonymous with 'stick your penis into anyone and not use protection'. Condoms have over a 99% success rate when worn property; in other words, stupidity is a leading cause of pregnancy and STDs; not protected sex.

Your beef with sex sounds like you were exposed to the fundamentalist approach towards sex-ed as a kid, "SEX IS BAD! SEX IS THE DEVIL! STDS STDS! AIDS! BABIES! YOUR DICK WILL FALL OFF!"

Plus, I don't expect to live past 18, anyway.

Curious, what do you mean by my group?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 22, 2007)

Akkarin323 said:


> Lies....where do you get this from?



Common sense?  Even condoms have a (admittidly small) chance of failure.

But at the same time, there's a far better chance of a girl getting pregnant despite the use of a condom _and_ birth control than there is of winning the lottery.  And people still play the lottery...


----------



## General Mustang (Feb 22, 2007)

Wow, I woulda never guessed that 95% of Americans had premarital sex....Doesn't surprise me at all


----------



## Akkarin323 (Feb 22, 2007)

> But at the same time, there's a far better chance of a girl getting pregnant despite the use of a condom and birth control than there is of winning the lottery. And people still play the lottery...



Lol...life is a bunch of risks..."admittedly small", by that you mean <99%....im not worried. There is a FAR greater chance i'll have a good time...like say...100%?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 22, 2007)

Akkarin323 said:


> Lol...life is a bunch of risks..."admittedly small", by that you mean <99%....im not worried. There is a FAR greater chance i'll have a good time...like say...100%?



Dude, 1% is a HUGE chance of something happening in the life-altering-circumstances sort odds.

Have sex 10 times, there's a 9.06% chance the condom failed during one of those encounters.  20 times, 18.3%.  I can go on if you want a more detailed look.

If you're not able to face the possible consequences of that failure, then you need to take a better look at your situation.

But again, at the end of the day it's between you and the person you're sleeping with, so make your own decision.   I just think the smarter one is to wait as a general rule.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 22, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> Dude, 1% is a HUGE chance of something happening in the life-altering-circumstances sort odds.
> 
> Have sex 10 times, there's a 9.06% chance the condom failed during one of those encounters.  20 times, 18.3%.  I can go on if you want a more detailed look.
> 
> ...



Erm, I don't think that's how percentages work. By your reasoning, by the 300th time, the condom fail rate would by over 300%. Does that sound right, or possible, to you? The fail rate of condoms doesn't change due to repeated us (unless it's the same condom); it stays 1% no matter how many times you have sex.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 22, 2007)

Evil moogle, you are 27, have you not taken math?  That is not how you calculate that percentage.  I actually forget, at 11:45 how you do it, but you are not doing it right, I know that mcuh


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 22, 2007)

Good lord people, take some statistics.

If the failure rate of a condom is 1% than that means the success rate is 99%.  Still with me?

In statistics that means that out of the set of all given situations ("1") it will be successful .99 times (results of 1-99 are "good" and the result of 100 is "bad").

So for it to be successful twice in a row, it needs to be successful the first time (.99) and the second time (.99).  The and operator in statistics is multiplication so the chance of two "success" occurances in a row is .99*.99 or about .98 (98%).  The chance of at least one failure outcome is 1-<chance of success> or about .02 (2%).

We can find the general form of this as the chance of N "success" outcomes in a row would be .99^N.

So for 10 "success" operations in a row, we take .99^10 and get about .904 (90.4%).  Again, the chance that it fails _at least_ once out is 1-.904 or about 9.6% of the time (sorry, my value was a little low above I had an extra 0 for some reason).

20 "success" operations in a row we take .99^20 and get about .818 (81.8%).  Thus again the chance that at least one fails is 1-.818 or about 18.2% of the time.

This concludes our statistics lesson for the day.

------

So yes, on the 300th time you have sex you still have a 99% of being safe that time.  However the chance that at least ONCE during those 300 times the condom failed is about 95%.


----------



## B o n e s (Feb 22, 2007)

What's wrong with premarital sex?


----------



## Sakura (Feb 23, 2007)

So? It's way too common nowadays that people have premarital sex and not care about it.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 23, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> Good lord people, take some statistics.
> 
> If the failure rate of a condom is 1% than that means the success rate is 99%.  Still with me?
> 
> ...



Except each trial of wearing a condom isn't correlated with the others.

By that reasoning, you'll fail 1 out of every ten times you use a condom since the final trial would reach a 100% failure rate. That's ridiculous. You won't magically become less able to apply a condom the more times you use one. Your reasoning only works under the assumption that the person doesn't know how to apply a condom and is relying solely on luck and even then it's not as simple as "Oh, he succeeded the first nine times; he has to fail, now!"

Let me put it into perspective:
Let's say the chances of being in an automobile accident is 1:100. Are you trying to tell me that the hundredth time you drove, you'd die for sure and any time after the fiftieth you'd be extremely likely to? I don't know about you but I doubt people would drive around with a 100% chance of mortality.

Or this:
Flip a coin.

There's a 50% chance of it landing on heads or tails. By your reasoning, if the chances of getting tails is 50% the first flip, it's 100% the next.

Even if you're right about statistics, life isn't static. Factors will cause the stats to changes.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 23, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Except each trial of wearing a condom isn't correlated with the others.


Read what I wrote.  I'm not arguing that the 10th specific time that you have sex has a different odds than the 1st time.  Each individual act has the same 99% rate.

Looking at the whole, however, the chance changes.

Look at it this way, if you're rolling a normal 6-sided die, you've got a 5:6 chance of rolling something other than a one.  If you roll the die once, you've got a 83% chance of rolling "Not 1" and a 17% chance of rolling a 1.  This is true for each individual roll of the dice.

However, as the number of rolls increases the chance that any one of the rolls comes up "not 1" will increase.  As the number of rolls approaches infinity, then the chance of getting a 1 *at some point in time* approaches 100%.  This is the first law of probibility, anything that can happen eventually will given enough tries.

So if you've had sex an infinite number of times, assuming the chance of condom failure is above zero, inevitably one of those times will fail, however there is no way to predict which time it will occure.



TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Or this:
> Flip a coin.
> 
> There's a 50% chance of it landing on heads. By your reasoning, if the chances of getting tails is 50% the first flip, it's 100% the next.


Did you even read what I wrote?  We'll do this example since it's easy.

Say we're trying to measure the chance of getting consecutive "heads" on flipping a coin.  The chance on each individual coin flip would be .5 in this case.

The chance that both the first flip and the second flip would be heads would be .5*.5 or .25 (25%).  The chance tha the first flip ... tenth flip would all be heads and never get a tails would be .5^10 or 0.098% (very unlikely).

Now, none of this means anything if we're just looking at the tenth flip alone, however that's not fitting to the example in this thread.  Because if just one of your hypothetical 300 condom uses fails, you could get a disease or get someone pregnant (though we'd need to know what the chances of that happening when condom fails to really have a good example).  Any given individual case is meaningless, you have to look at the sum of all the cases.

See, this is exactly why "Deal or No Deal" is a hit show.  People don't know how statistics work.


----------



## Adonis (Feb 23, 2007)

EvilMoogle said:


> Read what I wrote.  I'm not arguing that the 10th specific time that you have sex has a different odds than the 1st time.  Each individual act has the same 99% rate.
> 
> Looking at the whole, however, the chance changes.
> 
> ...



Oh! Alright.


----------



## B o n e s (Feb 23, 2007)

My future wife must be a very experienced woman, so she can please me better.

down with virginity


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 23, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Oh! Alright.



I have no idea how good their numbers are, but Wikipedia has a good looking page that compairs various birth control methods by "chance of pregnancy in the first year of use."


It puts "nothing" at 85%, rhythm at 9% (if done right), withdrawl at 4% (if done right), and condoms at 2% (if done right).

If you want to get scared, they say condoms "typically" have a 15% rate of failure, so I hope those of you out there that are depending on them know what you're doing.  Of course, these are also averages over a year, so your milage will vary if you're getting more or less sex than the average used (which of course isn't in the Wiki article, and I don't feel like reading more to find out).

It also doesn't mention anything about disease, though I suspect those numbers would be much harder to track consistantly.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 23, 2007)

The condom rate includes people who don't know how to use them.  And I still think you are not applying a formula you need in this case.  I have it on the tip of my mind, but it is late and I can't think of it


----------



## Mukuro (Feb 23, 2007)

One question to thread: So what?


----------



## Adonis (Feb 23, 2007)

sj2k said:


> The condom rate includes people who don't know how to use them.  And I still think you are not applying a formula you need in this case.  I have it on the tip of my mind, but it is late and I can't think of it



I agree.

I don't think contractions of STDs and pregnancy or the failed condom use is as comparable to rolling dice as Evilmoogle makes it out to be. I'll think it over.


----------



## uby (Feb 23, 2007)

just to help with your discussion via condoms...
the actual fail rate isn't 99%, it's closer to 99.998%. that equates to ~3 orders of magnitude more trials before having a high chance of at least one failure if you look at the numbers.

it's interesting how they actually came up with that number. in the 70's they did a study where 1000 couples were tracked and were all using safe sex practices with condoms. based upon the number of pregnancies during a large period of time (many years) of this group, the number came out as 99.998% rate of PREGNANCY due to condom breakage. (ie - both the condom broke and successful fertilization occurred).

it's still not a good thing to gamble on, and i agree that you shouldn't have sex at all unless you'd be ready to handle the responsibility of supporting the hypothetical child for 18+ years. (yes, i'm pro-life morally but pro-choice socially)


----------



## sj2k (Feb 23, 2007)

Evilmoogle, I am not debating your results.  Because of improper condom use, that makes sense.  The only thing I debated was the math you used, lol


----------



## Dre (Feb 23, 2007)

that statistic doenst surprise me  @ all.


----------



## King (Feb 23, 2007)

This is not shocking at all. 

Also, I believe that the percent now is 97.


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 24, 2007)

The numbers are BS. The AP (Associated Pukes) are very liberal and un-American. I wouldn't trust them for anything regarding America and its values.

They probably took the studies from people who live in red light districts. Also, I don't doubt that a majority of Americans have had premarital sex in the past decades. There was that little thing called "free love" back in the hippie days, which totally ruined society to the point where we suffer from it even today. However, the REAL question is, do they regret having had sex before marriage? Did they ask them that question? Probably not. This is important because we all did stupid things when we were teenagers, and having sex would be no different, but if we look back on it and consider it to be a bad decision, well then instead of having a percentage of Americans who had premarital sex we have a percentage of Americans telling the young generations to learn from the mistakes of their elders and remain faithful until marriage. Believe it!

Do you really think that 95% of Americans would ADMIT to having premarital sex? I highly doubt that. So that leads to the question of were these people hooked up to lie detectors? If not then the studies are bubkus! Why? Some people may have lied and said that they have had sex because they were not married at the time of the study and they are the type to think that virgins should be looked down upon.

Also, what about ugly people who are the least likely to get any? How do they factor in? What class of people did they study? Would those people who have had premarital sex want their children to be abstinent until marriage? There are way too many factors here that could be giving false numbers and false conclusions. So I don't think these people should be using this study as fact to try and destroy the programs that teach abstinence. The fact that they are makes me suspicious of the study right of the bat.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Feb 24, 2007)

sj2k said:


> Evilmoogle, I am not debating your results.  Because of improper condom use, that makes sense.  The only thing I debated was the math you used, lol



Well, all the studies I've seen seem to suggest a 2%* failure rate of condoms when used perfectly*.  Even a site that's trying to sell condoms says this rate. 

As to my math, I'll wait for you to show me where I'm wrong, but I've had enough math classes that I'm not going to hold my breath.   


*Spoiler*: _*-Definitions and standards as I understand them_ 




That's out of a hundred women using this method (well, I guess their partners in this case) over a year, two will get pregnant on average.  That's assuming the condom is used "perfectly."  I'll admit here I have no idea what the "typical" number of sexual encounters in a year are as it applies to this study.

The only sites I saw that defined "perfectly" said that it was when the condoms were used in laboratory conditions with machines duplicating the use to make sure there are no human-error issues.  I'll admit here I have no idea what the standards for these tests are.


----------



## sj2k (Feb 24, 2007)

Evil, the condom makers say differently, and they can't have false advertising.  Perhaps it is almost impossible to use a condom perfectly, in which case they trick us but don't lie, just like most statistics in ads!

And BI made me laugh again.


----------



## coriander (Feb 24, 2007)

premarital  sex is not an issue.. but unsafe sex is..


----------



## Believe It! (Feb 25, 2007)

This is about premarital sex, because it is directly related to unsafe sex. Those who have sex before marriage and do not want to wait are those who do not care about self restraint. Thus they are more likely to disregard safe sex practices than those who at least try to wait until marriage, and definitely those who do wait until marriage but use safe sex to prevent pregnancy. Believe it!


----------



## Odie (Feb 25, 2007)

sj2k said:


> The condom rate includes people who don't know how to use them.  And I still think you are not applying a formula you need in this case.  I have it on the tip of my mind, but it is late and I can't think of it



The condom rate also includes people who dont know how to store them. So the idiots who store condoms in their wallets for weeks at a time are also included in this. o_O


----------



## Cuivreries (Feb 25, 2007)

Vegitto-kun said:


> Why is it shocking? most normal thing in the world.



_Yes, I agree._


----------



## Sho Minamimoto (Feb 25, 2007)

Two basic words: who cares?

Sex is just as it is.  Leave it alone and it is a private matter is it not?


----------



## Heldensheld (Feb 25, 2007)

LoLz...how many people lose it due to spring break?


----------



## Sho Minamimoto (Feb 25, 2007)

*raises hand*
*ahem*


----------



## Vicious ♥ (Feb 25, 2007)

The other half are Christians I think.


----------



## shurikentarget (Mar 13, 2007)

why can't people be more open minded to sexuality
( and wear more low low cut clothes^^)


----------



## kire (Mar 14, 2007)

> premarital sex is not an issue.. but unsafe sex is..


Agreed..Times have changed...


----------



## Shinobi Mugen (Mar 26, 2007)

Good for them.


----------



## Saya (Mar 26, 2007)

I'm still a virgin. I'm enjoying a single life until I find someone that's good enough. It's not easy.


----------



## Gir (Mar 26, 2007)

Abstinence Fails


----------



## sweet (Mar 26, 2007)

Masaki said:


> If I end up being in the 5%, I will fail at life.



dood, you don`t have to have sex to suceed or to prove your not a retard, thats just gay.If you don`t have sex, WHO CARES? You don`t have to earn your 'normalness' by screwing.


----------



## Red (Mar 26, 2007)

every time I see this thread I am reminded that I'm in the 5%


----------



## Yōkai (Mar 26, 2007)

Suiseiseki thinks premarital sex is kinky -desu ​


----------



## Ryo_nyanko (Mar 26, 2007)

Well, I wonder if that means the birth rate has gone up.. 

and transfering of STDS..


----------



## dwabn (Mar 26, 2007)

i dont find it shocking at all, how many ppl havent had sex after high school and college. its more about safe sex really.


----------



## sj2k (Mar 27, 2007)

> dood, you don`t have to have sex to suceed or to prove your not a retard, thats just gay.If you don`t have sex, WHO CARES? You don`t have to earn your 'normalness' by screwing.



dood, you don't have to use a word in a deragatory manner in order to prove you are cool, you don't have to prove your coolness by putting other groups down.

The use of the word gay is actually not that bad, I mean yeah its bad, but there are SO many other better things to fix, but I just find this comment funny because of the hypocrisy that point brings up, so I am point it out.


----------



## X (Mar 27, 2007)

People are starting to get horny younger and younger as time goes by.


----------



## Casyle (Mar 27, 2007)

*Unsurprising...*

Heh, that really doesn't shock me.   

It's odd to me.... I hear about these people taking sex ed classes and having sex at an extremely early age.  :amazed 

I never had a sex-ed class and I'm 28 and still a virgin.  I don't care if I never have sex and die a virgin.  Don't understand how so many find it so hard to abstain.  *Shrugs*


----------

