digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

The Abstinence-Only Delusion

nytimes.com — Reliance on abstinence-only sex education as the primary tool to reduce teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases — as favored by the Bush administration and conservatives in Congress — looks increasingly foolish and indefensible.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rilindo, on 10/12/2007, -26/+34The thing with abstinence education is that for it to really to work, you need the force of positive values behind it. With the sexually materials everywhere from TV to the internet, with peers engaging in sex, and somewhat indifferent and inattentive parents, scare tactics won't really work. A person need something more than "YOU'LL GET AIDZ!!!!!1111"

    Unfortunately, anything more than that is likely to get those programs shutdown, hence the somewhat hallow results that those programs brings.
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+122In the words of the great Penn Jillette - only slightly paraphrased from memory... "The people that are here today are the result of whomever ate the most and ***** the most in the past." To assume that we can stop people from having sex (and eating) is ignorant because our genetics have been selectively honed in our evolution toward having lots of sex (and food).

      So if people are going to have sex (and eat) anyway, then maybe the solution isn't attempting to make them feel guilty for doing something that comes naturally, but teach them about themselves enough so that when they make their decision -as rational free agents have a tendency to do- they will have a body of knowledge that will make them capable of making intelligent choices.
    • FizixMan, on 10/12/2007, -17/+78R34C7:
      Oh please, as if such rational logic has any place in our Christian societies today.
    • Easty, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11I don't understand how they can say 'You shouldn't have sex' but object to adding 'but if you do, but something on your dangly bits for God's sake'.
    • ThatsWhatYouGet, on 10/12/2007, -40/+1109 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@Easty

      It's called being responsible.
    • zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4@R34C7

      Big difference between having sex to make a family and having sex for pleasure. I'm pretty sure those who try to force abstinence are trying to prevent STD and "mistake" kids.

      Not to mention that lack of sex is nothing like lack of food. I think the OP had the best point.
    • wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@thatswhatyouget: When they say distribute a key as widely as possible, they don't mean 50 times on the same site!
    • Myko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17You're right about sexually charged TV etc. ruining abstinence-only education. The bigger issue is that abstinence is archaic, and stupid. Another stupid thing to do? Not wear a condom, not take a pill, and not get tested regularly with your partner for STDs.
    • AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Teenagers' bodies are biologically programmed to reproduce. To tell them to not have sex is to tell them to go against nature. To promote condoms only tells them to prevent the consequences, and is much more responsible that simply telling them not to do it. They will anyway, but won't know about birth control, and then there are lots of babies.

      Anyone for abstinence-only sex ed is leaving out the "sex" part.
    • grendel59, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4@zatrix comment:

      zatrix must be a virgin. :-)
    • mrfoos2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2The thing you guys aren't considering is that abstinence doesn't have to be from birth to marriage to prevent some unwanted children, STDs, and f-ed up emotions (in girls). If you have ~less~ sex, in other words, abstain sometimes, you can possibly avoid some of those bad results. I'd hate to see how bad things would be if all they did was hand out condoms and telephone numbers of psychiatrists for all the messed up kids.

      It's like the health sectors who preach against eating junk food. People are still going to eat junk food. But if some people eat junk food less often because of the education, then it's still good to teach it. It might not decrease junk food use back to pre-1960's numbers but it probably make the numbers lower than they would have been with the effort.
    • fumcr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33The best way to teach abstinence is to give the kids a computer and a copy of wow
    • R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@zatrix
      "Big difference between having sex to make a family and having sex for pleasure. I'm pretty sure those who try to force abstinence are trying to prevent STD and "mistake" kids.
      Not to mention that lack of sex is nothing like lack of food. I think the OP had the best point."

      There is no difference between sex for pleasure and sex to make a family. Intent does not change the act... it may surprise you to know that humanity has not always known that sex leads to pregnancy (Imagine that, it isn't innate knowledge). Does that make pre-historic man immoral because they had sex for pleasure alone? I should hope not because we would not exist otherwise. The problem I think that many people have is assuming that sex has a purpose... to make babies.

      Sex has no purpose. It has enabled us to exist, but that is not purpose that is circumstance. That circumstance has permitted life, but only through the use of pleasure to persuade humanity to have sex. Herein lies the similarity between sex and eating, the fact that we would do neither and therefore not survive unless there was pleasure associated with accomplishing the act. Pleasure is the control mechanism for instinctual survival and it cannot be denied because those who were possibly capable of it in the past did not pass their genetic code on.

      My problem with the "OP's" point is that it blames the media for glorifying sex and that being the issue. The fact is that sex is and has always been a natural part of humanity and most organism's life cycles (media did not always exist). Using the media as a scapegoat for issues is popular, but there was far more sexual rampancy in historical cultures than there are now. In fact our American society is one of the most sexually repressed civilizations of all time.
    • Nightfall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The problem with abstinence education right now is the way it is being taught. I saw a piece on this on 60 minutes about 4 months ago and the findings are shocking to be honest. For example, did you know that any sex education program that gets state or federal funding is required by law to teach abstinence only sex education? Whats worse is that the only time condoms can be mentioned or taught is when the negative aspects of them are mentioned such as failure rates. That just blows my mind! You have these sex ed teachers in full classrooms just showing all the negative aspects of condom use and why using the pill is bad.

      When I was in school, I remember sex education and how dull it was. You got to learn the reproductive system, but there was no opinions forced down upon you. There was no discussion on what you should or shouldn't do. It was merely an overview and what happened if you chose to have sex and what happens during pregnancy. So what happened between then and now? The religious right slowly moving their way into our education system and into the government even more so than it was back then.

      In my opinion, you should teach abstinence. My parents taught me that, however, they also taught me the importance of using protection. Why can't more parents do that these days? Why can't you teach both?
    • tszarathstra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I've always felt that abstinence only education is about the same as warning your children never to go near the water instead of teaching them to swim. one of these days, they're going to fall in, and then they're not going to know what the hell do to with themselves.

      Obviously, the only guaranteed way to never get pregnant or catch any diseases is never to have sex, but seriously teenagers have always have sex and will continue to have sex. You're not going to stop them with a dire warning. At least teach them how to handle themselves if they do choose that path, because otherwise you're just going to end up with more unwanted babies.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The only delusion people have regarding the issue is where the education should lie! The ***** PARENTS should step up first and foremost and start teaching their kids about sex, about the human body, about nudity, from a very young age.

      The arguments goes that parents are failing, so the government should step in. The argument continues with "parents can't talk about sex with their kid", and continues from there. Damn it, I'm sick and ***** tired of bad parenting being the excuse for the government to step in and take more responsibility.

      How about this. Have a kid under the age of 18, the parents of the new parent (Grand parents) are on the line for aid and support?
      Just imagine how seriously parents would start to take the issue of what their kids are doing on a Friday night.
    • MortiMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ zatrix "I'm pretty sure those who try to force abstinence are trying to prevent STD and 'mistake' kids."

      Haha, what gives you that idea? Teaching abstinence has absolutely nothing to do with preventing STDs and unwanted children and everything to do with the church NOT approving of "pre-marital sex" This is the same church, mind you, that says DO NOT use any artificial form of contraception, so once married have as many children as you can possibly produce, never mind whether you can support them.

      I agree with the article in that abstinence should be taught but so should safe sex. By this day in age, if people don't believe teenagers are going to do whatever they want regardless of what is preached to them, teaching anything at all is a lost cause. The ONLY logical, reasonable approach is to give them ALL the information so that they can make a responsible and INFORMED decision when the time comes.

    • VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@mrfoos2

      I think you're wrong. It's very difficult to get accurate statistics of just how effective something like abstinence only is with teens. Why? Because they are going to say what you want them to say. I should know. I was a kid and a teen once. And if you're being honest, you were too. From birth until the point where you are out from under your parent's roof, you learn to lie. That's just the way it is.

      I was raised in a christian home. Hell, I used to be able to recite bible verses from memory. At one point I even thought I wanted to be an evangelist. But I remember, some time around age five or so, I realized it's impossible to please others without covering something up and it only grew from there. When I was a kid it was my parents and teachers. I wanted to make sure I came off as a squeaky clean white boy. So I had to fib here and there to cover my tracks.

      But then around age ten a new form of lying came along. At that point I wanted to be respected. Recognized. Revered even. So I started claiming that I was doing all sorts of research into the "end times". I talked about all sorts of made up ***** just because my parents would act impressed at my "knowledge". I talked about a secret government project called "Project Wormwood" that was some kind of weapon that would poison all the water in an area and how it related to Revelations. Why did I do it? Because it felt good to be in the spotlight and have people look up to me.

      But, eventually, real life came crashing into my trajectory. I realized that if I continued to live like that, I'd have to manipulate all sorts of lies and "manage" my own reality. I also realized there was no way in hell I could hold to the ten commandments, especially where sex was concerned. I wanted to try everything and that was sure to get me into hell. So, I finally accepted that I would be headed to hell for just being myself which meant that god made me a broken soul. It was rather depressing to think that way. Fortunately, I came to terms with it a long time ago and have what I consider to be a healthy relationship with my own spirituality that doesn't limit me from being who I am.

      So what does all of this have to do with Abstinence? I'll tell you... if I were in school today and that was being offered. I would have latched on and played that I was abstaining and "saving myself for marriage" while in reality I was screwing my girlfriends and boyfriends left and right. Hmmm... sounds like the typical hypocritical fundamentalist evangelist. And people would have believed me. I was very good about coordinating that kind of sham. But it's not fun. It's much better to just be yourself and accept that it's who you are. If I like to screw everyone I find attractive, man or woman, then so be it. That's who I am. That's the way I was created. I'm not going to fight my nature just to please the whims of some foolish people with superstitions that have no basis.
    • MortiMouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ zatrix "I'm pretty sure those who try to force abstinence are trying to prevent STD and 'mistake' kids."

      Haha, what gives you that idea? Teaching abstinence has absolutely nothing to do with preventing STDs and unwanted children and everything to do with the church NOT approving of "pre-marital sex" This is the same church, mind you, that says DO NOT use any artificial form of contraception, so once married have as many children as you can possibly produce, never mind whether you can support them.

      I agree with the article in that abstinence should be taught but so should safe sex. By this day in age, if people don't believe teenagers are going to do whatever they want regardless of what is preached to them, teaching anything at all is a lost cause. The ONLY logical, reasonable approach is to give them ALL the information so that they can make a responsible and INFORMED decision when the time comes.

    • jotate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"At the very least, that suggests that the current policy of emphasizing abstinence and minimizing contraceptive use should be turned around."

      Yep, we should emphasize contraception and discourage the use of abstinence.
    • Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why is our federal government involved in any type of sex education? This should be decided on a local school board level between the administrators and parents.
    • pb4upoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Abstinence is a proven failure. Telling a teen not to have too much sex or perhaps not having sex until marriage is one thing. Telling them not to have sex is foolish and harmful to the teen. It doesn't hurt to ask your teen to try and have some adult values concerning who they have sex with. For example avoiding sex with people who take drugs is a good idea as AIDS and needles have a relationship. In general telling a teen to associate with others who have as few problems as possible is a smart move.
    • Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The US government is largely influenced by religion and rightly so considering many of the elected representatives are religious. For them to no longer promote abstinence would mean going against their own faith and essentially preaching against it. It isn't going to happen and anyone who blames the government is retarded.

      All your information about sex should not come from the government. It should come from parents, books, people you look up to and know about the subject.

      Second of all, abstinence works, no one doubts that. Whether or not people want to follow it is up to them though. So all the problems you're seeing are not a problem with the government education system, but with society in general. Since when did it become the government's job to have the sex talk with your kids? It never did and it never will be. Therefore any parent relying on that system alone is the true failure.
    • MortiMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ Daiken "The US government is largely influenced by religion and rightly so considering many of the elected representatives are religious. For them to no longer promote abstinence would mean going against their own faith and essentially preaching against it. It isn't going to happen and anyone who blames the government is retarded."

      Are you serious?!!! You actually believe the US Government should be influenced by religion? Which religion did you have in mind and whose version of it? Have you ever heard of a little thing called "separation of church and state"? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ." I realize that there is no law with respect to abstinence here, however, states are being made to forgo funding because they refuse to support teaching abstinence only. Isn't that what abstinence is. . . . a religious reasoning?

      The job of the US Government is NOT to embed their individual and personal views, preferences, morals, etc. on the people, rather to "objectively" do what's best for all. In this particular situation, clearly teaching abstinence only has "no effect on children’s sexual behavior," as directly quoted from the article, therefore, teaching abstinence only is NOT objectively the best approach for the people. Religion can promote abstinence all it wants to.
    • DavidBGie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0We don't need any cures, treatments, abstinence or condoms. Just let AIDS keep doing it's handy work. Nature is not very nice to stupid people.
    • akhomerun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2somebody make it a law for PARENTS to teach their children sex-ed. if you are going to bitch at someone to teach your kids something, what gives you the right to get pissed because it wasn't taught your way?

      if it is going to be taught in schools, then it should be "abstinence is best, but if you're going to do it, here's how to protect yourself." and strongly discourage it. It shouldn't be "abstinence only" and it shouldn't be "just ***** and use condoms" either. Looking back, there were some false things about my sex/drug education that were taught to me, but I'm not angry over them because they stopped me from making decisions that I would regret today.

      oh and don't bitch too much, teen pregnancies are on the decline right now.
    • Rtothe2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Jebus is scared of the noodly appendage.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1You hit it on the head. It would work if people had values. If adults embrace immoral behavior like premarital sex and homosexuality they can't expect teens to be more moral and act accordingly. We need to teach adults to give up their depraved behavior first. So abstinence works. The only failure is the failure of people to abstain and live morally.
    • Matri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@siszam

      You realize you are talking about a country where nearly everyone is "christian". So you just called them all hypocritical and immoral while sounding exactly like one of them.

      Well done, my boy. Well done indeed.
  • pmuaddib, on 10/12/2007, -35/+13Abstinence is more effective than condoms. However, abstinence much like condoms is only effective when you use it. It is unfair to say that abstinence is ineffective and condoms are more effective when both can only be judged by the efficacy of its practice. Abstinence when applied is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections but obviously one does not get the joy of sex. Condoms are around 95% effective when employed properly (closer to 87% in real world usage) and one does get the joy of sex. The question becomes, how much are you willing to pay for that extra 5-13%?
    • Aroundtheworls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+43Sure, abstinence is more effective than condoms at both but that's like saying not driving a car is a good way to avoid car accidents. People are going to do it anyway. So they should know what precautions they need to take if they decide to go ahead. Ending education at abstinence is a recipe for disaster.
    • pmuaddib, on 10/12/2007, -31/+4Abstinence is for those who are not married. Virgins who marry and do not cheat are extremely unlikely to get a sexually transmitted disease. Unless of course one is an injecting drug user. I am not saying that one should not have sex just that their is no better preventive measure than abstinence. You can't say that abstinence is ineffective. The next step should be monogamy then condom education. I think that all three could be taught in one program but that they should be taught in the order of their effectiveness. Condoms are ineffective against certain viral diseases like HPV and Herpes given that the transmitting agent can be outside the barrier of protection. People have a false sense of security that condom usage is a magic bullet. The order of protection decreases with other alternative barriers.
    • FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -1/+62But no one is saying that abstinence is ineffective, they're saying that abstinence-only *sex education* is ineffective and unrealistic. There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching young people that the only 100% safe way to not get pregnant and not get an STD is to not have sex, but you MUST follow that up with "But if you're going to have sex, these are the ways to lessen your risks."
    • pmuaddib, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@FyreGoddess I agree with you completely.
    • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I know nothing about sex because I was always married"
      -Zsa Zsa Gabor
    • ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I completely agree with Aroundtheworls' comment.. and analogy.

      I am terrified my daughter is going to get into a car accident.. therefore, I am going to never teach her how to drive, and tell her to only drive on nights when only 1 other person is out on the road.
      But, you know, I'm still going to give her a really fast, hot car that everyone else pays attention to.. and that she REALLY wants to use...
    • jbink303, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4@aroundtheworls

      Despite all the campaigns against it, kids are going to smoke, so let's start educating them on how to smoke safely i.e. low-tar cigarettes and staying away from unfiltered and cigars.

      Kids also drink and drive like crazy. I have several friends who've died or been injured because of drinking and driving. Let's say, 'those crazy people are going to follow their natural urges to have fun and get inebriated and drive anyway... so let's be sure they wear a seat-belt and have their passenger-side air-bags on.'

      The fact of the matter is, the only way to not get pregnant or get an STD (barring scabies) is to not have sex.

      Do I think abstinence-only education is the best way? Absolutely not. There are way more repercussions to sex than just pregnancy and STDs... let's treat kids a little more like grown-ups and tell them everything that comes along with being sexually active and not just say, 'Hey, they're gonna do it anyway, let's just make sure they do it in a way that will cut down on the responsibilities they must take.'
    • dragonexe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Abstinence when applied is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections"

      Umm.. that of course assumes that all sex is consensual.
    • jholland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Abstinence is 100% effective? Go tell that to Joseph. He got married, didn't have sex with his wife and she still got preggers.
    • Smuikas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@pmuaddib:

      Thanks for providing the perfect example of a straw man argument.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"But no one is saying that abstinence is ineffective, they're saying that abstinence-only *sex education* is ineffective and unrealistic."

      Studies show that it's no less effective than other types of "sex ed".
    • awcomeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aroundtheworls has the right idea here. Abstinence is, indeed, the only 100% complete guarantee against STDs and unwanted pregnancy. It's certainly a lot better than marriage. However, I've heard the philosophy compared to the idea of "abstinence-only" drivers ed: don't teach the kids anything about driving safely and tell them that seatbelts don't work in the hopes that they won't give driving a shot. Of course not driving is safer than driving. Many smart people avoid it for a number of health, economic and social reasons. But "abstinence only" drivers ed only means that the huge majority of kids who do try to drive will get into their cars without knowing what a seatbelt is.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@dragonexe

      ["Abstinence when applied is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections"
      Umm.. that of course assumes that all sex is consensual.]

      I find this comment a little off the wall given that no amount of any kind of sex ed is going to help you in a situation involving rape. You can't educate a rapist into using a condom.
    • dragonexe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[I find this comment a little off the wall given that no amount of any kind of sex ed is going to help you in a situation involving rape. You can't educate a rapist into using a condom.]

      I think rapes could be reduced (to a certain extent) through better sex education. We seem to imagine all rapes as violent instances where a woman is jumped by an unknown attacker, these are not the majority of cases. Most are done by people the victim knows, and many of them walk the line between rape and sexual pressuring. I think more open discussion about sex can only help reduce those occurrences, and I'm not just talking about talking coming from the victim's side. I would argue a lot of these borderline situations are caused by the lack of open communication.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most rape is also about power, not sex. I would be curious to hear how sex ed would address that.
  • RShACkSUX, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6What about a 100 person gang bang bukkake orgy..
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Gang bang = bad. Bukkake = "abstinence".....
  • quami16, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39Just pull out. 60% of the time it works everytime.
    • pb4upoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Sex seems to be the reason that high schools exist. Abstinence is like a curse from hell. May all my enemies be abstinent!
    • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Pulling out varies in effectiveness based on age and other criteria, but isn't anywhere near the effectiveness of condoms. First of all, you might not succeed. Second, there's pre-ejaculate. Even if it doesn't contain sperm, pre-ejaculate does transmit STIs. You're better off with rubber.
    • Jarodd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1even precum contains some sperm...
    • chaosium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"even precum contains some sperm..."

      Go back to health class and pay more attention.
  • SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Tell me about it. When I was in high school my girlfriend at the time insisted on abstinence, and I ended up getting her best friend pregnant instead.

    The government needs to wake up on this issue.
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16lol im sorry for your misfortunes but that is classic. My best friend did that except she was a girl and cheated on her boyfriend because he was all about abstinence. Then she got pregnant.
    • popfrogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8^^ both got pwnt. Wear condoms dummies, how hard is that? You can take one of two attitudes towards it, so one should suit you.

      1. Selfish: "I don't want an STD from this girl."
      2. Unselfish: "I don't want to get this girl pregnant or give her the herpes I got from being a moron last week."
    • kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I missed every year of sex-education in school except one at a Catholic school (I switched schools a lot), I was a virgin til 21 when i boned some dude's bish.

      I think they should teach sex positions and *****, cuz I had no idea what I was doing.
  • vatosplace, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3You will never sell abstinence given the state of our media and television entertainment. If sex sells then abstinence won't. This is only one example of why you will never successfully sell abstinence to the masses.
    • pmuaddib, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15It is not about being successful, it is about putting out accurate information. We live in a free society where people are given the right to choose. They should be able to choose from accurate information.
    • mightyzug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7... . and partial information is still not accurate
    • dragonexe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"It is not about being successful, it is about putting out accurate information. We live in a free society where people are given the right to choose. They should be able to choose from accurate information."

      Exactly. If we attempt to control people by controlling their access to information, then we're not much better than the censoring tactics of China, or certain Middle Eastern countries that we are always so eager to bad-mouth.
    • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@pmuaddib: It's called "abstinence only education". It's what the federal government is promoting as the right way to teach sex-ed.

      The problem we have is not with the "abstinence". The problem we have is with the "only".

      Yes, kids do need to know about abstinence. But they also need to know about condoms. And the pill. And everything else. "Abstinence-only" educational methods *do not work* because they specifically prevent educators from teaching kids about all the other things in case the kids decide not to be abstinent.
  • 10001110101, on 10/12/2007, -26/+409 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
  • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I beleived in Abstinence until i was 16. Then I was like wtf this is awesome. My highschool had some sex education about condoms and birth control etc. So it worked out pretty will for me. Im 24 no kids no STD's its a good life.
    • jbink303, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Great story. However, maybe your school should have focused a little more on teaching grammar than on passing out condoms.

      Though a 'comma' is often misconstrued to be the name given to the state in which a person has little to no brain function, it's actually a very useful tool in making the process of reading a little less arduous.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Alright, Mr. Grammar Nazi, but you should have used double quotes in your comeback. Only use single quotes inside of a double-quoted phrase.
    • jbink303, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

      'Single or double quotation marks are used to denote either speech or a quotation. Neither style is an absolute rule, though double quotes are preferred in the United States and single quotes in the United Kingdom. A publisher’s or even an author’s style may take precedence over national general preferences. The important rule is that the style of opening and closing quotes must be matched.'

      Sieg Heil, grammar!

      I'm such a jerk.
    • Venkatsubramane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@hetman

      We're all very proud of you. Perhaps you could write a blog about how wonderful your life is. We'll all read it. Your thoughts and experience on this matter would influence millions of people. You are my hero.
    • kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2My cousin ***** an orange.
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My grammer might be bad. But o well. Im not trying to convince anyone of anything. But a little sex education can only help a person. And I personally dont beleive in blogs because what i say is at best semi intellegent, And worst hatefull and funny.
    • Mobizo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Remember this is Digg, not ur english class.
  • Tsujigiri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10At the risk of sounding like an ass, I've gotta say that this is to some extent proof of the Theory of Evolution. If you don't take the precautions to give your child the information they need to stay safe, and as a result your child is inflicted with a disease that prohibits them from continuing your lineage, then Darwin was apparently right about certain mechanisms of evolution.
    • jbink303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Now THAT's what I call science!

      It's sort of a self-awarded Darwin Award.
    • immolation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ tsujigiri

      Agreed. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the time the little ***** just get knocked up and continue the decline in gene pools perpertually.. It's kind of the "Idiocracy" theory, if you've seen it... ;)
  • trer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Controlling human behavior has been proven throughout history to be one of the most difficult (if not impossible) tasks to accomplish. The best and most logical approach to the problem is to give teens easy access to devices that make sex safer as well as exposing them to good, solid education. Why is this so hard to understand?
    • immolation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Because the magic fairy in the sky thinks it's a sin to have premarital sex, and the GOP loves 'dem magic fairies...
    • popfrogs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@immolation:

      Yeah and the sad fact is that the government actually spends money spreading Christian abstinence morality in public schools. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/history.htm has some summations that are interesting.

      I hope people wake up and get real with this issue. The only reason most of us are even typing now is because our parents were drunk, making out in the back seat of a 57 Chevy at the drive through and doing anything but abstaining. Well...my generation, I can't vouch for yours. :)
  • nickelbagoffunk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Somehow I doubt that enforcing abstinence on the digg community would be much trouble at all.
  • neoprogrock, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20I'm 20 and still a virgin. I've been dating the same girl for more than 2 years now and there have more times than I could count that we've wanted to have sex. Hell, we even plan to get married. So, guess what's stopping us. Not our abstinence-oriented sex ed classes from high school. Not even the fear of STDs, since we're both virgins. It's our own values and morals - we're Christians, and won't have sex until we're married, period. If you don't have something behind the abstinence, it won't work to teach it to anybody. Because, as we all know, most teens don't think, they just do what feels good right then.
    • irvin666, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9your 20 and a virgin? so am I! w00t!!

      ...wait, I'm an atheist...and I turn 21 in 17 days, and I never dated a girl before....

      hmm, must need a solution for this... *plays World of Warcraft*
    • meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@neoprogrock
      Dude, you seriously need to take the car out for a test drive before you buy it. She might suck(not in the good way). Seriously though, it just seems like you are setting yourself up for divorce. Being incompatible sexually can be a real big problem that later leads to cheating/splitting up. Good luck to you though.
    • jbink303, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Irvin666's 12 step guide for getting a woman:

      1. Realize you don't have a woman.
      2. Turn 21 in 17 days.
      3. Play World of Warcraft.
      4. Play World of Warcraft.
      5. Play World of Warcraft.
      6. Buy a lottery ticket.
      7. Play World of Warcraft.
      8. Play World of Warcraft.
      9. Win the lottery with aforementioned ticket.
      10. Publicize lottery win.
      11. Women will flock to you.
      12. Play World of Warcraft.
    • immolation, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Good luck with that, 'ya poor bastard. ;D
    • popfrogs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If you've been dating for 2+ years and having zero sex, then you're already prepared for marriage my friend. Might as well go ahead and do it.
    • anodos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My wife and I married 8 years ago. I was 23, she was 20, and we were both virgins. Just like neoprogrock, it was our religious beliefs that enabled us to remain virgins until we were married. Many people told us we were crazy. Many people told me I needed to go for a test drive first. Well, let me say that after 8 years of marriage my wife and I are still madly in love with each other - even more so than before we were married. And, the sex is awesome. We made an effort to learn from each other, and the sex has become mind blowing. At this point, neither of us can imagine how it could possibly get any better. In retrospect, I can see that the sex wasn't so great the first few months of marriage (compared to what it is now), but we didn't know any better at the time and were in bliss. :)

    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The whole test drive idea is just silly. But im not a christian if you want to wait till you get married more power to you. But im not a virgin and I dont excpect my future ex wife to be a virgin either.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a lot more difficult being an abstinent agnostic. Abstinent Christian girls aren't interested because I'm not a Christian, and non-abstinent girls aren't interested because I won't sleep with them. Not that many other abstinent agnostics out there, unfortunately.
    • TheSexyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@neoprogrock

      I commend you for your efforts. I did the same but I was with my virgin girlfriend for SEVEN years and I wasn't a virgin. We broke up and she ended up losing her virginity to the first boyfriend she got after me. OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. I guess she couldn't wait any longer. lol. I hope for your sake you two get married and live happily ever after, but don't think for a second that waiting to have sex will guarantee a wonderful life or that doing it before you're married will mean certain doom.
    • franklinbluth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just don't get married because of sex. So many young couples do so they can have sex. Not a good idea.
  • Renuvian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Abstinence only sex education is idiotic. When I was in 6th grade I received comprehensive sex education about SDTs, all forms of contraceptives etc. FROM MY CHURCH. Thats right. Abstinence was given as the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy and SDTs, but was not given as the only option. Masturbation was talked about and we were told it was very natural. We were not made to feel like satan worshipers for thinking about sex. It was truely an educational experience, and once again provided by my church when I was in 6th grade. As an aside to this, my wife and I were both abstinate until our wedding day. But that was a choice we made, and not something I think would work for everybody.
    • meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What's an SDT?
    • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Which church was this? I'm intrigued.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I went to a Catholic high school, and yeah, we got the whole package. Teachers basically said "Abstinence is the best safeguard, but if you absolutely insist on doing it, here's how to do it right...."
    • Matri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Those teachers must not have gotten the memo, then.
  • fieryprophet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1You would typically think the New York Times of all places would have more intelligent editorials, but the arguments outlined in this article prove that is not the case. The tone of the first paragraph implies that abstinence teaching that sex outside of marriage has psychological and emotional implications is not true, but never actually gives a reason as to why this is assumed to be so. Also, it notes that there is a caveat in the evidence for its case, and a rather large on at that, but simply sweeps under the rug the fact that none of the research followed abstinence programs in high school, which is the time when a teen is most sexually active.

    Look, pass out the condoms, fine. But don't tell kids that they can just sleep around without consequences, because that's lying to them on a level a whole lot worse than "abstinence is the only safe sex."
    • Myko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Who the ***** is telling kids not to protect themselves and that sex can be dangerous? That's right, noone. I appreciate the effort but you are delusional if you think people are trying to teach kids that sex has no consequences.

      Also, as a teen I became most sexually active after high school (college). Maybe I was just abnormal, but it seemed about 50/50 (having sex/abstinate) in my social group. Once I got to college it was about 95/5.
    • 938MeV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As you noted, this is an editorial not a news article. Editorials generally are short opinion pieces where all the evidence is not spelled out in detail. They assume, to a degree, that you have been keeping up on the news and know something of the material at hand. Thus they assume that you know that many (not all, but many) abstinence only curricula teach that there are psychological and physical harm involved in all extramarital sex. Furthermore, they assume that you know, that this study is only the latest in a long line of studies (most of which don't have the caveat in question) that lay to rest the far reaching claims of the abstinence only crowd. In short The New York Times expects its' readers to be informed.
    • fieryprophet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Informed, or already inclined to agree with their viewpoint?
    • 938MeV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They expect you to be informed about the news, so that they don't have to spell out
      every last piece of evidence. The reason I brought this up, is you originally said that
      you didn't see where the Times was getting its information from. I simply pointed out
      that they assume you read the newspaper on occasion and are already informed about
      the various studies on abstinence education. It doesn't matter if you agree with the
      conclusions or not.
  • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2when I was in a public high school last year, abstinence was definitely NOT the message being communicated. It was more like 'don't have vaginal sex, but anything else is cool and healthy, just have a condom.'
  • Andytom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Abstinence works great. Just look at the bible if you're a virgin then you don't get any STDs, you don't get pregnant and you ... oh wait a seconds ... *****.
  • tehsux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Abstinence should be taught in schools along with safe(r) sex. The reliance on just one is off kilter.
    • Myko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have to agree, abstinence should be taught as part of a proper safe-sex curriculum. Obviously the safest sex is none at all. This doesn't mean have a separate class on abstinence and the proper use of condoms, it means combine them.
  • JK1150, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The school is supposed to teach what's right. They teach that you should not smoke pot or cigarettes, but how many kids has that stopped? Not a lot. Are they still right for teaching this? Yes, because they will get through to some kids.
    • Myko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm sorry JK1150, but my moral compass and yours are not perfectly aligned - try not to force me the same way yours is pointing you.
    • JK1150, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ironically, abstinence-only education is not "forcing" anything. It is simply teaching kids to make a safer choice. What is forcing is having schools teach children from religious families sex education. I say leave it up to the parents to teach kids on those matters. Schools shouldn't force this type of education on parents who don't want it for their kids.
    • DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As a product of middle-America's public schools, nobody's kids were ever forced to learn about sex from teachers. So, every year, 3 or 4 kids would bring in a note from their parents and they would be excused from the class.

      Personally, I don't understand why they would want to keep their kids out of that class. If you're doing your job as a parent and you've taught your kids that sex is bad and they shouldn't have it until they're married, what harm will learning about anatomy, pregnancy, and STDs do?
  • grendel59, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You mean there is ANOTHER baseless, illogical and ill-defined policy of the Bush administration? Shocking! SHOCKING! ;-)
    • 10lbhammer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1indeed. this is the administration that includes former eli lilly v.p., now "ambassador for AIDS coordination," telling the world community in 2003 that "condoms are not effective in preventing AIDS."

      " If Ambassador Tobias is successfully installed as the leader of The Global Fund’s committee on HIV/AIDS policy, the Bush administration will almost certainly attempt to inject conservative religious politics into the organization. But rather than simply meddling with politics as usual, the administration will be meddling with the lives of millions of HIV/AIDS patients. And the prognosis will be grim."

      http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Gerard0521.htm
  • Envx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0What is really the benefit of staying abstinent? We have abortion/adoption and even after your 16 you can still get STD's, so what is the point of staying abstinent until 16?
  • ronito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The problem with abstinence only education is that it assumes everyone has the same morals. You can't assume that. Ergo, it's only prudent to provide education just in case some people decide to engage.
  • grendel59, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I can only hope that ALL Christians abstain from sex.... Forever.
  • Kilraq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Teaching only one form of preventative sex is ignorant and stupid. Period.

    Yes, Abstinence is a fantastic way to avoid STD's, Pregnancy, and the emotional commitment sex brings.

    But let us be completely realistic here. The numbers of people who will follow this route is slim at best. The exponential numbers of humans around the world should really validate this point. We are made to procreate. However, this should be taught with THE SAME level of attention brought to it as well as other forms of preventive sex

    Teach the proper use and appliance of a condom. How birth control pills works, what they do. This needs to be taught to BOTH genders.

    Explain the myths that surround sex. The idea that "pulling out" is not a full proof measure against sex, and is NOT against STD's. That a girl can "skip a day of the B-control pill and be ok" mistake, etc.

    What I am saying in the end is that despite your beliefs, sex is going to happen. Let us prepare people for the effects of this, whatever route they go down.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ah, I had a friend who swore by the pullout method, even though he had been told countless times not to do it. He thought it was some conspiracy to keep him from having sex, just like a lot of kids think about the abstinence only stuff.

      I'm personally an advocate of abstinence, and really don't mind it being taught in our schools. When you say kids do it anyhow, you're right. But when you condone something, they'll do it even more.

      For example, teenagers drink beer. My parents told me not to drink beer, so I snuck out of the house on weekends, drank a few but always kept it cool so I could sober up in time to get home.
      Several of my friends had parents who applied the "oh, my kids will drink anyhow, so why not just let them" philosophy..... They all ended up with some pretty serious drinking problems, and had multiple instances of alcohol poisoning, etc.... very bad stuff.

  • archino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yea, that's why my school is great. They're very big on teaching about contraceptives.
    My school also teaches us a neat little catch-phrase that goes,
    "Sex can wait, masturbate!"
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6abstinence works... trust me... My wife has been practicing it for the past 5 years...
  • omn3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+114.9 years of age on average?! What the -- I mean, yeah, uhh, that sounds about right.
  • 10mod3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Here's the real agenda behind the people that say "Abstinence Doesn't Work". If people abstain from sex, then females are not getting pregnant. If females are not getting pregnant, then there's no reason for them to get an abortion. If there are no abortions, then Planned Parenthood and other abortion agencies are not making money.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Out of the world's industrialized nations, the United States is both the only one that teaches Abstinence-Only education AND the one with (by far) the highest teen pregnancy rate.

    If you care to read more about abstinence education (aside from a NY Times op-ed), Rep. Henry Waxman's office put together a very informative paper on the subject:
    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
  • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They should just preach oral sex.
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They do its called abstinance. Most kids do not consider oral sex the taking of there virginity. Stupid kids.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Thanks Clinton.
  • sloof70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, when you think about it, nobody got knocked up by NOT having sex. I'm just sayin'...
  • origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sounds like you are saying teenagers are incapable of controlling themselves. They must be stupid.
  • MelodySparks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If an individual is incapable of handling the possibility of pregnancy, or contracting an STD, that particular individual should not engage in unprotected sexual activity. Everyone has the opportunity to use condoms and take birth control. All of these things are readily availabe in our society. But alot of irresponsible kids are putting their lives at risk just for a *****. Yeah, sex IS a natural thing, but as with anything, it isn't without it's consequences. And unless consenting people learn how to protect themselves, those might as well be the ones that should keep their legs shut and stay abstinent.
  • Xibby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Overheard teenage conversation on public transit:
    Teenage Girl 1: Did you hear that Teenage Girl 3 is pregnant?
    Teenage Girl 2: Yeah, she told me she never has sex, only gave him a blow job.
    Teenage Girl 1: Duh, it's all connected.
    Teenage Girl 2: Oh my God! My parents are going to kill me! *breaks into sobs*

    Thank you Bush Administration!

    And thank you parents for completely avoiding discussing sex with your children.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Please tell me you made that up.
      Even if you didn't, I'd say it's highly more likely that those girls are just friggin morons. Teenage Girl 3 is already well versed at lying, apparently.
      If they had a decent sex-ed class, the conversation would have gone...

      Girl 2: Yeah, she said they always use a condom.
      Girl 1: Duh, sometimes they break.....
    • ruminate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I had the similar discussion with my daughter and a few of her friends when they were 15 or so. They did not think that oral sex is sex. I think the Bush administration has set reproductive intelligence back 50 years. And he believes that his programs are a success! Well heck of a job George, heck of a job.
  • dfeifer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Unfortunatly everywhere you look, from tv, to video games, to music on the radio, everything is sexually oriented. As long as everything portrays sex as the meaning of existance, no amount of education is going to do anything but waste money. As as the people are programed from birth that sex is required, needed and the total fullfilment of what it means to be human, things will never change. Even in todays world there seems to be far less REAL love, then sexual infatuation.
    • DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1At what point in history was sexual infatuation not required for a fulfilling life? It's sort of the point of existing as a species.
    • MelodySparks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ dfeifer

      I agree. Well said.
  • angusm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Given that the man in charge of promoting the Bush administration's "abstinence-based" policies in the developing world, Randall Tobias, has just had to resign after he got caught paying for $300/hour hookers, I guess the 'abstinence-only' message is a little hard for some people to accept. Although he does claim that he didn't have sex with them, so maybe he just invited them home so that they could abstain together.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If children are too ignorant to know what birth control is, they probably shouldn't be having sex anyway.
    • DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's why it's important to teach them what contraception is while they learn what sex is.
  • edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Foolish and indefensible? Watergate, Just say No, WIN, Enron, Haliburton, Mission Accomplished, Could Republicans be perceived any other way?
  • Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Congress ponders renewing the $87.5-million-a-year abstinence-only program."

    This is our tax dollars going down a rathole, that was proved to do nothing to curb teen pregnacy or STD's, so Bush can keep his Base happy.
  • thefaithful, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Humans want to have pleasure with no negative consequences. Period.
    • Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why shouldnt we be able to have pleasure with out negative consequences. I dont see anything wrong with pleasure as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Well, even if you use a condom, sex still might have negative consequences for you... which is kinda the point of the "abstinence only" thing
  • djvchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm still amazed that the government has complicated (or politicized) a topic as simple as this:

    How not to catch sexually-transmitted versions of Hep B, C, or HIV (in order of effectiveness):
    1) Do not have sex.
    2) Have sex using a condom.

    ...how...is...there...debate...about...this...?
    • MelodySparks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because despite having tried teaching both methods, teenagers persist to have unprotected sex. Everyone wants to blame teaching methods, when the only people to blame are the kids that don't care.
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Abstinence is the least fun form of birth control. That alone means it is doomed to fail.
  • thomn8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@anodos: "And, the sex is awesome. We made an effort to learn from each other, and the sex has become mind blowing. "

    Yeah - because you don't know any better. A statistical sample of exactly 1 is useless.
  • adz999, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2i agree 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  • erpd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Actually I know a lot of people who have waited until they are married to have sex and they are still together and enjoying each others sex life. So I am sure that there are more that can agree with @anodos. Besides marrying someone who did not have prior sexual partners makes for a healthier marriage.
    • MelodySparks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0So typical that idiots dugg this down.
  • DietCoke597, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There is absolutely NOTHING more naive being taught in our public schools than the abstinence-only sex education program. High schoolers are going to ***** like rabbits, no matter what you tell them. Either provide REAL safe-sex education, or watch teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates rise.
  • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I find it astonishing that our public schools were unable to beat out the most basic human instinct that perpetuates our species. - The Onion

    again, failure to use common sense results in pointless uses of tax payer money. I mean come on, all I ever wanted to do since like 8th grade was have sex.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The key is to scare the pants off of kids. Well, I guess we want to keep their pants on, but scaring them is a good idea. Let that one girl in the class get knocked up. Let another one get AIDS. The rest will learn from their example.
  • tintedblue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The only reason Digg is so anti-abstinence is because they think abstinence is only pushed by Christians and Conservatives. They must not live in a little town like I do where 14 year olds are having babies and acting like idiots over it. Perhaps you didn't notice but the mortality rate for infants in the U.S. is RISING. Someone has to do something about it.
    • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2abstinence, as this says DOES NOT WORK. what the *****. do we have to support something that is proven not to work? or can we try and shift to focus and try something that might?

      Tinted, what would you have us do? keep trying abstinence education? The debate over whether to use it is over. It is a failed strategy.

      telling the 14 year olds not to have sex didnt work. its the administrations fault for thinking it would.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2kmack928, abstinence works. It's people who fail. Name one person who got pregnant (besides the virgin Mary) or got an std from NOT having sex.
    • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm sorry, I should have said "abstinence only education fails", because there is no way to control the most universal urge in every living creature, and it is pointless to try.

      I hate to say that people who have sex fail, in fact, I like to think they actually succeed. I sure felt that way when I lost my v-card, and pretty much every time I've had sex since (well, except this one time... ugh). Maybe if the kids were educated to use contraceptives, instead of just being told not to have sex, they wouldn't have become pregnant or contracted an STD. The abstinence only education, and the people who support it, has failed.
  • CMOSLogic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3See ya when you get that AIDS, HERPES, VENEREAL WARTS, SYPHILIS, GONARREA, HEPITITIS thing worked out. Oh yea, and also the OVARIAN CANCER and whatever other unknown maladies are caused by shameless whoring.

    From the look of it the 'it's cool being a scumbag slut' isn't working out well in divorce rates either. Most divorces might be about money but close behind, is the whoring.

    What's a dismal failure is trying to equate sexuality to secularity and do it just because religious people teach you should keep your ***** wired tight. Secularists think if religious people say it then it's open season.

    it doesn't matter if bullwinkle said it, if it makes good or bad social structure then its good, or it's bad.

    venereal disease and a nation of untrustworthy sluts are bad. Lots of accidental kids come along; lots of young folks that love to ***** aren't capable of keeping a dog properly and would be better off not even risking having kids.

    all the downers are on the side of the whoring coalitions. If it werent for them a whole lot of society's ills wouldn't be going on, as stinging a slap in the face of whores, as that is.

    Nobody respects a society without tight morals. the three most powerful social coalitions in the world are Protestant Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

    Nobody else is even close. The thing they have in common? Strict breeding endorsements.

    You might not like it but civilizations of whores whose sexual morality revolves around "if ya want to, go ahead" include a cast that looks like this, in part:

    The modern Russians
    North American Indians.
    Canadian Indians
    Australian Aborigones
    South American Indians
    Inuit
    Buddhists

    Notice a lot of them are no longer political powers on the earth? I know your jr. college degree has turned out to be a real disappointment but the bad news is: you've been lied to if you didn't get told about how societies full of whores are as easy to smash as a styrofoam cooler.

    sorrrrrrry. Looks like on top of that AIDS and 'finding out your wife is sleeping with a co-worker' thing, there's something else you have to look forward to:

    sexually promiscuous societies are in chains, inside 3 generations. Might be their own government; might be someone elses; might be another civilization but they will be going down. Not maybe. It's a fact.

    Your coalition of enlightened professors: the same ones whose 'morality' doesn't let them keep a small revolver in a locked case to stop mass murder of children:

    got caught with their tongues up half researched science's ass, yet again. I'm sure the ***** taste of being massively wrong ALL the time, AND being an effete little bitch who has to pose as a guru to get a little bit hurts.

    Oh well too bad, so sad, not gonna make your professor glad: but it's a fact. Whoring means chains. PERIOD.

    (Notice how the United States' people are all the time asking how they wound up working 4 months a year involuntary servitude? It's also EXACTLY correlated to their tolerance for whoring).

    Ha Ha Ha your mother, that scumbag ***** whore, lied, boy: Now get to work you owe that whore mother of yours' federal Nanny some wages. The Nanny pays for your mama to whore: you pay the Nanny for the privilege. Neat huh.

    Get your ass to work. Don't stop you've got an upcoming generation of hispanic whores to pay for, too, plus your own.

    Sucker. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.



    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Step away from the pep pills, dude.

      Got a lot of anger built up, huh?
    • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1are you serious? I love sex. I love safe sex. Its one of the best experiences in the entire world. People should have consentual sex every chance they get!

      Your argument is disgusting, and utterly pointless. I hope you die alone, and never propagate, so that your despicable message dies alone right alongside you.
    • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I wasn't going to go here, but after rereading that tirade, I cant help myself. You stink of the ignorance of far right christianity, it's poison drips all over your self-righteous words. brainwashed in youth, and too weak minded to question your indoctrination. I am no christian, but I assure you, jesus christ would be ashamed of you. Didnt he bathe the whores? didnt he say, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

      ***** you, you *****.
    • haterofps3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@CMOSLogic

      Hey if your are morally right then I want to be wrong.

      I agree with Kmack928 you smack of fanatical Christianity, if that is the case maybe you should examine your own religion. I can name several instances from the bible that any modern moral person would call evil and terrible.

      The one I like is the story of Sodom and Abraham's Nephew Lot and how he offered up his daughters to be rapped by a mob. So that Lot could protect two angels, before the young women could be rapped the angels told lot and his family to flee Sodom for the city has going to be destroyed. They fled to the mountains where the daughters having not known the touch of a man got their father drunk and then copulated with him like "Whores".

      Or lets go to directly to Abraham and how he was willing to murder his own son, because god asked him too. You know what we do to people like that know we dose them up to the eyeballs and lock them away in padded room.

      It sounds to me like you have been hurt by a women or maybe a man, and you use your beliefs and your religion to justify hate speech and thumbing your nose at people. You should be ashamed of your self CMOSLogic and you should examine your beliefs and decide if you have the right to look down your nose at others. For in your world a sin is a sin no matter what it is and your comment reecks of hate and vile and if you don't think that is sinning then maybe your morales are a bit flexible.

  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't understand what's so hard about using prophylactics. Would you rather a) have a slight inconvenience during sex or b) have hideous, incurable puss-filled sores and lesions on your nethers for the rest of your days?

    Hardly a dilemma.
    • johngr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A Hobson's choice, perhaps. How about leave education (and the consequences thereof) to the parents and get the "authorities" the ***** out of it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.