Statistics proved that "abstinence education" was a dismal failure and actually resulted in even higher teen pregnancies because they were utterly clueless about how to prevent pregnancies.
Actually, the best way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is through sexual abstinence. Prior to the sexual revolution, society advocated very strict marital norms that where put in place to regulate "unwanted pregnancies" and to protect the woman. Sex-ed is a great hoax that fills no purpose whatsoever and becomes even more irrelevant in the contemporary, digital era where "sexual liberalism" is the norm.
. Uh, duh, really! However preaching abstinence doesn't work . And I have the entire history of the world to back up that claim.... They might have "advocated" but it sure didn't work for everyone, people still had sex in and out(pardon the pun) of marriage..EXACTLY like they have done since the beginnings of humans. WHAT! Learning is bad ??!!!?? learning about one of the greatest driving forces in human history has no purpose? learning how our bodies work has no purpose? learning how to keep from getting pregnant has no purpose? Learning the earth isn't flat has no purpose? Sexual liberalism has always been the norm for many humans throughout history......mostly espoused by men...
I would argue it does work and that it is the right thing to do. Teaching young boys and girls that they own their own bodies and encourage them to take responsibility and raise them to become self-respecting and humble towards others is not a bad thing. A norm is not the same as a natural rule. In fact, a norm - in most cases - is a social code put up to regulate the natural rules. Of course, there has always - and will always be - people who break the norms, but when sexual norms were broken in the past, it was not only a huge shame for the family in question, but also a cost that most families could not handle. So, in order to disincentivise youngsters from "fooling around", society put up these codes and they worked for most people. My guess is that you probably went to school before sex-ed was even introduced and therefore have no idea how it takes shape. Also, you make a very good point in the quote above that pinpoints the uselessness of sex-ed; it is a "driving force in human history", i.e. we don't need to learn about it because it is an instinct. In my opinion, it is rather perverted that the government has decided it is their responsibility to teach other people's children what to do in the bedroom. It does have a purpose and that is why I am a fan of abstinence over promiscuity. Yup, our cavemen ancestors were quite brutal and dumb. But, once we evolved and started building civilisations, sexual abstinence became the norm because that was the best way to maximise the best possible social outcome.
Here is a NEWSFLASH! Prior to the sexual revolution people were still having sex outside of marriage and abortions were happening because of the unwanted pregnancies that occurred. The most significant difference was in female mortality rates that were being reduced by the introduction of antibiotics long before the sexual revolution occurred. Abortion has been around all through recorded history. Your pablum about "strict marital norms" is hogwash.
Newsflash - I never claimed the opposite, did I? Double newsflash - Why drag in abortion to the discussion? This is not the abortion board and I never mentioned abortion in the post that you quoted. So, you are saying treating women with respect rather than treating them as obejcts is bad?
You fallaciously claimed that there were all kinds of "strict marital norms" which I exposed as nonsensical since unwanted pregnancies have been happening regardless. We were discussing unwanted pregnancies and women have a RIGHT to end an unwanted pregnancy via abortion. Asinine strawman duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.
The claim is not nonsensical because it is factual. Just because there are norms disencouraging x, it does not mean that everyone is following them. I agree, but it is not something that should be encouraged.
..despite all evidence to the contrary.... And you said, """Sex-ed is a great hoax that fills no purpose"" (????) Make up your mind. BTW, it is good to teach GIRLS that they DO own their bodies and can have an abortion because only they own their bodies just like boys do. . This is where we part...there is no "natural rule"... No, it didn't work for most people... and you can't prove it did. I did NOT say we don't need to learn about it because it's a driving instinct. Eating is a driving instinct and humans had to learn about it to be healthy and not poison themselves...MYGAWD! WHAT have you got against education!??? Good because it doesn't tell people what to do in the bedroom and shouldn't...so there should be no laws against gay marriage! Yes, once AGAIN, abstinence does stop pregnancy but preaching it does not stop pregnancy and I have the history of the world (which you seem to deny exists) to back up my claim and you have nothing. OH Baloney! There has NEVER been a time when abstinence was the "norm" anywhere....not even in convents and seminaries... DO show these times when unmarried people didn't have sex...that should be quite hilarious to see your idea of when THAT happened !!
Agreed. As some speechwriter once wrote; "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare". The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent pregnancies. Better sex education and effective, cheap contraceptives are the best tools for preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Nor should it be discouraged...it should be left totally and completely up to the person whose body is involved, NO one else.
Those "strict marital norms" were just as useless as "abstinence education" because they did NOT stop unwanted pregnancies from occurring. Who exactly is "encouraging" abortion?
Abortions as well as contraceptives ought to be left entirely to the market to handle. Supply and demand will decide the price because only then will people have the proper incentives to act cautiously.
Abortion should be legal, safe, and happen whenever a woman wants one. ..and it shouldn't even have to be "legal"..it's a medical procedure.
Let's not forget that half the population is on the wrong side of the IQ Bell curve. If you only provide a product without education, the dumbasses lesser intelligent won't consider the consequences of their actions while smart people will do so. In the end, we'll be left with an Idiocracy as the intelligent people limit unwanted pregnancies and the lesser intelligent keep popping out unwanted children. It's a conundrum.
With the same logic laws prohibiting rape and murder are usless because there are still rapists and murderers in our society. An absolutely ridiculous argument. Our culture is indirectly doing that now that sex has become "free". Young men and women now prefer short term relationships and culture is now glorifying rather than shaming instant gratification. Birth pills and abortions has decreased the value of women because men no longer see any risk in using them as sexual objects.
The problem is still the welfare state. Dumbasses see no risk in popping out children because they know that they will get their welfare money at the end of the month. Without subsidies, even dumbasses would think twice before having unprotected sex or engaging in the one-night-stand-culture.
I don't care. I would prefer to raise my daughters to become ladies and my sons to become gentlemen. You are free to do as you want.
Agreed the welfare state tends to encourage idiocy, even without it, dumbasses would still be having children and not understanding why they keep getting pregnant.
I agree that what you just posted was an absolutely ridiculous argument on your part. So why did you use it? Your fallacious opinion of society is duly noted. Women are only "decreased in value" to misogynists who don't have a clue. The exact opposite is happening in society today. Women are exerting their rights to self respect and refusing to be treated as "lesser" by misogynists who only see them as "sexual objects" rather than as individuals. That this assertion by women to their right to be treated respectfully as equals in society is causing problems for misogynists is not a problem that women must deal with. It is the misogynists who need to grow up and come to grips with a society where they need to compete against women who are their equals and betters. Yes, this does "threaten" the fragile "manhood" of misogynists because they suffer from low self esteem otherwise they wouldn't be misogynists in the first place. But that is their problem and they need to figure out how to adapt to the changing environment or end up becoming extinct through the process of natural selection.
Why are you burdening your own daughters with outdated claptrap instead of allowing them to be "free to do as they want"?
FoxHastings said: ↑ They never have before...why would that change? So "ladies" and "gentlemen" don't have sex?
Without subsidies those "precious lives ", CHILDREN, would suffer...is that what you want ? Really!!! No part of society stops having sex....
