Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/11/11 09:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You know what's healthier than sex? Self control.

No, it isn't. Self control in and of itself is meaningless.

Those are some provocative words that you just put into my mouth.

I didn't.

At 7/11/11 10:04 PM, Killersepp wrote: No, it isn't. Self control in and of itself is meaningless.

....

Who am I kidding? You guys are right to have no hope for the next generation.

At 7/11/11 10:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/11/11 10:04 PM, Killersepp wrote: No, it isn't. Self control in and of itself is meaningless.

....

Who am I kidding? You guys are right to have no hope for the next generation.

i'm still a virgin...

Now, to be fair, abstinence really is the only surefire way to stay STD free. That and not sharing needles. That's why you should always be sure to bring your own needle in case they don't have extra.

At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/13/11 09:58 PM, qwertyfreak wrote: Again, I'm not against teaching the dangers of sex (STIs, pregnancy, etc), and that abstinence is the only 100% protection, (condoms rate 98% with perfect use, the pill at 99.7%). I'm just against teaching that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself from those dangers.

Name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.

Meanwhile....

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) showed an uptick in abstinence among 15- to-24-year-olds. It revealed 29.9 percent of men had not had any sexual contact ever, while 28.3 percent of women had abstained.

In the 2002 NSFG, only 22.7 percent of women and 22.6 percent of men reported they were abstinent. The survey defines "sexual contact" as engaging in vaginal, oral or anal sex with an opposite sex or same-sex partner.

....

The NSFG, which aims to assess the overall sexual behavior, sexual attraction and sexual identity of 15- to-44-year-old Americans, polled 13,495 men and women over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008 using a random sample from the U.S. household population. The interviewing technique used allowed those surveyed to enter in their answers without the knowledge of the interviewer.

Click.

100% if actually used. The CDC even says that abstinence only sex ed is such a waste of money, it would be easier to simply burn it in a barrel.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/
db46.pdf

I mean hell, there is a movie based on a texas school district that, despite recieving the most federal funds for abstinence only sex ed, had the nation's highest rate teen pregnancy and teen STD rates.

At 7/14/11 04:32 PM, Mark-er wrote:

At 7/11/11 09:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/11/11 03:48 PM, Killersepp wrote: sex is one of the healthiest activities imaginable, both emotianly and physicaly.

You know what's healthier than sex? Self control.

Nope. Sex has many great health benefits. When you and your partner are both clean, self control isn't making anything more healther, in fact, it can be said that it's unhealthy, because you would be losing out on those health benefits you get from having sex.

Your "self control is healthier than acting upon" logic makes about as much sense as saying "have self control from your hunger, because not eating chicken, beef, pork, veggies, fruit, and pretty much every other piece of edible nutrition, is the only way to prevent food poisoning!"

And Atheists have better sex then theists.

At 7/14/11 04:32 PM, Mark-er wrote: Nope. Sex has many great health benefits.

Yeah, and? Self control having many health benefits does nothing to counteract the health benefits of sex.

When you and your partner are both clean, self control isn't making anything more healther, in fact, it can be said that it's unhealthy, because you would be losing out on those health benefits you get from having sex.

If you are solely having sex with the right person who is clean and you are comfortable facing the consequences with, you would have exercised self control.

Your "self control is healthier than acting upon" logic makes about as much sense as saying "have self control from your hunger, because not eating chicken, beef, pork, veggies, fruit, and pretty much every other piece of edible nutrition, is the only way to prevent food poisoning!"

It only fits that analogy because you don't agree and aren't mature enough to look at the other side of an argument. An APT self control and food analogy would be more akin to passing up tasty but terrible foods, such as fast food, greasy shit, excessive candy, and so on for a balanced, well portioned and controlled diet. Self control DOES NOT equal complete avoidance. Self control is the ability to pass up quick short term pleasures in favor of long term goals. An example of this would be: not being a horny idiot and poking every wet hole you see, btu rather waiting until you find a clean and stable mate. On the horny path, you expose yourself to nasty shit, in terms of STDs, possible pregnancy, emotional connections and so on. On the stable path you find sex, and in many cases mroe sex than you would in the first path, and that sex provides far less consequences, and a relationship that can ameliorate some of the ever present consequences.

Self control IS healthier than sex. It is that simple.

At 6/16/11 02:36 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 6/15/11 02:12 PM, poxpower wrote: They should hand out condoms to kids for free. See what happens then. They did it in Thailand and it cut down the spread of AIDs like crazy: http://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaid ya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_
place.html

Thailand is also one of the most popular child prostitution destinations in the world, where it is unofficially tolerated. But who cares about that, right? At least the AIDS rate is down.

We've got free contraceptions for youths up to 25 here in Sweden too, and as far as I know it's working pretty well. My mother is a HIV-specialized STD-nurse and according to her (and I do see her as a somewhat relevant authority on the matter) the summers when they've had free condom-campaigns (so instead of going to a clinic to get free condoms, they hand them out on festivals, in the streets and so on) the number people testing for STD's has increased but the number of infected has dropped noticeably for some months.

BTW, condoms, when used properly, are 100% safe only if they don't break. Abstinence is 100% safe only if you're not raped or otherwise sexually assaulted.

At 7/15/11 03:24 AM, Mark-er wrote:

At 7/15/11 12:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Wall of text

Your orignal statement was "You know what's healthier than sex? Self control." You said healthier than sex, not healthier than promiscuous sex, just sex, so I assumed you ment self control as in complete abstinence, and I'm sure that's what you ment. In fact, you were preaching abstinence earlier in the thread:

Abstinence isn't a life long plan to never have sex with anyone it's an intelligent decision to wait until you have found the right person to have sex with, so even if you are right and he meant complete abstinence that doesn't make his statement invalid.

"Abstinence is a virtue, and it's a shame that we all don't have the will to achieve it on some level."

So then when you saw my arguement, and realized you couldn't refute it, you changed your original stance to keep your ground.

No, you're just too obsessed with sex to realize abstinence doesn't require not having sex for your whole life. He didn't change his argument you just don't listen to the arguments for abstinence.

Also, you got my analogy wrong. You ignored the food poisening aspect in your remake of my analogy (food poisening = STD, unwanted preg). The wholesome well balanced diet doesn't eliminate the chance of food poisening, nor does it make you less susceptible to it compared to junk food. Just like how a monogamous relationships doesn't always eliminate the chance of an STD or unwanted pregnancies, and casual sex doesn't nessesarly increase those chances.

I'd say obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, strokes, and the myriad of major and minor diseases caused by poor diets are better analogies for STDs and unwanted pregnancy than food poisoning. Waiting until you've found the right person to have sex with doesn't eliminate the potential for an unwanted pregnancy it just makes it far less likely and it prevents it from happening with a complete stranger and when you and your partner are clean there is zero chance of you getting STDs in a truly monogamous relationship. Casual sex does increase your chances of getting an STD. Your analogy is flawed and once again you are ignoring what abstinence truly is.

Abstinence only sex ed is obviously a waste of time and money but that does not make abstinence a bad thing.

At 7/15/11 01:08 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: BTW, condoms, when used properly, are 100% safe only if they don't break. Abstinence is 100% safe only if you're not raped or otherwise sexually assaulted.

So the conclusion is... for rapists to wear condoms?

Actually I'm all for that.

Okay, let's be honest, which do you think teens are going to do if given the chance?
Are they going to refrain from sex if offered?
OR are they going to engage in sex but use a condom because a condom is the best protection a teen male can get?

The data is clear, the whole "abstinence" sex ed idea is bullshit because teens aren't going to risk being virgins for the rest of their lives.

At 7/16/11 09:58 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Okay, let's be honest, which do you think teens are going to do if given the chance?
Are they going to refrain from sex if offered?
OR are they going to engage in sex but use a condom because a condom is the best protection a teen male can get?

This is the reason abstinence only education fails, not because there is some inherent flaw with abstinence.

At 7/17/11 12:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/16/11 09:58 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Okay, let's be honest, which do you think teens are going to do if given the chance?
Are they going to refrain from sex if offered?
OR are they going to engage in sex but use a condom because a condom is the best protection a teen male can get?

This is the reason abstinence only education fails, not because there is some inherent flaw with abstinence.

Yet it still fails. The Titantic was unsinkable, yet when it sailed, it sank. The hull design was good and flawless but real life showed the facts. Abstinence only sex ed is communism, looks wonderful on paper, fails in real life.

At 7/17/11 08:03 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Yet it still fails. The Titantic was unsinkable, yet when it sailed, it sank. The hull design was good and flawless but real life showed the facts. Abstinence only sex ed is communism, looks wonderful on paper, fails in real life.

Abstinence NEVER fails. People fail it.

Also, 'abstinence' and 'abstinence only education' are NOT the same thing.

At what point will "adults" get real with kids. I mean I'm 26 but I remember in high school they pulling the same crap then too. Its like drugs where the only answer is avoidance. This is retarded and these so called "adults" and "parents" need to wake up and stop trying to hide things from kids. Just be real and talk about both sides of sex, drugs, and everything that is a real choice in life.

At 7/17/11 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/17/11 08:03 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Yet it still fails. The Titantic was unsinkable, yet when it sailed, it sank. The hull design was good and flawless but real life showed the facts. Abstinence only sex ed is communism, looks wonderful on paper, fails in real life.

Abstinence NEVER fails. People fail it.

Also, 'abstinence' and 'abstinence only education' are NOT the same thing.

:Abstinence NEVER fails. People fail it.

Ergo, Abstinence fails.

have we discussed what happens after the abstinence only kids grow up?
does the increase in STIs amongst the elderly represent a lack of knowledge, a lack of self-control or simply what happens when you give the senile boner-inducers?

Since my previous posts in this thread have been reactions to other people, let me clarify my stance:

Sex is good for you. As long as it's entirely consensual and safe, there's no downside to ANY kind of sex. I myself am, more or less, a hopeless, naive romantic, and fortunately I've got an absolute awesome girlfriend. But if promiscuity is more to your liking: Good for you! Have sex with as many partners and as often as you want, as long as you keep using rubbers and don't hurt anyone emotionaly - good for you!

What I don't get is why abstinence from sex, or avoiding pre-martial sex is in any way ethicaly better. Sure, there's the religious argument - but I'm talking about human facts here, not religion. Keep that to yourself, and don't try to argue with it in rational debates.
I simply can't see anything wrong with sex in general. Rape and STDs are problems, sure - but those are different topics.

At 7/2/11 03:00 AM, Darkgon01 wrote: O GOD
who doesnt hate those piss-ass hippies that belive too strongly in that bible crap

I thought Hippies believed in Free Love.

At 7/21/11 07:02 PM, Killersepp wrote: Have sex with as many partners and as often as you want, as long as you keep using rubbers and don't hurt anyone emotionaly - good for you!

Ah yes, because being very promiscuous and doing all of that is about as easy as standing on one leg, while shooting a .45 caliber bullet through the hole a needle travelling on another bullet...

What I don't get is why abstinence from sex, or avoiding pre-martial sex is in any way ethicaly better.

Who said anything about ethics?

I simply can't see anything wrong with sex in general.

Promiscuous sex is hazardous to one's health due to their exposure to numerous different partners and the possibility for negative outcomes, but physically and emotionally.

Oh, and FYI. Anybody with a steady girlfriend will tell you get more sex with monogamy than you get with promiscuity.

At 7/21/11 09:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Oh, and FYI. Anybody with a steady girlfriend will tell you get more sex with monogamy than you get with promiscuity.

*warning; this is little more than comic relief, warning*
my friends in such a situation would disagree. zing!

as do many comedians; maybe funny is a sex killer.
double zing!

At 7/21/11 09:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Oh, and FYI. Anybody with a steady girlfriend will tell you get more sex with monogamy than you get with promiscuity.

And anyone with a steady wife will tell you that they get WAY less sex than you get with with promiscuity. Haven't you ever listened to a comedian?

At 7/23/11 03:52 PM, ZJ wrote: And anyone with a steady wife will tell you that they get WAY less sex than you get with with promiscuity. Haven't you ever listened to a comedian?

Ask those who go for sex swith whomever, have htey ever had sex 4 times a night multiple times in a week?

When I had sex education They barely had a mention of human sexuality, and just focused on reproductive functions. They didn't mentioned safe sex at all, because they barely even mentioned sexual pleasure, because they were afraid of offending parents. Not much was learned at all.

Ah yes, because being very promiscuous and doing all of that is about as easy as standing on one leg, while shooting a .45 caliber bullet through the hole a needle travelling on another bullet...

Wow, your sense of perspective is really kinda awesome. In the most negative way.

What I don't get is why abstinence from sex, or avoiding pre-martial sex is in any way ethicaly better.

Who said anything about ethics?

Them people who came up with "abstinence only". Don't play dumb here, bubba.

I simply can't see anything wrong with sex in general.

Promiscuous sex is hazardous to one's health due to their exposure to numerous different partners and the possibility for negative outcomes, but physically and emotionally.

Promisious sex with condoms and the pill, however, is hunky dory. As for the emotional damages, well... I'd really like to see some sources for that. Care to share?

Oh, and FYI. Anybody with a steady girlfriend will tell you get more sex with monogamy than you get with promiscuity.

Setting aside the problem with anecdotal evidence: That's relevant why?

At 7/10/11 11:42 PM, Proteas wrote:

To which I say; don't feed the trolls.

You should admit though, you were just being argumentative from the start.

Abstinence-only education. More like, "whoops, only misinformation"!

It is inhuman to deny human beings of the proper age of consent sex. At that age the physical need for sex kicks it. That's right. Sex is a physical need as real as food water and sleep Even self satisfaction as in masturbation can satisfy the need for sex. People of that age should not be conformed to the dogma that requires you to get married before you have sex most people at that age are not ready for a commitment like Marriage but they are ready for a commitment of sexual activity. Unless you actually want a baby please, use birth control and don't let the dogma of the church prevent you especially from using condoms.
Fact: Use of condoms does protect against STDs and HIV/AIDS at a success rate of 98% and does protect against pregnancy with a 89% success rate.