Hey, I'll admit that I was wrong here as it comes to life expectancies.

As for teenagers, I never said that they don't understand that penis + vagina = baby. I'm saying that they (as do other people) greatly overestimate the usefulness of a birth control method that's 95% or 99% effective... when used correctly. They're more likely to throw caution into the wind and just fuck, and to hell with the consequences because it can't happen if I pull out, or it can't happen because I'm wearing a condom.

Education is a big part of this, but at a certain point where sexual education in the classroom is mandated, you have to put some responsibility on the teenagers. You seem to be arguing at points that we underestimate teenagers ability to make adult decisions and understand consequences, and we're forcing them to take longer to grow up and mature. I'm obviously shaped by my own life experiences and my own parents and education. What I can tell you about MYSELF as a teenager is that I knew about the risks of pregnancy, I knew about STDs, I knew all of the information but honestly didn't care if it meant having sex. Hormones are fantastic for throwing caution into the wind.

If I would have had sex at that age and gotten someone pregnant, did it mean that my parents didn't work hard enough for me to understand consequences and take them seriously? Is it the fault of the education system? Or is it my fault for putting my penis into someone else's vagina while knowing the consequences and not caring?

My argument for waiting to have sex is airproof.

If you aren't mature enough to raise a child on your own, you aren't mature enough to copulate.

---

amen, cheesey!!!

Of course not. But I don't see anything wrong with teenagers having sex. If God didn't intend for teenagers to have sex, he's a sadistic motherfucker for giving them such intense sexual hormones at that age.



No, my argument is that people at that age are DESIGNED to be having sex and that artificially preventing them from doing so by not equipping them to be mature and responsible is unnatural, unhealthy, and probably cruel. Again, the typical American anti-youth bias in labeling teens "kids" rears its ugly head.



I never said anything about fair. I said it doesn't take $1700/month to raise a child, particularly when you still live at home. Period. Of course I think it's absurd when a divorcee of a millionaire expects to keep her same standard of living after the breakup. If it's the standard of living they want they should stay in the relationship.



No, it should serve as a lesson to be responsible about their sexual choices. If those choices include abstinence, so be it.

Last night I had a conversation with the guy who was dispatched to tow my car from Madison to La Crosse. He revealed to me that he'd just gotten back from a child support hearing in Chicago. I had a hard time not laughing out loud when he admitted the child in question was the product of an out-of-town one night stand. So not only did he not verify that the woman was on birth control (virtually impossible to do anyway), he didn't do his part by wearing a condom . . . on a one night stand! Of course it's impossible to sympathize for him; he was just being stupid.

He was lucky; his child support allotment was only $86 every two weeks. 😉 Was that figure "fair" or not? I don't know and I couldn't care less; I think it's an irrelevant question. As long as the child receives adequate food, shelter, and education, how many other amenities he has is of no concern to me.



This anti-male-sexuality attitude, which pervades all our modern American sexual laws, irks the hell out of me. It completely ignores the contribution of the woman. It's why we have absurd laws under which, for example, a man can be charged with rape after having consensual drunk sex with a woman, but a woman cannot be charged with rape for doing the same thing to a man. Of course the man could have said "no." So could have the woman. She wasn't a passive player in the equation. She could have taken responsible precautions too. By your logic, perhaps she should be primarily responsible for paying for the child, since she didn't show enough self-control to say no.

And where did I advocate feeling sorry for the man anyway? I don't view either of their actions in isolation. They made a choice -- they need to live with it. Neither is more or less responsible than the other, nor should they be regarded as such.



I sincerely applaud and respect you for your sexual continence in the face of adversity. I would not choose to live that way. It's not a lifestyle that suits everyone, and therefore I don't think you should pass judgment on those who choose not to.

The Bible certainly doesn't. Name me one major biblical figure who was strictly monogamous. Isaac possibly. Perhaps Joseph. Paul was celibate. But they're exceptions to the rule.

---

As for the topic at hand, I say let Palin's 'baby' girl suck that douchebag dry. I'll be completely honest here, if I were to bump into him on the street, he'd have a broken jaw.

Yes, he's that much of a tool bag.

---

I don't understand why men are somehow more responsible for the consequences of sex than women are.

---

They arn't MORE resposible, but JUST AS resposible.
And let's face the truth, if the guy says NO, she doesn't get pregnant, right?
In the end, HE ALONE is resposible for where he puts his penis, right?
But thats the old "double standard" we have today. If a guy screws around, he's a "stud". If a girl does, she's a "slut".

We as humans have all kinds of drives. Not just a sex drive you know. So it's God's fault because we as humans have no self control? God didn't plan it that way. He planned for us to be perfect, where we wouldn't have any DESIRE to screw around. It was MAN that sinned and screwed it all up.
He gave us "free will", and you are seeing that mankind can't handle the responsibility.

The reason I hold the man responsible is because I AM a man. And believe it or not, I said "NO" to the moves of a girl more then once. Was it "hard?" (pardon the pun) Yes, it was. But it was the RIGHT thing to do. And the RIGHT thing to do isn't always the EASIEST. In fact, it's usually alot more difficult to do.

---

Because when we don't take more responsibility for the consequences, not only are we perceived as a dick, but it's creates a breeding ground for making excuses for the rest of our actions.

Because maybe we don't have the responsibility of carrrying the 'consequence' of sex around in our bellies for 9 months.

---

HAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, this made my day.

---

If she says "no," she doesn't get pregnant either.



Yep, and she's responsible for what she puts in her vagina.

It's precisely because I believe in such a broad standard of freedom that I hold everyone responsible for their actions. The more responsibility you believe people bear for their choices, the less judgmental you should be about the choices they make.



You may have that bias; I certainly don't. I don't "screw around" to feed my ego or make myself feel more manly. I sleep with women I have an intense connection with; and it feels good. And I don't look at women who have multiple partners as sluts.



Absolutely. If he made us, he bears full responsibility for what we are.



This claim makes no sense. God is supposedly omniscient, so that means he knew all along what would happen if he created humans. And if God truly knows everything beforehand, that means humans don't truly have free will because everything they do is foreknown anyway. Moreover, God is supposedly omnipotent, which means not only did he know these things were going to happen, but he also could have prevented them from happening, yet he chose not to. Under human law, if you observe a crime taking place and do nothing to stop it, you bear some responsibility for whatever happens. Humans are supposedly created in the image of God, which means we have similar rational and logical thought processes as God. Therefore, if God created human beings, knowing exactly what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent that from happening, he must logically take at least some measure of responsibility for what in fact happens.



I hold the man responsible too. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as if it's some sort of difference in our beliefs. My objection is not to holding the man responsible, but to holding him somehow more responsible, because whether people see it or not, to give the man more responsibility is a misogynistic act. It implies women somehow have less self-control or an inferior ability to choose (and that was certainly the presupposition behind many sexual laws for centuries). I strenuously object to the idea that somehow the guy is more contemptible for what transpires. No, the woman has her own power of agency and choice. They share mutually and equally the responsibility.



Yes, you're in a relationship in which it would be wrong for you to act on such an invitation. I'm not. I respect you for living up to your commitment, but bear in mind I'm living up to mine as well.

There's nothing wrong with wishing all men were as you are; Saint Paul certainly did (1 Corinthians 7:7). But he also recognized that not all men were.

---