Formo
15 years ago

My problem with chastity and abstinence is that educators attempt to get away with it as the only sex education you need. A lot of kids are just taught "not to do it" and are not given any formal education on STD's or contraception. So when one of these "retarded teenagers" actually decides to engage in sexual activity they are putting themselves in a more dangerous position than a person who has been taught about it. I have nothing against people who choose abstinence but everyone should be taught how to engage in safe sexual activity, regardless of whether or not they foresee themselves doing so.

"djcubez" wrote:



I skimmed through this the first time I saw it. Forgive me for double-quoting it, but I have one issue with this paragraph.. I've seen more than a few people complain that the only sex-ed kids are getting by educators is abstinence. I gotta say that is false. Schools back in the late 90's (when I was in HS) would give out condoms and free sit-down sessions with a councilor with ZERO parental knowledge. Now, some kids needs that stuff, because their parents were virtually non-existent. But the school didn't know, nor did it care.

No, educators are teaching kids how a penis and vagina work, more specifically, how they work together. And how to help protect one's self from STDs/babies.

Again, I have no issue with schools teaching kids that. But I feel the parents have to choose whether or not their kids are going to be educated on that stuff.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
15 years ago

lol. +1

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Glad I made you laugh. lol Wasn't my full intention, actually. I just get sick of some of the sexual tyranny women put men through... And when I hear about stuff (like the examples you mentioned), I imagine myself in that situation and what I'd do. Which would probably explain my reply. lol
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
zombieslayer
15 years ago



I have many friends whom are virgins. Now, I don't know what they were ONLY taught, but I do know they were also taught abstinence. Somewhere along the lines, they made the decision to be abstinent until marriage.

That's something I planned on doing, too. I only have ever had one sexual partner, we ended up not making it to marriage (considering it took me about 2+ years of courtship before I proposed, and another 2+ years of being engaged.. lol). I was pulled out of sex ed classes. Not because my mom (step-mom) didn't want me to learn that stuff.. but because she didn't want to learn it from some stranger/video. When we asked questions, she answered.

"Formo" wrote:



Formo - It's all a numbers game, my friend. People can be taught all the right things and still do something stupid. People can be taught something stupid and do something brilliant. We got free will.

But statistically, people with a healthy sexual education (Western Europeans) fare much better than people with abstinence only programs (like many programs here in the States). Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not at all pro-Europe. I'm all for bombing a random European nation every five years. I'm just saying that sexually, they're ahead of us.

It's all stats. I applaud you for being able to hold off. Props. That's something I couldn't do. Our son was a mistake, an oops. She decided to keep him and we're happy for it. He turned out a good kid and years later, we finally married. I got educated the right way but I had way too much sex and sooner or later statistically, one would have gotten through. Condoms are only something like 97% against pregnancy. But of course, 97% is WAY better than 0%.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Cheesey
15 years ago

My problem with chastity and abstinence is that educators attempt to get away with it as the only sex education you need. A lot of kids are just taught "not to do it" and are not given any formal education on STD's or contraception. So when one of these "retarded teenagers" actually decides to engage in sexual activity they are putting themselves in a more dangerous position than a person who has been taught about it. I have nothing against people who choose abstinence but everyone should be taught how to engage in safe sexual activity, regardless of whether or not they foresee themselves doing so.

The whole Palin situation? I get irked a bit by the man thing to. I don't have many facts on the case but say Levi wanted Bristol to get an abortion or give it up for adoption. Bristol obviously wouldn't go through with it and after giving birth requests child support from Levi. Why should he have to pay for a child he didn't want? I feel like the man is cornered here because of the woman's decision. It was mutual for them to have sex and for one reason or another she got pregnant. It was not mutual for them to have a child but because she wants it he has to pay for it. Imagine the reverse--that Levi wants the child but Bristol doesn't. Bristol can go through with the abortion or adoption because it's her body. Basically, if you as a male impregnate a women during mutual intercourse it's almost completely up to her as to what to do about it and you have to face the consequences regardless.

Now in the case of Bristol and Levi, in my opinion both the kids are pretty naive so I really don't care what happens lol.

"djcubez" wrote:


If you don't want a kid, DON'T HAVE SEX. The man is 100% responsible for his own actions. I don't CARE if it was "mutual" or not. If he's willing to put his dick where it doesn't belong, then MAN UP and take the consequences. In the end, as i said. unless she RAPED him, he's ALONE is responsible for his actions, and has the responsibility to pay because he played.
He COULD have said "NO!".
He didn't, and thus must pay for his 10 minutes of "fun".
Everyone knows the possible consequences. You'd have to be the dumbest person alive NOT to know what might happen if you put "tab A into slot B".
JMO
UserPostedImage
Formo
15 years ago

My problem with chastity and abstinence is that educators attempt to get away with it as the only sex education you need. A lot of kids are just taught "not to do it" and are not given any formal education on STD's or contraception. So when one of these "retarded teenagers" actually decides to engage in sexual activity they are putting themselves in a more dangerous position than a person who has been taught about it. I have nothing against people who choose abstinence but everyone should be taught how to engage in safe sexual activity, regardless of whether or not they foresee themselves doing so.

The whole Palin situation? I get irked a bit by the man thing to. I don't have many facts on the case but say Levi wanted Bristol to get an abortion or give it up for adoption. Bristol obviously wouldn't go through with it and after giving birth requests child support from Levi. Why should he have to pay for a child he didn't want? I feel like the man is cornered here because of the woman's decision. It was mutual for them to have sex and for one reason or another she got pregnant. It was not mutual for them to have a child but because she wants it he has to pay for it. Imagine the reverse--that Levi wants the child but Bristol doesn't. Bristol can go through with the abortion or adoption because it's her body. Basically, if you as a male impregnate a women during mutual intercourse it's almost completely up to her as to what to do about it and you have to face the consequences regardless.

Now in the case of Bristol and Levi, in my opinion both the kids are pretty naive so I really don't care what happens lol.

"Cheesey" wrote:


If you don't want a kid, DON'T HAVE SEX. The man is 100% responsible for his own actions. I don't CARE if it was "mutual" or not. If he's willing to put his dick where it doesn't belong, then MAN UP and take the consequences. In the end, as i said. unless she RAPED him, he's ALONE is responsible for his actions, and has the responsibility to pay because he played.
He COULD have said "NO!".
He didn't, and thus must pay for his 10 minutes of "fun".
JMO

"djcubez" wrote:



Alan, knowing how much a douche bucket Levi is, he didn't even have 10 minutes of fun.. I bet it was more like 3 seconds.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
15 years ago



I have many friends whom are virgins. Now, I don't know what they were ONLY taught, but I do know they were also taught abstinence. Somewhere along the lines, they made the decision to be abstinent until marriage.

That's something I planned on doing, too. I only have ever had one sexual partner, we ended up not making it to marriage (considering it took me about 2+ years of courtship before I proposed, and another 2+ years of being engaged.. lol). I was pulled out of sex ed classes. Not because my mom (step-mom) didn't want me to learn that stuff.. but because she didn't want to learn it from some stranger/video. When we asked questions, she answered.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Formo - It's all a numbers game, my friend. People can be taught all the right things and still do something stupid. People can be taught something stupid and do something brilliant. We got free will.

But statistically, people with a healthy sexual education (Western Europeans) fare much better than people with abstinence only programs (like many programs here in the States). Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not at all pro-Europe. I'm all for bombing a random European nation every five years. I'm just saying that sexually, they're ahead of us.

It's all stats. I applaud you for being able to hold off. Props. That's something I couldn't do. Our son was a mistake, an oops. She decided to keep him and we're happy for it. He turned out a good kid and years later, we finally married. I got educated the right way but I had way too much sex and sooner or later statistically, one would have gotten through. Condoms are only something like 97% against pregnancy. But of course, 97% is WAY better than 0%.

"Formo" wrote:



I fail to see any abstinence only programs here in the states. This is my issue. Yeah, Sunday schools and church programs are going to teach only abstinence, but that's a given. You know this going in. The public paid for schools and colleges are as liberal as they come when it comes to sex ed. This is my issue. If you are going to hand out condoms/wire hangers with no questions to these kids, at least teach them the moral principles of being sexual responsible.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
It just occurred to me that perhaps the most effective anti-abortion strategy pro-lifers could take would be to legally and unambiguously grant the woman's complete right to choose -- with the proviso that the man is given equal and inalienable right to choose. In other words, call women's bluff.

In effect, we'd be telling women: "All right. You want the right to kill a child without consulting the father, whether or not he wants it? Done. Go for it. But men now have equal right to choose. You no longer have any legal right to sue for child support if the father disclaims responsibility for the child. If at any time over the course of the child's development, the father decides he no longer wants the child, you are on your own."

That would bring down the rate of pro-choice sentiment in this country in a hurry and probably would also reduce the abortion rate, without necessitating the outright illegalization of abortion.

Because after almost three decades of favoring the banning of abortion nationwide, I've come to the conclusion that that would be the worst move pro-lifers could make. Illegalizing anything, as economist Diane Boyle points out in her book Sex, Drugs, and Economics, is a de facto subsidy of it. Why did we have gun-toting gangster patrolling the streets in the 1920s and 1930s? Because after Prohibition, alcohol was obscenely profitable. Likewise, why are social institutions along the border in a state of virtual collapse with the entrenchment of the drug lords? Because drugs are obscenely profitable. Why did the Golden Age of the Gangster end overnight with the repeal of the 18th Amendment? Because the lifting of Prohibition instantly destroyed the profit margin on alcohol. Similarly, were we to legalize drugs in this country, the drug cartel infrastructure would vanish overnight. Whereas illegalizing abortion would almost instantly create a parallel (i.e., black) market and would very literally subsidize the procedure. It might reduce absolute volume, but it would drastically increase profit margin. And if abortion is immoral, then subsidizing it with the fiat of government surely is even more immoral.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
15 years ago
That's the problem. The schools don't teach RESPONSIBILITY. If you get a girl pregnant, just pay $200 and the "problem" will "dissapear". (Meaning: Just KILL the unwanted "problem".) That's society's answer. That allows you to "do what feels good" and not have to worry about any consequences.
But try to bring a BIBLE into a school and see what happens. All HELL will break loose, and it will be on TV. (Just happened in Racine Wisconsin. Saw it on today's news. Boy got suspended for it). But give a kid the way to abort a kid while your in school, and it's just fine.
And we wonder why our country is going down hill.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
15 years ago
Non....problem is......give a man a choice to have sex, and most of the time he will. He won't CARE at the moment that it may cost him if the woman decides to kill or NOT kill the child. His DICK does his thinking.......unfortunately.
LATER on he may think "Boy....that was stupid". But at the moment, he doesn't consider the possibilities. He let's his "little head" do the thinking for him.
That has got MANY men in trouble.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
I'm sorry to hear that the members of my sex are such horny blockheads. I know I personally turn down more opportunities for sex than I accept. Ask my wife -- it drives her frickin' nuts. 😉
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (29m) : Parsons has followed Rasheed Walker on Twitter. Quite the choice
Mucky Tundra (30m) : Kuhn is a former player who works for the team, if somethings going down, he would be close to it
Mucky Tundra (34m) : @kuhnj30 Micah Freaking Parsons
Mucky Tundra (37m) : A LOT of buzz on the Bird App regarding Parsons; even Schefter is saying it's serious
dfosterf (5h) : *Orzech*
dfosterf (5h) : Orzich long snapper 3 yr extension
Zero2Cool (7h) : Packers signed someone for three year deal
Zero2Cool (7h) : lol i know it's insane ... sign up for the waiver wire then you'll know
wpr (7h) : YES!!!!!!
Mucky Tundra (7h) : WE WANT THE LIST! WE WANT THE LIST!
Zero2Cool (7h) : @JJLahey · 2m Holy crap, Packers, where the heck is the list?
Zero2Cool (7h) : haha folks on Tweeter every year this time ... 'where is list Packers!!" hahaha
wpr (8h) : He played pretty good.
Zero2Cool (8h) : NAZIR STACKHOUSE HAS MADE THE 53
Zero2Cool (9h) : NOOOOO KALEN IS GONE
Zero2Cool (9h) : Kalen King and Kamal Hadden making it. me thinks
schroeder84 (10h) : @dfosterf I suspect Elgersma WILL be hard to hide. Raw, but talented
Zero2Cool (12h) : pp.com is broken, halt testing, gotta go do work things for a bit
hardrocker950 (12h) : Mecole Hardman was released, to the surprise of few
Zero2Cool (12h) : PP.com updated. Reset Password works, and now User Profile pages are a thing
Zero2Cool (25-Aug) : Soft hope plan is having fantasy football weekly on-site that i build. cannot do that with this setup.
Zero2Cool (25-Aug) : It's older technology, resource hog, cannot be upgraded/changed. That's to start.
packerfanoutwest (25-Aug) : Ok, but what is wrong with this site?
Zero2Cool (25-Aug) : check out packerpeople.com
Mucky Tundra (25-Aug) : Oh crap I missed that! I thought it was a 2026 pick
Zero2Cool (25-Aug) : It wasn't even next year pick, it's two years away. old dog food value
Mucky Tundra (25-Aug) : Yep! Everytime a team trades with Howie that team is the loser (so says the media)
Zero2Cool (25-Aug) : We are hosed.
Mucky Tundra (25-Aug) : Per Schefter, GB is sending a 6th rounder for OT Darian Kennard
Zero2Cool (24-Aug) : Finally got new site to keep folks logged in. New tech is pain sometimes
dfosterf (23-Aug) : Taylor Elgersma is going to be very hard to hide.
Mucky Tundra (23-Aug) : Matthew Golden=DAWG (so load the wagons!!) !!!!!
dfosterf (18-Aug) : We do have good depth at running back imo. Still so frustrating. Bitching about it is a futile excercise, which I plan to do anyway.
Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : Whoops, I thought Zero was saying it was a surprise the Brewers lost and not Lloyd being hurt
Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : Not a surprise; inevitable
Zero2Cool (17-Aug) : Brewers streak ends at 14
Zero2Cool (17-Aug) : SURPRISE
Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on MarShawn Lloyd: “He’s gonna miss some time.”
Mucky Tundra (16-Aug) : CLIFFORD WITH THE TD WITH UNDER 2 TO GO!!!!!
Zero2Cool (16-Aug) : 90 MINUTES UNTIL FAKE KICKOFF!!
Martha Careful (16-Aug) : I think Ruven is a bot, but regardless should be stricken from the site.
Zero2Cool (14-Aug) : Packers RB Josh Jacobs ranked No. 33 in NFL 'Top 100'
dfosterf (13-Aug) : The LVN Musgrave collision- Andy Herman said Musgrave seemed to be the one most impacted injury-wise
dfosterf (13-Aug) : a lower back injury
dfosterf (13-Aug) : Doubs says he's "fine" after injury scare. Some reported it as z
Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : With LVN that is; need to see what happens in the next practice
Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : beast, reading about what happened, it sounded like one of those "two guys collide and are moving slow afterwards" type of deals
beast (12-Aug) : I believe Musgrave has been injured every single season since at least a Sophomore in highschool
packerfanoutwest (12-Aug) : Matt LaFleur: “Highly unlikely” Jordan Love plays more this preseason
dfosterf (12-Aug) : Doubs, Savion Williams, LVN, Musgrave all banged up to one degree or another, missing one here I forget
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
55m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

9h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

26-Aug / Fantasy Sports Talk / porky88

25-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

24-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Aug / Around The NFL / beast

23-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

22-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

19-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Aug / Around The NFL / isaiah

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.