Jump to content
JimmyBeans

How important is abstinence?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Augestein said:

 Teaching people how to have safe sex is important, but simply avoiding sex in the first place is without a doubt, the best way to avoid having a child.

Sure. But most of the people I'm talking about are advocating for abstinence-only education because they view any education on safe sex to be unimportant - and as ideal as you would see avoiding sex in the first place, there is going to be a lot of people who do not do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

Or you can just put on the damn condom and keep your sex life mostly private, and not have to deal with the std's, pregnancies and the stigma.

Or hang out with people who are cool with you sleeping around if you have to get that out there, or it gets out there, and avoid the stigma.

I don't see how that really addresses anything that I said. STDs aren't an absolute guarantee to be blocked by using a condom. Even if you attempt to keep your sex life private, that's still something that can happen as a result. If people find out, that's not their problem: it's yours. And it's entirely avoidable. 

 

2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Sure. But most of the people I'm talking about are advocating for abstinence-only education because they view any education on safe sex to be unimportant - and as ideal as you would see avoiding sex in the first place, there is going to be a lot of people who do not do that.

Fair enough. It should still be taught, but I think one of the biggest things that need to be said is that some people seem to think that safe sex is some magical cure all to avoiding problems with frivolous sex. 

Edited by Augestein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Fair enough. It should still be taught, but I think one of the biggest things that need to be said is that some people seem to think that safe sex is some magical cure all to avoiding problems with frivolous sex. 

I don't think it ever claims to solve that - because nothing will.

It doesn't cause people to be less likely to have frivolous sex - but it has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates compared to abstinence-only education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

I don't think it ever claims to solve that - because nothing will.

It doesn't cause people to be less likely to have frivolous sex - but it has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates compared to abstinence-only education.

Sure. I think that both should be taught together honestly. Safe-sex practices with the mindset that only abstinence is a guarantee. It's probably the best balance to satisfy both parties IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Augestein said:

I don't see how that really addresses anything that I said. STDs aren't an absolute guarantee to be blocked by using a condom. Even if you attempt to keep your sex life private, that's still something that can happen as a result. If people find out, that's not their problem: it's yours. And it's entirely avoidable. 

 

Look buddy, the whole "just say no" abstinence angle is extremely unsuccessful. This was touched on earlier in this thread. 

The simple reality is that people are going to be fuckin' no matter how hard you yell and preach about it being bad and immoral. 

So given this fact you can either be a moron and try harder to stop the fuckin', or you can be productive and at least tell everyone how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and std's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

Look buddy, the whole "just say no" abstinence angle is extremely unsuccessful. This was touched on earlier in this thread. 

The simple reality is that people are going to be fuckin' no matter how hard you yell and preach about it being bad and immoral. 

So given this fact you can either be a moron and try harder to stop the fuckin', or you can be productive and at least tell everyone how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and std's. 

Look pal, what does that have to do with what I said. 

And that has to do with what I said? 

Which still doesn't address what the hell I just said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Augestein said:

And that has to do with what I said? 

You're dancing around the obvious downside to abstinence here: not having sex when you otherwise could be. (SPOILER ALERT: Its really good)

...the only way to 100% avoid salmonella is to not eat meat.
...the only way to 100% avoid sports-related injuries is to never play a sport.
...the only way to 100% avoid dying in a plane crash is to never fly.
...the only way to 100% avoid drowning is to never swim.

[Risk] is half of the cost-benefit analysis. The other half is [Life Enjoyment].

How risk-adverse you want to be and how much life enjoyment you're losing by abstaining from any given risk-generating activity is a matter of personal tolerance and preference.

Whatever your personal threshold: there comes a point-of-diminishing-returns where loss of life enjoyment from avoiding anything that could potentially pose risk is going to weigh heavier than the probable harms of the risk you expose yourself to.

The decision on sex can go either way.

Some will think: "The life enjoyment I would gain from casual sex is less than the risk I would be exposing myself to." 
Some will think: "The loss of life enjoyment I would suffer from NOT having casual sex is greater than the risk I would be avoiding. 
    
...neither is wrong...

__________________

What IS wrong--in my opinion--is denying people the ability to make a free and informed decision, by feeding them false or misleading information. By denying access to basic information on how to mitigate risk. And by stigmatizing the preference to unashamedly enjoy premarital sex as a hallmark of irresponsible life choices or poor moral character .  
 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

You're dancing around the obvious downside to abstinence here: not having sex when you otherwise could be. (SPOILER ALERT: Its really good)

...the only way to 100% avoid salmonella is to not eat meat.
...the only way to 100% avoid sports-related injuries is to never play a sport.
...the only way to 100% avoid dying in a plane crash is to never fly.
...the only way to 100% avoid drowning is to never swim.

[Risk] is half of the cost-benefit analysis. The other half is [Life Enjoyment].

How risk-adverse you want to be and how much life enjoyment you're losing by abstaining from any given risk-generating activity is a matter of personal tolerance and preference.

Whatever your personal threshold: there comes a point-of-diminishing-returns where loss of life enjoyment from avoiding anything that could potentially pose risk is going to weigh heavier than the probable harms of the risk you expose yourself to.

The decision on sex can go either way.

Some will think: "The life enjoyment I would gain from casual sex is less than the risk I would be exposing myself to." 
Some will think: "The loss of life enjoyment I would suffer from NOT having casual sex is greater than the risk I would be avoiding. 
    
...neither is wrong...

__________________

What IS wrong--in my opinion--is denying people the ability to make a free and informed decision, by feeding them false or misleading information. By denying access to basic information on how to mitigate risk. And by stigmatizing the preference to unashamedly enjoy premarital sex as a hallmark of irresponsible life choices or poor moral character .  
 

I'm really not dancing around the issue. SPOILER RETORT: I know. 

All of these would be true. 

And the cost risk benefit, is that you have to consider if the risk of having sex is worth the risk. In many cases, it's not worth it. 

I quite literally said here: 

2 hours ago, Augestein said:

I don't actually consider it an alternative.

Because I most certainly don't, because apparently that wasn't clear. Which is exactly why I'm saying I never implied that only one should be taught. 

I think you'd honestly have a lot to consider in a life if a lack of casual sex takes a toll on your life enjoyment. People are acting like telling someone "yeah, here's how you stay safe, but really, it's probably best to not do it with every other Tom, Dick, and Harry or Jill, Jane and Mary," is somehow saying "no sex ever. And if you do, you're going to hell." The stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being "they're a slut/easy." If the possibility of that happening doesn't bother you, then fine. Whatever, your choice. But don't go acting like people that DO have that opinion are somehow wrong for it. Social stigma isn't just religious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Augestein said:

I think you'd honestly have a lot to consider in a life if a lack of casual sex takes a toll on your life enjoyment. People are acting like telling someone "yeah, here's how you stay safe, but really, it's probably best to not do it with every other Tom, Dick, and Harry or Jill, Jane and Mary," is somehow saying "no sex ever. And if you do, you're going to hell." The stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being "they're a slut/easy." If the possibility of that happening doesn't bother you, then fine. Whatever, your choice. But don't go acting like people that DO have that opinion are somehow wrong for it. Social stigma isn't just religious. 

...a few things here that I have a problem with...

1) When you talk about the stigma of being "a slut/easy." That's a gender-loaded term and  a one-sided stigma heaped almost exclusively as a form of scorn upon women who enjoy frequent casual sex. Whereas a similarly situated man will often be praised and admired as a "playboy," or a "stud."

Which is horrendously unfair, and an inequity that gets perpetuated by the practice of placing a stigma around sex itself.

2)  You seem to be of the opinion that its inappropriate to make a judgment about enjoyment of casual sex speaking to "poor moral character," but appropriate to characterize people who make that choice as "sluts" or "easy." However, characterizing people who make that choice as "sluts" and "easy" is--unequivocally--a judgment as to their moral character. So it nulls your previous statement.

And so far as I can tell, the only thing you're doing by endorsing the idea that enacting that stigma becomes appropriate when a person who engages in premarital sex gains a reputation as "a slut" or a "easy" is endorsing the rather sexist notion that its especially shameful and degrading when women do it; they need to be labeled and stigmatized for their choices in ways that men do not.

Again--horrendously unfair.

3) You throw around the term "easy" like you think its a legitimate descriptor of a woman who enjoys casual sex. And the connotations of that term are...troubling...

...that specifically is a term thrown about to negate the absence-or-presence of consent to a sexual encounter as determinative to whether or not the encounter can proceed. Men force themselves on women and then rationalize it as a legitimate encounter using that line of thinking: "She does this all the time! She loves it!"

And the obvious moral imperative gets ignored: just because a woman enjoys having sex, doesn't mean she wants to have sex with you

Casually throwing around the term "easy" perpetuates rape culture. If your opinion is that there is nothing wrong with advancing that stigma, that is where I draw the line and say: it is wrong and harmful to hold that opinion.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...a few things here that I have a problem with...

1) When you talk about the stigma of being "a slut/easy." That's a gender-loaded term and  a one-sided stigma heaped almost exclusively as a form of scorn upon women who enjoy frequent casual sex. Whereas a similarly situated man will often be praised and admired as a "playboy," or a "stud."

Which is horrendously unfair, and an inequity that gets perpetuated by the practice of placing a stigma around sex itself.

2)  You seem to be of the opinion that its inappropriate to make a judgment about enjoyment of casual sex speaking to "poor moral character," but appropriate to characterize people who make that choice as "sluts" or "easy." However, characterizing people who make that choice as "sluts" and "easy" is--unequivocally--a judgment as to their moral character. So it nulls your previous statement.

And so far as I can tell, the only thing you're doing by endorsing the idea that enacting that stigma becomes appropriate when a person who engages in premarital sex gains a reputation as "a slut" or a "easy" is endorsing the rather sexist notion that its especially shameful and degrading when women do it; they need to be labeled and stigmatized for their choices in ways that men do not.

Again--horrendously unfair.

3) You throw around the term "easy" like you think its a legitimate descriptor of a woman who enjoys casual sex. And the connotations of that term are...troubling...

...that specifically is a term thrown about to negate the absence-or-presence of consent to a sexual encounter as determinative to whether or not the encounter can proceed. Men force themselves on women and then rationalize it as a legitimate encounter using that line of thinking: "She does this all the time! She loves it!"

And the obvious moral imperative gets ignored: just because a woman enjoys having sex, doesn't mean she wants to have sex with you

Casually throwing around the term "easy" perpetuates rape culture. If your opinion is that there is nothing wrong with advancing that stigma, that is where I draw the line and say: it is wrong and harmful to hold that opinion.

1) Uh... No. It really isn't. I don't know where people get this foolhardy notion from. You'll still be called the same thing. Ladies honestly don't respect guys for doing it either. So no. None of this makes any sense. 

2) No. It doesn't at all. Like there's no logical transitivity there. And you're the one that's throwing sexism around. So no. Try again. 

3) Uh no. It applies to both. 

Try again. It's especially ridiculous because men can sleep with men, and they'd *still* get these labels. And the more I think about it, "rape culture" and "easy" as in short to be "easy to sleep with" is NOT rape culture. It specifically means that the person is easy to bed. That's it. 

 

Like damn. I feel like I know more on this subject than some people based on their responses alone. 

Edited by Augestein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...really???

"Slut" and "easy" are gender-neutral terms? That's your position, and you're sticking to it?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slut

DEFINITION:  "A woman who has many casual sexual partners."

EXAMPLE SENTENCE: 

  • ‘Girls still can be labeled sluts if they're sexually free, whereas boys aren't.’
Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...really???

"Slut" and "easy" are gender-neutral terms? That's your position, and you're sticking to it?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slut

DEFINITION:  "A woman who has many casual sexual partners."

EXAMPLE SENTENCE: 

  • ‘Girls still can be labeled sluts if they're sexually free, whereas boys aren't.’

"Manwhore" is one that definitely comes to mind. I didn't realize that I literally have to name all of them. REALLY.  Also, yes: 

 

Slut is generally a term for a woman or girl who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.[1][2] It is usually used as an insult, sexual slur or offensive term of disparagement (slut shaming).[2][3] It originally meant "a dirty, slovenly woman",[2] and is rarely used to refer to men, generally requiring clarification by use of the terms male slut or man whore.[4][5]

 

If anything, your complaint should be yourself since you apparently seem to believe that only women can be called sluts. Men definitely can nowadays. Some people use "male slut" or "manwhore," but quite a few people don't even bother by putting the "male" in front. It's sort of like how people say "male dominatrix" instead of just saying "dom" or "master" or any other word to mean the same thing. 

Edited by Augestein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Augestein said:

"Manwhore" is one that definitely comes to mind. I didn't realize that I literally have to name all of them. REALLY.  Also, yes: 

 

Slut is generally a term for a woman or girl who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.[1][2] It is usually used as an insult, sexual slur or offensive term of disparagement (slut shaming).[2][3] It originally meant "a dirty, slovenly woman",[2] and is rarely used to refer to men, generally requiring clarification by use of the terms male slut or man whore.[4][5]

The man-whore is culturally glamorized. 

...James Bond is a man-whore.
...Captain Kirk is a man-whore.
...Tony Stark is a man-whore.

Man-whore shaming is not a thing in the same sense that slut shaming is a thing. 

Look at your own words.

Notice how when you addressing me--a MALE--earlier. You didn't say "the stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being that you're a manwhore." 

Looking for language to express to me your displeasure at the ideas I set forth--language that conveyed what you believed to be the appropriate stigma to be applied.

The first word that popped into your head was the feminine:  "Slut." 

It didn't even occur to you to use the masculine "man-whore" as an alternative means of expressing your displeasure for my defense of promiscuity, until after we started conversing about this subject. To reiterate: despite the fact that you are talking to a man.

...that's how deeply ingrained the gender bias against free expressions of female sexuality is...






 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

The man-whore is culturally glamorized. 

...James Bond is a man-whore.
...Captain Kirk is a man-whore.
...Tony Stark is a man-whore.

Man-whore shaming is not a thing in the same sense that slut shaming is a thing. 

Look at your own words.

Notice how when you addressing me--a MALE--earlier. You didn't say "the stigma of having premarital sex is not a "you're a poor moral character." The stigma ends up being that you're a manwhore." 

Looking for language to express to me your displeasure at the ideas I set forth--language that conveyed what you believed to be the appropriate stigma to be applied.

The first word that popped into your head was the feminine:  "Slut." 

It didn't even occur to you to use the masculine "man-whore" as an alternative means of expressing your displeasure for my defense of promiscuity, until after we started conversing about this subject. To reiterate: despite the fact that you are talking to a man.

...that's how deeply ingrained the gender bias against free expressions of female sexuality is...






 

No. It really isn't. They are all people that sleep around too much. It just so happens that all of those characters have other things going for them. 

Notice how you're putting words in my mouth to even try to have an argument? Yeah. 

Because I didn't realize that I had to say "man slut" instead of just "slut" when "slut" includes both. This is the worst attempt at calling someone sexist that I've ever seen. There's a reason I didn't include any genders in that. Because it actually includes both. You're the only one that has been including sexes in this. Not me. This is a rather vapid argument. As you cannot say what I meant. You should have asked for a clarification. 

That's how deeply ingrained it is for you. Not me. As I'm not the one that thinks that men are somehow exempt from this rule. Nor do I think that there somehow aren't people in society that think that it's a frowned upon act for both sexes. 

 

I'm not even going to continue talking about this on here, because this has nothing to do with anything. If you want to keep talking, PM me. Otherwise it's over. 

Edited by Augestein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Augestein said:

I'm not the one that thinks that men are somehow exempt from this rule. Nor do I think that there somehow aren't people in society that think that it's a frowned upon act for both sexes. 

...let me phrase the question this way...

Is it your position that you yourself without bias categorically frown upon male and female promiscuity, but that you still acknowledge the presence of a cultural double-standard?

Or are you categorically denying that there is any difference in the way society stigmatizes casual sex outside of marriage by men, and casual sex outside of marriage by women?

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're going to have a hard time justifying that women don't get labelled negatively far more often for having casual sex than men - of which it can also be accepted as them having "uncontrollable urges" comparatively. Even women would likely call other women sluts before calling men that. This is something that is changing, but slowly.

I've heard the word slut or others used to describe promiscuous women many times. I don't think I've ever heard a term used to refer to a man negatively for sleeping around personally. Might just be my experience, but that's that.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...let me phrase the question this way...

Is it your position that you yourself without bias categorically frown upon male and female promiscuity, but that you still acknowledge the presence of a cultural double-standard?

Or are you categorically denying that there is any difference in the way society stigmatizes casual sex outside of marriage by men, and casual sex outside of marriage by women?

Loaded questions. 

1) I frown upon it yes. Whether it's presence has a cultural double standard is irrelevant. It still has a social stigma. Casual sex? Perhaps not. Where you're doing it in what people would dub as excessive yes? For instance, do you honestly think that a person that teaches abstinence only would only target the woman for having sex and not the man? No. They would be angry with both. 

2) Still irrelevant. I have not said that people don't do it more against women than me. However, that in and of itself isn't enough clause to refer to me as sexist, nor is it even remotely close to sufficient to deny that this has been cast as an insult towards men as well.  

1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

I think you're going to have a hard time justifying that women don't get labelled negatively far more often for having casual sex than men - of which it can also be accepted as them having "uncontrollable urges" comparatively. Even women would likely call other women sluts before calling men that. This is something that is changing, but slowly.

I've heard the word slut or others used to describe promiscuous women many times. I don't think I've ever heard a term used to refer to a man negatively for sleeping around personally. Might just be my experience, but that's that.

I would agree with this. And it's changed enough in my area, men call men sluts all the damn time if they sleep around with no real standards.  

The area I live it, "slut" has been hurled at both. While it's anecdotal for everyone, I think it's completely unfair to have personal experiences somehow dictate a universal statement. Especially when one is using it to refer to someone else as a label such as "sexist." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously not going to involve myself in discussion on the meaning of the word 'slut', as if some dictionary is authoritative.

Also I'll have you know that Tony Stark (in his movies) is not a man-whore. He's in a committed relationship with Pepper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think you're a sexist, @Augestein

The culture is sexist. The baseline standard you've been exposed to your entire life is sexist. As a child of said culture whose point-of-reference has been normalized by same, you endorse certain ideas and use certain terms without ascribing any sexist connotations to them.

...but they're still sexist terms and ideas...

That's not a knock on you or a personal criticism. It is what it is.

49 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Whether it's presence has a cultural double standard is irrelevant.

...of course its relevant...

Unless you honestly believe that the existence and pervasiveness of said double-standard on a societal level (or lack thereof, to the extent you dispute it) would have absolutely no bearing on the opinions you've formed or the way you've conceptualized the issue.
 

27 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

I'm seriously not going to involve myself in discussion on the meaning of the word 'slut', as if some dictionary is authoritative.

Also I'll have you know that Tony Stark (in his movies) is not a man-whore. He's in a committed relationship with Pepper.

...heavily implied in the movies (and outright shown in other media) that Tony was doing ALOT of sleeping around before Pepper. And portrayed in a positive light. 

Image result for tony stark playboy billionaire


Fore real though: you're better situated than me to offer some deeper insights. 

Am I completely crazy, or is there a societal double-standard against women here?

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

i don't think you're a sexist, @Augestein

The culture is sexist. The baseline standard you've been exposed to your entire life is sexist. As a child of said culture whose point-of-reference has been normalized by same, you endorse certain ideas and use certain terms without ascribing any sexist connotations to them.

...but they're still sexist terms and ideas...

That's not a knock on you or a personal criticism. It is what it is.

...of course its relevant...

Unless you honestly believe that the existence and pervasiveness of said double-standard on a societal level (or lack thereof, to the extent you dispute it) would have absolutely no bearing on the opinions you've formed or the way you've conceptualized the issue.
 

...heavily implied in the movies (and outright shown in other media) that Tony was doing ALOT of sleeping around before Pepper. And portrayed in a positive light. 

Image result for tony stark playboy billionaire


Fore real though: you're better situated than me to offer some deeper insights. 

Am I completely crazy, or is there a societal double-standard against women here?

 

I'm not a woman, just a GIRL. As for the double standard, possibly. A bunch of years a ago I saw a documentary called "sletvrees" (fear of slut) on Dutch public television, that dealt with that very issue. A lot of people were interviewed about the concept of sluts, what a slut is, if men can be sluts(yes, sorta), if men would go out with women who had slept with hundreds of men(no), how men felt about having less sexual experience than their partner(insecure), and of course all of the same questions to women(yes, no, IDFK). They were also asked how they thought this came to be, and it was pretty universally thought that men were supposed to be the "hunters" and women the "hunted".

I'll be honest, it seemed to me like all of these people were just spewing their nonsense automatically, and had never really considered the issue.

I've asked some female friends who are/were promiscuous about whether or they had to deal with negative commentary or behaviour for it, and they all said yes. On one hand, it's all just been shitty comments from family, friends, people they know and even total strangers. On the other hand, it's still super lame.

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

I'm not a woman, just a GIRL.

...Closer than I'll ever be... 

19 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

I've asked some female friends who are/were promiscuous about whether or they had to deal with negative commentary or behaviour for it, and they all said yes. On one hand, it's all just been shitty comments from family, friends, people they know and even total strangers. On the other hand, it's still super lame.

Yeah; I never had to deal with any of that. The only thing I ever got an inordinate amount of shit for was interracial dating.

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

GIRL as in Guy In Real Life


Related image


...well then...

Good thing I'm a perfect gentleman, or we could have just had a very awkward Virion and Libra moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 9:41 PM, Lord Raven said:

Sex before marriage is an inevitability because human beings are naturally pretty horny

Yeah... I just don't believe that. I think one of the nice things about being human (and this is kind of a personal belief but whatever) is impulse control.

SO:

As I view marriage, its beauty is how it unites two people as a stronger one. To me it guides you in humility because you aren't just thinking of yourself anymore; you're thinking of yourself as half of a whole. It's not just something where you can say, oh, it's not really working; having that as an easy way out makes you more likely to take it. You also always know that you're not alone; you have another half that picks up the slack when you fall. This is pretty much why I wouldn't want to raise kids alone, because eventually you're going to be sick or stressed or having a bad day, and you're not going to want to change diapers or chauffeur your kids to an extracurricular or help them study for a test. If you're married, there's someone else who can give the kids their full attention. And sure, there are days when you'll both be stressed, but hey--it's 2RN system now! HAHA FIRE EMBLEM JOKE. Moving on. I think it's also important for kids to have a network of support, and having two people in their life every day who care for them is good start, PLUS there are checks and balances on how they're being raised. Also, I think it's just more fun to raise kids with someone else; you get to laugh about all the silly things they do with someone who actually gets it, and not just in a "oh that's what kids do" way, but "oh, that's why MY kid does." This isn't to say single-parenting is bad. I know lots of single parents who do a great job; often a better job than dysfunctional two-parent homes. It's just that I think it's ideal to have two both for the kids and the parents.

Edited by Solvaij

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Solvaij

That. That in its entirety exactly. I think attitudes have changed among younger generations to the point that even the thought of abstinence is shamed as being a prude or a weird way of thinking of things and I've often said that believe it or not you can actually keep your privates in your pants (or whatever other thing you wear) so yes, it is still a viable way of handling things.

Not the only way. But a viable way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...