Should condoms be handed out

[Polymath257]

Getting married doesn't obviate the need for contraceptive. My husband and I use two forms, because we don't want children. (Not biological ones anyway.)

But more importantly 'it's not difficult to not have sex' people seem to continuously miss that those places that attempt to impose stricter sexual guidelines have more, not less, unwanted pregnancies and stds. So the sentiment is like saying 'avoiding hugs is not difficult.' Well, sure. But it doesn't make you a more well-adjusted person to do so.

Exactly. Avoiding interactions with real people isn't difficult (and getting easier), but that doesn't mean it is a good thing. And yes, interactions with people risks certain harms.

 

[Komori]

Getting married doesn't obviate the need for contraceptive. My husband and I use two forms, because we don't want children.

Not having sex if you don't want children certainly obviates the need.

But more importantly 'it's not difficult to not have sex' people seem to continuously miss that those places that attempt to impose stricter sexual guidelines have more, not less, unwanted pregnancies and stds.

And so, for you, the obvious solution is to blame the rules instead of the people breaking them for the negative consequences? If you're told, "Don't have sex until marriage; there may be bad consequences" and you do it anyway, then you just deserve whatever happens to you.

 

[Polymath257]

Getting married doesn't obviate the need for contraceptive. My husband and I use two forms, because we don't want children. (Not biological ones anyway.)

I've never quite understood why so many people fail to understand that married people may not want children.

For myself, sterilization has been wonderful!

 

[Polymath257]

Not having sex if you don't want children certainly obviates the need.

Which in a marriage is simply not a reasonable solution (even if it was outside of marriage). I guess if it works for you, go for it. But it doesn't (and shouldn't) work for most people and shouldn't be the default position.

If you really don't want children, sterilization is a better option than not having sex in my opinion.

And so, for you, the obvious solution is to blame the rules instead of the people breaking them for the negative consequences? If you're told, "Don't have sex until marriage; there may be bad consequences" and you do it anyway, then you just deserve whatever happens to you.

Well, the point is that we now have easy ways to avoid those consequences, so the morality changes. The 'bad consequences' of sex aren't limited to just sex outside of marriage.

The rules are part of the problem. They need to change to reflect the changes in society and the goals that people now have.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not having sex if you don't want children certainly obviates the need.

I mean, it actually doesn't since the pill also treats my PCOS even if I wasn't sexually active but calls for people to be sexually active only when they want to have children is stupid and no healthy couple should do that.

And so, for you, the obvious solution is to blame the rules instead of the people breaking them for the negative consequences? If you're told, "Don't have sex until marriage; there may be bad consequences" and you do it anyway, then you just deserve whatever happens to you

Kind of like people who exercise deserve whatever happens to them by doing a natural and healthy activity which carries a degree of risk.

Anyway, as I've already said, 'the rules' are myopic and short sighted, they don't work. Which is why 'bad stuff' happens far more often in fundamentalist Christian areas than in those which teach comprehensive sex ed and contraceptive usage.

 

[Komori]

The rules are part of the problem. They need to change to reflect the changes in society and the goals that people now have.

I disagree. If you're a parent you do what's best for your child whether they like it or not. Leaders should do the same.

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree. If you're a parent you do what's best for your child whether they like it or not. Leaders should do the same.

And one thing I fully supported was my daughter having sex before marriage. That is good for her.

Leaders should NOT attempt to dictate morality when the vast majority of citizens disagree with them. Ultimately, the leaders don't know any better than everyone else.

 

[Komori]

I mean, it actually doesn't since the pill also treats my PCOS even if I wasn't sexually active but calls for people to be sexually active only when they want to have children is stupid and no healthy couple should do that.

A relationship doesn't need sex to be healthy. I don't need to have sex with my friends to have healthy relationships with them. There's nothing special about a romantic relationship which introduces a need for sex. It's a positive addition, yes, but its purpose is procreation. If a person doesn't want children, then they need to do some soul-searching, and in the meantime, not have sex.

Leaders should NOT attempt to dictate morality when the vast majority of citizens disagree with them. Ultimately, the leaders don't know any better than everyone else.

No stable society has ever been built by people who think like this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Extra weird.

It is a symptom of the strange belief that sex is evil.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There's nothing special about a romantic relationship which introduces a need for sex.

Says nobody whose studied anything like behaviorology or psychology.
Sexual incompatibility is the second biggest reason why romantic relationships end. Even among Christians.

Sure, you can lead a sexless marriage. But nobody is or should call it healthy to do so.

 

[Komori]

Sexual incompatibility is the second biggest reason why romantic relationships end. Even among Christians.

And what exactly does this prove? That people in the modern age have an unhealthy obsession with sex?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And what exactly does this prove? That people in the modern age have an unhealthy obsession with sex?

Lol 'in the modern age.' No, sexual purity laws were myopic and unhelpful in any age. They just augmented them in prior ages by treating women like material property and threatened physical violence on those who operated on, again, an entirely healthy and natural impulse to have sex regardless of their fertility.

 

[Komori]

Lol 'in the modern age.' No, sexual purity laws were myopic and unhelpful in any age. They just augmented them in prior ages by treating women like material property and threatened physical violence on those who operated on, again, an entirely healthy and natural impulse to have sex regardless of their fertility.

Having you ever stopped and considered that maybe natural =/= good?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Having you ever stopped and considered that maybe natural =/= good?

Never even entered my mind that natural = good. Natural is my response to the wholly unsupported position that 'the purpose of sex is for procreation.'

The good part, as I mentioned before, is the 'healthy' part.

 

[Komori]

Natural is my response to the wholly unsupported position that 'the purpose of sex is for procreation.'

If you can't understand that, then you're in no place to lecture me about supposedly not understanding psychology.

The good part, as I mentioned before, is the 'healthy' part.

1. Sleeping around isn't healthy.
2. Healthy =/= good.
3. The religious position doesn't have anything to do with whether extramarital sex is healthy or not. If God said it was wrong to eat more than 800 calories a day, it would still be wrong, even if it's the healthy thing to do.

 

[Polymath257]

A relationship doesn't need sex to be healthy. I don't need to have sex with my friends to have healthy relationships with them. There's nothing special about a romantic relationship which introduces a need for sex.

Yes, it is possible for a non-romantic relationship to be healthy without sex.

It is *possible*, but very rare, for a romantic relationship to be healthy without sex.
But for the vast majority, to be a healthy romantic relationship does, in fact, require the type of intimacy that sex brings about. And it is the specialness of the romantic relationship that does, in fact, introduce that need for most people.

It's a positive addition, yes, but its purpose is procreation. If a person doesn't want children, then they need to do some soul-searching, and in the meantime, not have sex.

And this is where we disagree. If they don't want to have sex, that is fine. If they do want to have sex and don't want to have children, they can use some form of birth control.

I'm not sure why soul-searching would be required in the vast majority of cases.

ty has ever been built by people who think like this.

What? That the leaders need to take their cues from the majority? That is what democracies are based upon. And yes, many have been and are stable.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If you can't understand that, then you're in no place to lecture me about supposedly not understanding psychology.

There's nothing in psychology, behaviorology or biology at large which supports this. Social species can and often do have sex even where procreation is impossible, showing that sex has use beyond reproductivity. Just like even though the primary activity for tongues is in food delivery (to teeth or gullet) does not obviate the use for speaking, kissing, et al.

1. Sleeping around isn't healthy.
2. Healthy =/= good.
3. The religious position doesn't have anything to do with whether sex is healthy or not. If God said it was wrong to eat more than 800 calories a day, it would still be wrong, even if it's the healthy thing to do.

-We haven't been discussing 'sleeping around.' I'm in a monogamous relationship with my husband and you said 'don't have sex unless you want kids,' which is just dumb.
But even if we were talking about sleeping around, once again, christian fundamentalist communities have higher rates of sti and unwanted pregnancies. Suggesting the healthy thing to do isn't to keep at this tired old, outdated mode of restriction and accept it isn't working, then switch to something working better.
-Healthy does, in fact, = good
-Authoritarianism is no argument. If you can't argue an activity based on tangible merit, then why bother arguing at all? If there is a God, which I highly doubt, I would hope that it would appreciate the use of the brain it built, rather than blind subservience.

 

[Polymath257]

And what exactly does this prove? That people in the modern age have an unhealthy obsession with sex?

I'd say that in past ages, people had an unhealthy attitude towards sex as being immoral.

 

[Polymath257]

If you can't understand that, then you're in no place to lecture me about supposedly not understanding psychology.

Pro-creation is *one* of the possible outcomes of sex. That doesn't make it the one and sole 'purpose' of sexuality. A much more important aspect is the bonding it creates between people.

1. Sleeping around isn't healthy.

Being irresponsible is unhealthy. Responsible sex is healthy.

2. Healthy =/= good.

Health is *a* good. Not all goodness is derived from health.

But all morality is based on compassion and a sense of fairness.

Sex isn't, in and of itself, moral or immoral any more than tennis is. But in both, being irresponsible is immoral. The difference is that the effects of irresponsibility in sex tend to affect more people and thereby be more immoral.

3. The religious position doesn't have anything to do with whether extramarital sex is healthy or not. If God said it was wrong to eat more than 800 calories a day, it would still be wrong, even if it's the healthy thing to do.

If God declares that something healthy and providing happiness is immoral, then that, to me, shows the immorality of God. That is because, ultimately, what God wants and what is moral may not be the same thing. Morality is about how people get along with other people.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

@Guitar's Cry
Really interesting article you have there. I guess what he have to ask is, what is the quantitative evidence that abstinence-only education is effective in reducing pregnancy rates outside of marriage? I'm not interested in those pregnancies which occur within marriage, it's the ones outside of marriage that concerns me, not limited to but especially regarding teen pregnancies. I feel if abstinence education isn't working, then there not being educated well enough and we need to improve the program to become more authoritative. It's counter productive to have society teach abstinence only, but in the media - whether television, internet and film - it glorifies sex outside of marriage. Rarely can I think of any media that doesn't glamorize sex outside of marriage. It's the mixed messages people are getting that's confusing them and that's why abstinence only education isn't working in the U.S, in my opinion.

I am sure there is some good research out there about it.

My worry is that folks seem more concerned about sex in the media than violence.