Is there a rational secular approach to abstinence?
Offline There is no question that religious sexual repression in church sponsored abstinence programs are an abyssmal failure with high rates of teen pregnancy. On the flip side, I'm sure many atheist parents have little comfort in acknowledging that their 13 year old could engage in sexual intercourse. For the past 200,000 years it was probably the norm for adolescent members of our tribal ancestors to engage in sexual activity and start families. It makes sense that natural selection would result in horniness at such an early age. Being young, healthy and horny will increase the likelihood that genes will get passed on. But procreating at age 12 is completely incongruent with modern society.
But what about contraception? Procreation is prevented but does this does not address the moral and ethical issue of tween fucking. I'm an atheist parent and my children are 1 and 3. And I try to shrug off the fact that when my boys reach puberty, they will want to shag a playboy bunny or possibly a playgirl stud. There is nothing wrong with this healthy pubescent fantasy. But when it comes to actual sexual intercourse, I would hope that this would take place when both kids are in a mature relationship which usually fosters when prefrontal lobe functions of decision making have matured (ie. sometime after age 18). And by mature relationship, I don't imply marriage or even sex in the context of love/intimacy. In my book, there is nothing wrong with fucking for the sake of fucking when my kids' cognitive decision making capacities have matured. Evolution gave us brains that start off with advanced fuck "centers" long before the reason "centers" have developed.
Thus, it is not surprising that irrational sexually repressive religious indoctrinations only have a negative effect in the teenage sexually chaotic brain. But does sex education lead to increased abstinence? To a certain extent it probably does but not wholly. I was raised in a secular environment and fed the standard sex education in high school health class. But if any girl with big tits handed me a condom and said she wanted a roll in the hay with me at that immature age, I would have done either 2 things. If I was bold, I would have gone for it or I would have chickened out and gone home and masturbated over the thought of it. And it is the latter which brings me to my point.
I honestly think that if there is a secular rational approach to teen abstinence, it is through masturbation. And I would encourage secular institutions including public schools to promote teen masturbation. I would even advocate that these institutions sanction erotic imagery to fulfill those needs. Bottom line, if abstinence were to truly work, give the kids the porn surrogate. It is an alternative to teen sex and certainly far better than fundamentalist driven sexual repression.
I anticipate that a probable counter argument to my view would be that teen sexual intercourse can be a good thing towards cognitive development. It may enhance social decision making in the future. One would be less ignorant about sex, if they were fortunate to fuck in their high school years. Those teens would have fucked real people instead of pretending with fantasy figures in porn. They may have a realistic view of sex and not beholden to the unrealistic standards of sexual fantasy ie. they may in the end develop more healthy adult sexual relations. But I would argue that among those teens whom early sex had a positive effect that they are among a minority whose prefrontal regions have already matured. But I don't have any data to back that statement. I would be interested in hearing what Hamby and others have to say on all this.
- Login to post comments
Certainly there is a secular approach. If you fuck nothing, you wont have anything to keep track of.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Here's my secular approach to abstinence...
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
A: Get married
B: Get divorced.
I think you just give them the facts and let them decide if they want to take the risk of VD and unwanted pregnancy. Let them get educated about condoms, risks that relationships will end, etc... I mean really this should be so much easier for an atheist and how could you ever have any guilt if you give them the facts and explain the pleasures and the risks honestly.
It's our theist 'friends' that have to make up BS stories, to force their children to behave according to the will of the church. I can't imagine having to feed your children this.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
You're preaching to the choir. The religious fucks have no desire to end suffering with their abstinence programs. Their aim is sexual repression to divert that energy to become goose stepping Christo-fascists. But even in standard secular sex education, the over-arching message is still abstinence. Contraception is introduced as a back-up plan if abstinence fails. That is, the secular status quo is still save sex until you are in a loving committed relationship. This is not terribly realistic. Kids are going to fuck unless a viable substitute is offered.
Let's take a hypothetical sci-fi but albeit silly scenerio. Imagine that virtual reality cannot be distinguished from the real thing. Human beings could tune in and select their favorite sexual fantasy and engage in virtual intercourse with their favorite porn star. This would be a boon for the immature teen. Kids just want pleasure whether it's sex, burgers and fries or Kool Aid. My fictional virtual reality machine would give kids what they want without the risks of real sex. My point is that without the surrogate, abstinence even when advocated by secular educators will fail. In fact in current sex education it seems silly to tell kids that abstinence is an alternative unless educators provide a substitute to satisfy the innate lust.
And let's not forget the nerdy kids who have zero chance of getting laid. Abstinence is a curse for the geeky teen wallowing in self pity whilst sitting alone in the high school cafeteria. That pathetic git needs to masturbate to porn. And sex educators have to get this through their thick skulls. In fact, the word abstinence needs to be stricken from sexual verbage. There are only two options: intercourse or masturbation.
See my response to Sapient.
As a 21 year old virgin, and not by choice but by lack of opportunity, I don't think I'm in any place to speak on the question as posed. I'm posting because I see what I consider a major flaw in your proposal. I don't think that distribution of pornography to the immature is a healthy thing to do. First, it promotes the idea that heterosexuality is the only natural stance to take. Even if you diversify by offering bisexual and homosexual alternatives, you can't realistically diversify enough to solve my next issue. Beauty. Teens are already bombarded with the modern idea of beauty, and I don't think we should encourage creating a sexual link to blondes with size 40DD breasts. That isn't how the world works. You would have to offer such a wide variety of porn that isn't realistic. At some point, you'll be limited to what you can offer, and you open the door to being called racist or agist or any number of discriminatory terms. And what about the males? Do we want to promote the idea that all men have 9 inch cocks?
Secular approach to abstinence? Yeah, being fucking miserable/isolated/bored-to-death for the rest of your existence, joining a religious habitat for some sort of free sustenance and psychological benefit, OR....
think as someone who is capable of more than that... yourself, along with your willpower.
I post this because I often chose/contemplated the former two choices... and they left me feeling miserable as could not be easily believed. I guess having Larry Flynt as a role model has it's advantages.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Even before I was an atheist, I took a secular approach to abstinence.
The bottom line is: sex is an act that has a lot of emotional and potential physical consequences. Do you want to risk those consequences with just anyone? For me, no matter how much birth control you use, there is going to be a chance of pregnancy. Would I *really* want to raise a child with said person? Am I willing to take the risk for disease for this person?
I think it's important to explain the emotional complications of sex as well.
I have only had vaginal intercourse with my husband. I have endometriosis and knew from when I was young that vaginal intercourse wasn't going to be all that much fun because of the pain from the disease. If I was going to have sex therefore, I was going to make sure that person a) was worth the trouble and b) going to be considerate and caring enough to make it hurt as little as possible. I wasn't going to fuck some random drunk guy at a party 'cause it probably wouldn't have been very good for me and why the hell would I go through that just for him to get his rocks off?
I think teaching the alternatives (masturbation, mutual masturbation and oral sex done safely) is also a viable choice. Less risk for disease, no risk for pregnancy, and you are still reaching sexual release.
I don't think that sex needs to be reserved for marriage, but it should be reserved for when you are capable of fully accepting all the possible consequences of sex (including a child and/or disease)
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
OK, that was way more information than we needed.
=
I think teaching teens abstinence is great as ONE OPTION IN A FIELD OF MANY.
So, you tell them about contraception, VD, safer sex alternatives, pregnancy, abstinence, and let them make a more educated decision instead of trying to stomp out their sexual feelings at a time when they're experiencing this stuff for the first time). Repression just makes people want to rebel more.
That's why we also need to get rid of the puritanical laws regarding drinking and not make it such forbidden fruit. I think the binge drinking you see reported in college and high school is a result of trying to go overboard on alcohol abstinence programs. Note, that doesn't mean I'm against programs and talking to teens about the dangers of alcohol and bad behaviors that go along with it (drinking and driving, antisocial behavior, bad sex practices, etc...)
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
OK ragdish, are you trying to approach this as a parent or a neurologist? Honestly, I think you are wanting the best of both worlds on this. Seriously, would you advocate for a complete stranger to submit the kids to fmri scans to determine when the time is right for them to be allowed to go past the beat off stage?
Seriously, there is a reason why kids used to get married when they were 15. Were they “adult enough” a couple of centuries ago? Or was it more like back then, parent knew that stuff was going to happen?
Sure, if you want to buy your eventual 14 year old a flesh light and show him how to find TGP web sites, then by all means, knock yourself out. Even so, they are probably going to take care of business on their own schedule and if that is not your schedule, well...
As an atheist parent, you do have the ability to have certain conversations that theist parents are never going to bring themselves to have. You can do that and explain how you feel. You can tell them about responsibility and you can make them aware of condoms just in case they decide to take care of business. However, at some point, they are going to take the choice on themselves and that will not happen when they decide to do so.
=
This is not as crazy as it sounds. With advances in functional neuroimaging and behavioral genetics, what you described is not science fiction. It would be great to one day provide parents a neural correlate of their child's behavioral development. And if the prefrontal regions that govern social decision making are sufficiently developed then why not allow that teen to negotiate mature sexual choices. However, if that same kid's brain is that of a moron, then yes, advise the parents to cover him head to toe with a full body condom if necessary. Facetious as I may sound, this is actually what is being promoted by many scientists in cognitive neuroscience in regards to issues in child development.
Yah, I am aware that it is not science fiction. I did not say it specifically before but that is something that concerns me as well. If we insist on some fairly arbitrary medical determination before people are allowed to do anything more than diddle themselves, well, how do we go about enforcing that?
Perhaps a mandatory chastity belt when not in the privacy of one's own bedroom?
Then there is the idea that different people will reach the line at slightly different ages. What kind of a world are we making when there are people who have had the chastity belt permanently removed at say, 16 when other people have to wait to 18 or 20 for the same thing? Mind you, it occurs that there will be certain people who may never have the chastity belt removed. At first, it will be the mentally retarded but once the door is opened to that, why not force genetic screening on people as a prerequisite for having sex?
Hey, we could wipe out many genetic diseases in a couple of generations if we had such a regime in place. If you test positive for some particular nasty recessive gene, then you can only have sex if you agree to voluntary permanent sterilization.
Don't think that that can't happen. It did a century ago and based on what was then seen as scientific. Basically, we were going to allow human breeding based on priorities not unlike those we impose on our livestock.
That much being said, that is far different from how we can teach our kids to be responsible with their pee pees. I would assume that you would teach them that much entirely apart from any type of enforcement over the matter. And it is exactly that type of education that I was going for.
Theists can't teach such lessons because they are all bound over to teach their kids an arbitrary standard of morality. So they miss an opportunity that is open to atheists. Shall we voluntarily miss that opportunity ourselves because we now claim to be able to enforce some type of scientifically designed morality? Further, do you really think that turning kids loose on the world without those lessons is going to make the world a better place?
=
And who said anything about enforcing chastity belts or for that matter enforcing anything. If an individual has a known mutation for a devastating disease. His or her doctor will indeed counsel that individual on matters regarding sexuality and the desire to bear children. We do this all the time with patients who have the gene for Huntington's disease. Now imagine if that person was a teenager whose condition is at a pre-clinical stage without overt disease manifestations. He is normal by all accounts. The parents would be negligent for not going the extra mile to make sure that their child does not engage in unprotected sexual activity. But you seem to imply that there is a totalitarian enforcement that mandates shackling his dick. This is simply not the case. Your dire warning of a Nazi style dystopia is simply not happening despite technological advances in genetics and neuroscience.
You seem averse to the idea of a scientifically based morality or ethical system. A scientific account of our nature and the appropriate sociocultural solutions are exactly what we need. We know much more about the brain now than our ignorant religious predecessors. Our understanding of evolution, genetics and neuroscience have enriched our understanding of psychology particularly in matters regarding human sexuality. Is there a circumstance wherein sexual abstinence and even absent sexual desire is fullproof. Yes. Barring isolated causes, most individuals would turn away in revulsion at the thought of sex with his/her sibling. Even if your sibling from birth is Salma Hayek who parades in front of you naked 24/7, the odds are far likely that your libido shuts off and replaced by extreme disgust. Now the scientific basis of incest avoidance has been well established and this is far better than it being based on decrees from a supernatural deity.
Similarly, a comprehensive scientific understanding of sexuality from birth onwards which includes knowledge gained from the neurosciences, can only be a good thing and eventually put to therapeutic use. Parents can make rational decisions about their childrens' behavior. And a secular based sex education needs to exploit our advances in scientific knowledge. And given that we are just a few nucleotides away from our horny primate cousins, a secular educator who presents abstinence (as per the status quo) is IMO on thin ice. From what we know about our brains, we've been horny long before the dawn of our species and for good reason. To casually mention abstinence as part of standard sex education with all that lusty hardwiring is unrealistic. Unless, abstinence is simply to imply masturbation.
In regards to your first point, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual porn does not shape sexual orientation. And I hope you're not implying this point for this would be offensive to my many homosexual friends. Pornographic images of heterosexual intercourse does not create a "norm" in the eyes of homosexuals or for that matter to anyone. It is religious indoctrination that falsely creates the notion that only heterosexual intercourse is normal. None of my gay friends are in the least bit upset that teens are masturbating to porn.
Now on to your second point regarding beauty standards. Porn is neither the cause nor the symptom of societal beauty standards which have existed for thousands of years for various sociocultural and biologic reasons. Beauty standards even exist in sexually repressive societies. Do you honestly think that in antiporn fundamentalist societies such as Iran that there are no beauty standards? And that there is no sexual link to those beauty standards there? And I would add that it is indeed the wide variety of porn and erotica that combats ingrained stereotypes of female beauty. In fact, pro-porn sex positive feminists such as Betty Dodson, Violet Blue or Rachel Kramer Bussel do more for sexual health than their prudish antiporn counterparts. And I must say, they have very sexy websites. Porn is simply not restricted to the Playboy standard that you described. And lastly, in this day and age anything you say can be interpreted as sexist, racist, agist or any other -ist. That is simply not restricted to porn. Case in point, being critical of Islam is miscontstrued as racist.
simple you dont fuck you get no children
but really its between the individuals them selfs to make that decision
To the OP: Sure. Sex is dangerous and not something that should be done without consideration. Ideally you help your children understand the potential cost of intercourse compared to the potential gain.
Realistically though....? Kids want to have sex, they don't think very much and so they are going to hump no matter what you do. Even when you use extreme terror and threats like, let's see, hellfire, sin, familial rejection, etc. kids *still* hump each other...so an atheist who is not willing to engage in those damaging and not very effective tactics might as well focus on contraception and try to keep the real losers away from your kids.
I'm not excited about *my* daughter sleeping with some pimply faced reject with no future, that's for sure. I'm all for secular abstinence in children, but you have to be realistic about your expectations.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Get your (general you) fallopian tubes cut n' tied. Or better yet, get a hysterectomy... less iron-loss that way.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
basically....
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I told my sons - who are all over 30 now - sex feels good, but feels best with someone who cares about you as a person. Don't litter the world with unwanted children. Don't tell me the details. Must have done something right as I only have one grandchild and no expectations of any more.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Let me quote you on what I was referring to, which I should have done to start with. I had only a very small portion of your post in mind, because I'm not qualified to make serious decisions or suggestions on raising children.
You, yourself, can find and distribute appropriate pornography to your own children if you have sufficient communication with them. But I stand by what I said entirely when it comes to public institutions. I would object to that for the same reason I object to giving teenagers holy books. You may be able to cover most of the landscape with a few broad strokes, but it still comes down to being an establishment and endorsement for what is carried, and you cannot carry enough variety.
Yeah, it's called "World Of Warcraft"
Moooom Bathroooom!
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Not with my personality type(s), it doesn't... and believe me, I got tested for quite a few interesting ones. I'd feel better with someone who was willing to dump me after a moment's notice... no surprises that way, and a good bit of hidden freedom is ensured by this.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Ow, that's gonna leave a mark...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Talk about millions of 13-40 year old virgins stroking the mighty e-peen with the latest raid aka forced celebacy celebration!
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
In my opinion, there is no need to distribute porn to adolescents, all they need is an internet access and a good antivirus with firewall. If someone doesn't know how to download porn, they can just type 'how to download porn' in there. But fleshlight as a gift from anonymous donor is not that bad idea.
But even better thing is to provide contraception everywhere. I have seen only one condom dispenser in my life, and it was out of order. (empty) Getting hands on a real piece of ass should shape the expectations of young generation very realistically.
Also, in my opinion, very early abortions (until 4-5 weeks of the fetus age) should be much easier to get than normal abortions.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
This is a big reason I'm very much in favor of the 'abortion pill' aka emergency contraception.
Then women can make sure the termination is done early enough that you don't need to get people involved who don't need to be involved and there isn't a need for a surgical procedure.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
The very first time I had sex the rubber came off and we panicked, and got the Plan B pill. I don't know if it was needed, but the alternative could have seriously disrupted our lives.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
i agree with all three posts
once the rubber burst with me and my girl then 10 mins later were in the pharmacy getting the moring after pill
boy do it work
science ftw
i think the morning after pill should be asvertised more often with condoms
God hates killing unborn babies.
So what is already a baby and what is a lifeless fetus?
God determines that, by punishing the abortion-having sinner.
Let's say that after-abortion complications are God's punishment.
A very early abortion is virtually complication-free.
Therefore it is permitted by God
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I don't know, I first got it on in 8th grade.
Sex is just a natural thing in my opinion. Like eating, breathing, etc.
I don't see a reason to restrict it. But maybe catholic school ruined me.
Also to all you people crazily worried about having kids-try sodomy.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Pregnancy, STDs, dangerous emotional attachment at a young age, susceptibility to control by peers...
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
As far as I'm concerned this happens no matter what. Both of these.
I think everyone's first relationship is a dangerous emotional attachment. When the first relationship is broken the world ends. And the next time a bit less. And a bit less after that.
Age has no bearing on that. The emotions seem to be just as strong no matter when someone gets involved their first time.
Control by peers also never really stops. Just your peer group changes with time, and maybe diversifies.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Exactly. Which is parents and authority figures are justified in trying to control the sexual behavior of the young. It is a critical and dangerous stage of mental development.
Personally, I think sex before kids are done with high school (or longer) is dangerous and distracting without any societal benefit. Again, I am not saying you will get kids to stop, but if I could flip a switch that made kids ignore sex until they were more developed I would probably do it. I think our sexual maturity is evolved around an expected life cycle that is no longer applicable to modern life.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I disagree, I think it is healthy and normal and is necessary to become a normal part of society. That is like saying they shouldn't touch alcohol before they are 21, it isn't realistic and doesn't help them integrate with the world around them.
If I didn't start having sex when I did (13 or 14) I doubt I would be nearly as happy in the world as I am now. It's hard enough to want to be accepted at that age, and the addition of sex into life made things a lot more fun and interesting, not to mention a relief from the stress of finishing growing up.
Also, it made me feel more fulfilled as a person, more developed. It certainly made me more confident, even the bad sex. You need life experiences to grow. Inhibiting them is just inhibiting their development as an individual.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
When I weigh the dubious assertion of your improved emotional development against the known and factually supported tragedy that happens very frequently in regards to teen pregnancy I find myself unconvinced. I don't think teenagers 'need' to hump to be fulfilled at that stage of development.
If I could flip a switch to make kids stop drinking until they mature I would do that too.
Re-read my posts if you need to, I never said it was realistic to expect kids to avoid sex...quite the opposite. I just think, were it possible, I would rather they avoid it. I plan on teaching my kids to avoid sex, but I am realistic enough to also teach contraception methods and try to instill good judgment when picking partners.
We understand one another though...unless you have some figures and studies (I certainly don't, this is just my subjective opinion) I don't see a need to drag this out.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'll just say I think denying someone life experiences because you don't agree with them participating in normal teenage behavior seems to be an unhealthy ideal projected at someone learning independence and individuality.
My parents let me start trying wines and beer when I was around 12. Not drinking heavily mind, but experiencing it. Because of that I never had urges to go out and "get wasted" at parties. I got to experience and learn the differences between things, in a contemporary setting.
Due to the open involvement, acceptance, and most importantly support for my development, I was able to talk to them about alcohol and never felt a need to hide things related to alcohol or parties. They educated me and expected me to be reasonable. Helicopter parents are not a healthy thing. Being there for your kid to answer questions and offer support is.
/done
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Agreed... here's mine: a clump of pre-natal cells that can't even (in terms of sympathetic nervous system) feel the pull of gravity upon them does not constitute a human being, ever. End of story.
I could dig up a few quotes from George Carlin on this subject, but I think everyone gets the idea about this.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
... i thought it was naked night elves dancing on mailboxes?
not that... i would know... anything about that... *a-hem*
What Would Kharn Do?
Actually you are. The problem is you are made to feel this is a problem with you, that you are inadequate because women don't want you. The problem is really society, namely the forced sexual by the religious and the moralists. That young people are loaded up with the fear of hell about sex instead of just the facts. Why? It's good for the business of religion to control people's sexuality.
No, there are very few of us.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Wait... i thought 9inch was the average!? O_O
Does... does this mean, Doomy can do porn?
What Would Kharn Do?
Only as a receiver.
BTW, You don't have to change your name only the spelling to DoMe.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Well, since you have never rolled a condom down past the "medium" line...
=
Especially for an atheist, its a simple idea.
Teach children that abstinence is the only 100% way of not getting yourself or someone else pregnant or contracting a sexual disease, that there is nothing wrong or unnatural about masturbation and it is a healthy part of sexual abstinence, and that if you decide to have sex, use protection. It's that simple. But i guess it seems so simple for me as I was never lied to about sexual reproduction, nor was I told half truths. That's because I was raised in a very scientifically minded atheistic home where at the age of four or five, when I asked my mom where babies came from, she gave me the book "A child is born" which certainly didn't cut any corners, instead of the "normal?" stork crap.
Certainly don't give them the impression that they were brought to you by this guy:
Or this guy:
Maybe tell them this, if only for the laughs:
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
What's abstinence? Are we using the Bill Clinton definition of sex?
What's abstinence? How are we defining sex?