Girls banned from wearing "Purity Rings" at UK school

[secret friend]

Marilyn Monroe and...

I don't know.

Janet Leigh?
Joan Fontaine?
Laureen Bacall?
Bette Davis?

 

[CptStern]

lauren bacall ...you have no soul

 

[The Kaiser]

What the Heck is with all the hate against Abstinence? With teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, it's the best way to prevent those things from happening. So what's the problem? Because it's often done in religious overtures?

 

[secret friend]

I remembered The Big Sleep at the very last moment....

 

[Sulkdodds]

What the Heck is with all the hate against Abstinence? With teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, it's the best way to prevent those things from happening. So what's the problem? Because it's often done in religious overtures?

It's the best way to prevent those things from happening, but you realise it's also possible to prevent such things with the use of a comdom and/or contraception coupled with a responsible approach and awareness of the dangers of sex - while still getting some poon. Plus, there's an argument that it's actually more harmful to people than engaging freely in sex (Stern made some good arguments in the last thread it came up in). And of course, many people who practise abstinence tend to take the attitude that those who don't abstain are filthy and horrible. A generalisation, I know, but it seems to have some basis in reality.

 

[The Kaiser]

It's the best way to prevent those things from happening, but you realise it's also possible to prevent such things with the use of a comdom and/or contraception coupled with a responsible approach and awareness of the dangers of sex - while still getting some poon. Plus, there's an argument that it's actually more harmful to people than engaging freely in sex (Stern made some good arguments in the last thread it came up in). And of course, many people who practise abstinence tend to take the attitude that those who don't abstain are filthy and horrible. A generalisation, I know, but it seems to have some basis in reality.

First off, Condoms do not "also prevent" the risks, they simply lower the risk unless used very well, by people who already know how to.

Secondly, do you really need sex, even before marriage? Personally, I don't have a desire to "get some poon", or spread my genes around before marriage. Abstinence isn't only a form of protection for me, but it just makes a lot more sense than going around and having it.

Thirdly, anyone who does anything usually might have an attitude to people who don't. People who exercise probably take an attitude to fat people as lazy and whatnot. It happens everywhere, but that doesn't mean exercise, or in this case abstinence is bad just because of that.

Lastly, there's no health risks involved in not having sex, while there are if you do. Perhaps a problem that people won't be "experienced" in doing it, but really, that's a non-issue.

 

[Yuri]

You are obviously so much better than anyone who has sex. :upstare: Teach me, Kaiser, teach me your ways to enlightenment!

Millais School, an all-girls' comprehensive in West Sussex, has a strict 'no jewellery' rule, allowing only small stud earrings.

While that dress code is absolutely ridiculous, the fact remains: The dress code probably wasn't invented because of these rings, and just because they represent some stupid idea that doesn't work does not mean that they should be exempt from the dress code.

However, the dress code is so ridiculous that it should not be allowed to exist. And without the dress code, people can wear rings that represent whatever the hell they want.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

it's not the ring but rather the message it sends ..frankly I wouldnt be too surprised if it becomes popular for boys to collect those rings (given to them of course)

I must say this is one idea of yours that I think is fantastic

edit: Er.. how does abstinence 'not work?' That doesn't even make sense. I'm not telling you to do it but if you want to be 100% sure then it uh.. does work. Sex ed classes should show all risks, all contraceptives, etc, and remind at the end that if they want to be 100% sure then there's abstinence, but if they're gonna go get some, then to take use the contraceptives they learned about.

 

[The Kaiser]

You are obviously so much better than anyone who has sex. Teach me, Kaiser, teach me your ways to enlightenment

Oh please, don't give me that crap. I NEVER said I was better than anyone else is "sex" and shit, so please, words in mouth, stop.

All I said was I think it's better for one to be abstinent until marriage. Got a problem with such?

 

[Mr Stabby]

The school system is different in England to N. Ireland, but an all girls comprehensive? I thought comprehensives couldn't discriminate, and only grammar schools could do that.

 

[Sulkdodds]

First off, Condoms do not "also prevent" the risks, they simply lower the risk unless used very well, by people who already know how to.

They lower the risks of pregnancy to about 1% and that's just without contraception. The chance of contracting an STI is, I believe, rather lower when wearing a comdom. Yes there's a chance that it won't work, but there is also a chance that you will be hit by a meteorite.

Secondly, do you really need sex, even before marriage? Personally, I don't have a desire to "get some poon", or spread my genes around before marriage. Abstinence isn't only a form of protection for me, but it just makes a lot more sense than going around and having it.

Do you really need a TV? Do you really need a computer, or books, or Half-Life 2? Just because you don't need something, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to enjoy it - and unless you're going to argue that absolutely anything with any risk at all should be forgone, then I don't think you can have a case against pre-maritial sex on a medical/health/danger ground - if you're careful, responsible and aware of the risks, you are extremely unlikely to come off badly. Many dangers of sex are exacerbated by ignorant or careless attitudes - often spawned by a lack of education, which usually happens because those doing the educating are unwilling to inform people or give them the full story lest they get ideas.

Thirdly, anyone who does anything usually might have an attitude to people who don't. People who exercise probably take an attitude to fat people as lazy and whatnot. It happens everywhere, but that doesn't mean exercise, or in this case abstinence is bad just because of that.

Fair enough, but I'm just saying why some people might be predisposed to look unkindly on those advocating abstinence - especially as they may feel they are being told to stop doing something they feel entirely justified in doing.

Lastly, there's no health risks involved in not having sex, while there are if you do. Perhaps a problem that people won't be "experienced" in doing it, but really, that's a non-issue.

I don't believe this is necessarily true. I can't cite them because I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject - however, if Ludah wants to argue the point (since it is he, and not me, that stated he was against absistence - I, personally, am not that bothered) I'm sure he can put up a better argument. However, I distinctly remember seeing statistcs that couples who abstained until marriage had more unstable relationships, or higher divorce rates - something along those lines.

'Being inexperienced' is not a 'non-issue' because in some cases sexual incompatibility can wreck relationships. Obviously, it won't matter if the two people really do love each other. However, abstinence can easily lead to people marrying purely to have sex. People are often superficial; if they can't do it out of marriage then it just increases the chance of marriages being made purely for the purposes of lust. On top of this, 'saving' sex for marriage can give sex a mythological air, and make it seem like something heavenly that is only attainable through said union - which means that people are all the more likely to marry hastily in an attempt to be able to experience it. Frankly, enough marriages are made for reasons other than true love as it is. In a marriage based purely on lust, sexual incompatability will be a big problem.

Also, you assume that sex within marriage is safer than sex without marriage. I would like you to prove that. What is the difference, if any, between a married couple f*cking only each other and a long-term unmarried couple f*cking only each other? Answer: none, unless you take the standpoint that marriage should be permanent (in which case, you'd be wrong, but at least you'd be consistent).

Er.. how does abstinence 'not work?' That doesn't even make sense. I'm not telling you to do it but if you want to be 100% sure then it uh.. does work.

Quite. Not sure who you were responding to, but yes, abstinence from sex to avoid ill affects of sex obviously does work - and obviously, you're quite entitled to do it. I find it odd, but whatever floats your boat.

As for attitudes, Kaiser, I find it distasteful that some advocates of abstinence seem to see those who do not abstain as...well, whores. In fact, the very idea of 'saving abstinence till marriage' - if based on the ideal of purity - fundamentally implies bad stuff about people who don't abstain.

 

[Ludah]

What the Heck is with all the hate against Abstinence? With teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, it's the best way to prevent those things from happening. So what's the problem? Because it's often done in religious overtures?

Abstinence pledges actually increase the likeliness of teen sex, and therefore teen pregnancy. Arbitrary promises and self-challenges often do that.

Look, if you personally want to hold onto your virginity, it should be out of your own comfort and wishes. Not because of some God. Not because some whacked out Sex Ed teacher said so. And certainly not because of the absolutely ridiculous idea that marriage prevents STDs or is somehow more stable.

Teenagers are going to ****. The best you can do is educate them. Abstinence pledges are of more harm than help.

 

[CptStern]

Oh please, don't give me that crap. I NEVER said I was better than anyone else is "sex" and shit, so please, words in mouth, stop.

All I said was I think it's better for one to be abstinent until marriage. Got a problem with such?

so long as that is your opinion ..tell me, do you think that in many cases where christians who observe abstinance are quick to get married? what will you do if you're 35 and unmarried? will you wait that long? what if you never find someone you could spend the rest of your life with ...what if she wasnt a virgin/observed abstinance? will that be a deal breaker for you?

 

[kirovman]

Lastly, there's no health risks involved in not having sex, while there are if you do.

Two words.

Blue balls.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Quite. Not sure who you were responding to, but yes, abstinence from sex to avoid ill affects of sex obviously does work - and obviously, you're quite entitled to do it. I find it odd, but whatever floats your boat.

I don't do it, but I saw in the post right above mine I think Erestheux saying "which doesn't work" or something along those lines I was like wait what? It works 100%, it's just really hard to do/not fun. If someone wants to then they're guaranteed to be safe, I don't see how anyone can criticize it unless it's being FORCED or something.

 

[Solaris]

First off, Condoms do not "also prevent" the risks, they simply lower the risk unless used very well, by people who already know how to.

The lower to the point where you chance of getting an STI is damn low. And it's not freaking hard, 'used very well' its not a computer or something, you just put it on and f**k. Wow that's hard.

Secondly, do you really need sex, even before marriage? Personally, I don't have a desire to "get some poon", or spread my genes around before marriage. Abstinence isn't only a form of protection for me, but it just makes a lot more sense than going around and having it.

Have fun not having fun.

Lastly, there's no health risks involved in not having sex, while there are if you do. Perhaps a problem that people won't be "experienced" in doing it, but really, that's a non-issue.

Theres no chance of getting run over if you don't go outside!

 

[kirovman]

I don't mind abstainance, but I don't like the holier than thou attitude it brings about.

 

[Ludah]

No problem with abstinence, necessarily. It's just the pledges often backfire. And I think we can all agree that abstinence-only programs are horrid.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I don't do it, but I saw in the post right above mine I think Erestheux saying "which doesn't work" or something along those lines I was like wait what? It works 100%, it's just really hard to do/not fun. If someone wants to then they're guaranteed to be safe, I don't see how anyone can criticize it unless it's being FORCED or something.

Ah, right. No, when I was saying 'you' I meant like a hypothetical-general 'you' as opposed to specifically you as it was clear from your post you weren't advocating abstinence.

 

[The Kaiser]

They lower the risks of pregnancy to about 1% and that's just without contraception. The chance of contracting an STI is, I believe, rather lower when wearing a comdom. Yes there's a chance that it won't work, but there is also a chance that you will be hit by a meteorite.

However, that's only if it's done completely correct. On average, condoms lowers chances from 50-80%, not immediately 99%. 99% comes when it's down wth utmost care, and a little experience.

The lower to the point where you chance of getting an STI is damn low. And it's not freaking hard, 'used very well' its not a computer or something, you just put it on and f**k. Wow that's hard.

Obviously, you don't know what I meant. Just putting one on will not lower it to the 99% chance of not getting pregnant or whatnot, moreso if memorry serves 50-80% success. You don't just put something on, and OMG ITS SKILlZ.

Do you really need a TV? Do you really need a computer, or books, or Half-Life 2? Just because you don't need something, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to enjoy it - and unless you're going to argue that absolutely anything with any risk at all should be forgone, then I don't think you can have a case against pre-maritial sex on a medical/health/danger ground - if you're careful, responsible and aware of the risks, you are extremely unlikely to come off badly. Many dangers of sex are exacerbated by ignorant or careless attitudes - often spawned by a lack of education, which usually happens because those doing the educating are unwilling to inform people or give them the full story lest they get ideas.

Computers and T.V.s do not come with the idea of a child being concepted. Neither does playing Half-Life 2. Comparing them therefore isn't very logical, since one can result in a life among diseases, and another results in at worst people getting angry, and at best enjoyment.

Being that sex entails such, I think it is simply more appropriate to forgo it until marriage, when responsiblity between two people is at a higher point, rather than say teenager age and such.

Have fun not having fun.

Congrats on a very good arguement. Having fun, my, my life is so incomplete by not having sex, and having fun! Gods, what have I been doing? /sarcasm.

Fair enough, but I'm just saying why some people might be predisposed to look unkindly on those advocating abstinence - especially as they may feel they are being told to stop doing something they feel entirely justified in doing.

True enough. However, in this case the girls are not "telling anyone" how to do something, or to stop something. They are simply attempting to tell to others they "want" to stay sexually free until marriage. In this issue, it's not a large problem, unless the girls are going are telling others to do it as well and where the rings.

Theres no chance of getting run over if you don't go outside!

However, going around outside to do things is something essential to me living. I can't continue with my life as it is now without walking to school, or going to take the bus to work. In the area of sex though, I don't need it to live, I don't need it to survive, and there are risks involved that I don't want to deal with until marriage.

Therefore, I'm going to continue to go outside.

I don't believe this is necessarily true. I can't cite them because I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject - however, if Ludah wants to argue the point (since it is he, and not me, that stated he was against absistence - I, personally, am not that bothered) I'm sure he can put up a better argument. However, I distinctly remember seeing statistcs that couples who abstained until marriage had more unstable relationships, or higher divorce rates - something along those lines.

'Being inexperienced' is not a 'non-issue' because in some cases sexual incompatibility can wreck relationships. Obviously, it won't matter if the two people really do love each other. However, abstinence can easily lead to people marrying purely to have sex. People are often superficial; if they can't do it out of marriage then it just increases the chance of marriages being made purely for the purposes of lust. On top of this, 'saving' sex for marriage can give sex a mythological air, and make it seem like something heavenly that is only attainable through said union - which means that people are all the more likely to marry hastily in an attempt to be able to experience it. Frankly, enough marriages are made for reasons other than true love as it is. In a marriage based purely on lust, sexual incompatability will be a big problem.

Well, all I can truthfully say is those are problems that abstinence would bring on, yes. However, if the people doing abstinence for a religious reason (Such as Catholic reasons, for myself) are educated in what the religion says on the subject and such, there won't be as many of those problems. I would like to marry on the terms of being in love, and truthfully, I don't have a huge sex drive. Curiousity, an urge to continue my genes yes, but just to have sex for the Hell of it... not so much.

Also, you assume that sex within marriage is safer than sex without marriage. I would like you to prove that. What is the difference, if any, between a married couple f*cking only each other and a long-term unmarried couple f*cking only each other? Answer: none, unless you take the standpoint that marriage should be permanent (in which case, you'd be wrong, but at least you'd be consistent).

The thing is though that in a married state it would be easier to support a family, as there would be a bit more consistency. Less taxes to a married couple (Than as opposed to two non-unioned members, who still have seperate taxes). You have to understand, I view sex as per my religion as a way to show love bewtween two members but also to procreate. Simply put, responsibility in a married relationship is usually more suited to starting a family, rather than a non-married couple (Who may or may not break a bit more easily, as there are less things holding them back than a state of marriage).

As for attitudes, Kaiser, I find it distasteful that some advocates of abstinence seem to see those who do not abstain as...well, whores. In fact, the very idea of 'saving abstinence till marriage' - if based on the ideal of purity - fundamentally implies bad stuff about people who don't abstain.

Well, for me it is not solely a religious but also logical conclusion. To me, it seems the safest bet to avoid any and all problems that come sex. I certainly don't view people who have sex before marriage as "whores". It's more of an issue that I decided for myself to pertain to, and truthfully, I don't force it on others, nor tell others "You better conform to it".

so long as that is your opinion ..tell me, do you think that in many cases where christians who observe abstinance are quick to get married? what will you do if you're 35 and unmarried? will you wait that long? what if you never find someone you could spend the rest of your life with ...what if she wasnt a virgin/observed abstinance? will that be a deal breaker for you?

If i'm thirty-five and unmarried? Well, I just won't have sex then. As I've said, I don't have a huge drive "just" for the act, and since it's not a requirement to not and fulfilling life, I don't see why I'd "Have to have it". And as I've said, while I see it as the safest course of action in regards to diseases and children, I pertain it to myself, not to others. If I found that special someone and we both fell in love, I wouldn't hold it against them if they hadn't abstained.

 

[secret friend]

I bet those girls have oral sex

 

[theotherguy]

I think I will abstain until I am at least dating in order to find a wife, say in my late twenties. But I think abstinence until marraige is both unrewarding and pointless.

In my school system, the year Bush got into office all sex-education that included condoms or contraception was banned. I know this because in the fifth grade we had sex education while clinton was in office, and it fullheartedly talked about condoms and contraceptives, yet in our high school health class our books were replaced that year by a new book called, you guessed it, "abstinence" and it sounded like it was written by my grandmother. Our teacher mentioned this, and told us that she wasn't really going to follow the book, since it didn't fit her curriculum, and then went on to tell us about condoms, contraceptives and spermicides.

We are also given lectures about every year on abstinence. They got this hip college grad guy to come to our school and tell us that sex was "not cool" until marraige, and he then went on to explain using some mathematical formula that told us we had a 65% chance of being killed by an infectious disease if we had even one more partner. Which was, of course, idiotic, because he assumed nobody in this sexual chain was originally a virgin, and that none of them used protection of any sort, and that three of them had HIV at birth.

The truth is, when used properly, a condom will lower your chances of contracting a sexual disease by 98%.When used with a contraceptive, you will have close to 0% chance of having a baby. I think that's a reasonable risk, considering you have a higher chance of dying from a car wreck than dying of or even contracting an STD.

 

[Kamikazie]

I bet those girls have oral sex

Great job of contributing to the conversation. :thumbs: for you.

Stern: I think you have someone new to argue with in Politics

 

[CptStern]

If i'm thirty-five and unmarried? Well, I just won't have sex then.

so you'll marry the first person you fall in love with? how will you know it's love if you've never felt it before? if sex is the ultimate expression of love (unless that is you believe that sex is solely for producing offspring) then will you not fully exprience love until you've had sex?

As I've said, I don't have a huge drive "just" for the act, and since it's not a requirement to not and fulfilling life, I don't see why I'd "Have to have it".

desire is fueled by experience ..if I've never tried chocolate I wont miss it because I dont have the experience that tells me that it is good

I will say that it is sad that in this day and age such an antiquated morality based life choice is still prevelant with certain religions (it is always, almost without exception a religious based practice) ..of course that's just my opinion

And as I've said, while I see it as the safest course of action in regards to diseases and children, I pertain it to myself, not to others. If I found that special someone and we both fell in love, I wouldn't hold it against them if they hadn't abstained.

well kudos to you ..maybe I just dont understand why you're saving it knowing full well the person you choose may not do the same

 

[DreadLord]

it's not the ring but rather the message it sends ..frankly I wouldnt be too surprised if it becomes popular for boys to collect those rings (given to them of course)

That's a brilliant idea.

 

[The Kaiser]

so you'll marry the first person you fall in love with? how will you know it's love if you've never felt it before? if sex is the ultimate expression of love (unless that is you believe that sex is solely for producing offspring) then will you not fully exprience love until you've had sex?

Well, does anyone know what true love is? That's a pretty loaded question, and truthfully, sex doesn't factor into loving someone, or at least shouldn't. It should be an "expression" of love yes, but it should not be a reason "to love" someone.

Knowing that you love someone is just... knowing. I don't think anyone can truly make a certifiable definition for knowing if you're truly in love or not, because it's pretty different for everyone. But trust me, I'll know when I am.

desire is fueled by experience ..if I've never tried chocolate I wont miss it because I dont have the experience that tells me that it is good

However for sex there is an underlying instinctual desire or need for it, it's the way our species subconsciously makes sure we keep reproducing. Perhaps the way you have sex, or whatnot is based on experience, but the desire to have children, and to reproduce, is pretty much instinctual. And for me, that, other than a way to express love for my future wife, is the main reason for me to have sex. Enjoyment is a benefit of it, not the main reason to "do" it.

I will say that it is sad that in this day and age such an antiquated morality based life choice is still prevelant with certain religions (it is always, almost without exception a religious based practice) ..of course that's just my opinion

What's wrong it? I am completely protected from any diseases or children at the moment in my life, plus it's my choice, and it's not hurting a single person. If anything you should be happy it exists for those of us who choose it, since it doesn't cause any problems to you.

well kudos to you ..maybe I just dont understand why you're saving it knowing full well the person you choose may not do the same

Because again, not having sex is something will affect me personally. I won't have any unwanted children (as of my wants at the current), and I won't be subject to any sexually-transmitted diseases, provided I wasn't born with them. It's a matter that affects me, and not the other person. I can't hold everyone else to the same standard, even if I think it's a good one, simply put.

 

[destrukt]

while i think it's wrong, i think people are making a big deal out of nothing.

so you can't wear a ring ? boohoo, you won't be at that school forever and is not being able to wear some ring really that constrictive on you, as an individual ? actually, it seems like a trend, so i doubt these kids are really doing it to be individual and if they actually are wearing these rings to for the apparent belief/idea they present (abstaining and whatever) they're going about it the wrong way.

i have many beliefs, but there is no way i'm going to wear a piece of jewellery or have something else somewhere on me to identify me with certain beliefs (the situation would be different (excuse my ignorance) if say i was a muslim and i was wearing a turban or whatever), it's not because i don't want people to know, i just think it's totally the wrong way go to about showing your beliefs, holding to them and so on.


in general, i think the public too often makes a big deal out of little things like this, sure, while schools may be wrong, who cares ? deal with it and move on.

actually, in general, with everyone, i think they're all too paranoid, overreact too much and so on -- basically, i think barely anyone knows how to deal with problems in a decent way, but my views on the current state of the world is a different topic.

note: i do have a line, so when i hear stories like schools stopping kids from using various sites OUTSIDE of school time, at home, i think the students/parents/public have a problem on their hands.

 

[bliink]

1) Its jewellery... sif complain that you can't wear it at school
2) You're still a naive kid who doesnt know anything about sex anyway, and have probably been brainwashed into thinking sex is evil by evangelicals anyway
3) Who needs to wear a ring to say they dont want to have sex?
4) They're stupid, its just another way for girls to "fit in" with each other anyway. Peer pressure, hello
5) Its school, not a democracy, you have to do what they say.

 

[DreadLord]

Because again, not having sex is something will affect me personally. I won't have any unwanted children (as of my wants at the current), and I won't be subject to any sexually-transmitted diseases, provided I wasn't born with them. It's a matter that affects me, and not the other person. I can't hold everyone else to the same standard, even if I think it's a good one, simply put.

Just a quick question, as I'm curious.. What do you feel about oral sex? And other sexual (yet not sex) acts?

 

[99.vikram]

I think the rings should be done away with. Those wearing the ring are definitely going to make it a point to show it to everyone, as if it is a mark of superiority.

And I really don't support the abstinence movement.

 

[Raziaar]

I think the rings should be done away with. Those wearing the ring are definitely going to make it a point to show it to everyone, as if it is a mark of superiority.

And I really don't support the abstinence movement.

Who care if they want to try to lord their abstinence over everybody? Why is it your concern that they do that? Just ignore em.

It's not the only thing people try to hold high above everybody else.

 

[The Kaiser]

Just a quick question, as I'm curious.. What do you feel about oral sex? And other sexual (yet not sex) acts?

Any type of act that is done regarding sexual organs and whatnot is considered by me to be simply that, a sexual act. So yes, I consider oral sex sex.

 

[Raziaar]

Any type of act that is done regarding sexual organs and whatnot is considered by me to be simply that, a sexual act. So yes, I consider oral sex sex.

What about mental sex? I project my sexual acts upon you in the most graphic ways.

The brain is the largest sexual organ there is. :cheese:

 

[Llama]

I bet those girls have oral sex

Just piss off. Please.

On topic, I think this is a bit stupid, althought TBH if its a rule it's a rule.Aslong as they banned all rings I cant give a shit.

 

[Sulkdodds]

However, that's only if it's done completely correct. On average, condoms lowers chances from 50-80%, not immediately 99%. 99% comes when it's down wth utmost care, and a little experience.

"Only if it's done completely correct?" Well, abstinence doesn't work if you don't do it completely correct either! I'm not just referring to breaking it - if people don't approach it right they could easily end up in a shallow marriage they never really wanted or any of that other stuff I mentioned.

I don't think you can really argue this as a drawback, especially when in many cases if a person does not 'do it completely correct' then it's because they have had insufficient sex education. Why should such a state of affairs exist? In many cases, it's because those doing the educating have decided to put the onus on abstinence. They have decided that instead of telling people the truth, informing them properly, they will merely say 'don't do it' in the manner of God telling Adam and Eve not to eat the stupid fruit. "Done with utmost care"? I'm sorry, but it isn't hard to put on the condom. If you remember you need to wear it, and you know how to don it, there really shouldn't be a problem.

Computers and T.V.s do not come with the idea of a child being concepted. Neither does playing Half-Life 2. Comparing them therefore isn't very logical, since one can result in a life among diseases, and another results in at worst people getting angry, and at best enjoyment.

Being that sex entails such, I think it is simply more appropriate to forgo it until marriage, when responsiblity between two people is at a higher point, rather than say teenager age and such.

While TV and computers are not directly relatable to sex, my point was that "do you really need to have sex before marriage" is in no way an argument for abstinence. However, as an aside, TVs and computers are not harmless; misuse of them can hurt the eyes and hands (just like doing sex wrong can hurt you)...and there are also a lot of people who argue mental damage can result from both. While these concerns are usually grossly exaggerated, it would be pretty silly to dismiss them entirely. Not much in this world is harmless. Not much in this world will not cause problems when you misuse it.

Furthermore, your assertion that marriage is 'more responsible' than, say, two people having a consensual one-night stand, or two people in a long-term relationship, is a bit iffy. We can only talk about sexual responsibility here - everything else is irrelevant. In which case I can hardly see why a married couple would be any more sexually responsible than two people in a long-term relationship, or even two people having a (responsible, w/ condoms etc) one night stand.

...

The thing is though that in a married state it would be easier to support a family, as there would be a bit more consistency. Less taxes to a married couple (Than as opposed to two non-unioned members, who still have seperate taxes). You have to understand, I view sex as per my religion as a way to show love bewtween two members but also to procreate. Simply put, responsibility in a married relationship is usually more suited to starting a family, rather than a non-married couple (Who may or may not break a bit more easily, as there are less things holding them back than a state of marriage).

You're right, but none of that relates to the actual virtues of sex in marriage as opposed to out of marriage. It relates to some debate about whether people should get married before having a family, maybe, but with regards to pre-maritial sex for the purpose of pleasure or as an act of love (sans procreation)...it's irrelevant.

Well, for me it is not solely a religious but also logical conclusion. To me, it seems the safest bet to avoid any and all problems that come sex. I certainly don't view people who have sex before marriage as "whores". It's more of an issue that I decided for myself to pertain to, and truthfully, I don't force it on others, nor tell others "You better conform to it".

Didn't say you did. If that's the way you feel, that's your lookout, your responsibility. I don't believe there are any particular advantages of abstinence over just having a sensible approach to sex - if it's something you're constantly forcing on yourself (as opposed to just thinking 'meh, I don't really want to have sex yet') - as I can only assume it is with a considerable number of people - it's basically denying all the advantages of sexual freedom while offering no real (unique) advantages of its own.

Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that it can actually be harmful. But when it is harmful, it's generally because people are stupid about it. In the same way that stupidity in sex causes the problems you're trying to avoid, stupidity in abstinence causes its own problems. While at the beginning of post, I said that people being ignorant about things can't be used against the things themselves, the difference is that I was proposing proper sex education as an alternative to abstinence, so saying "but if people don't use them properly-" is silly.

Anyway. The fact is, the school is either completely justified in banning the rings or completely hypocritical in not banning Muslim bracelets or whatever it was. Still, it's A. not that big a deal like holy shit dude daily mail get over it) and B. arguable whether the chastity rings constitute a religious symbol/accessory as such.

1char, lol?

 

[The Kaiser]

Wait, do you want me to respond to that? I'm a bit confused, apologies.

Also, just to make myself a bit clearer on the debate at hand for the case. I don't think the girls should be allowed to wear the rings. They constitute as jewelry, and nowhere does the bible require them to. It's pretty stupid actually, and a bit arrogant. If anything, you shouldn't need a ring to tell people you won't have sex until marriage. You do that by not doing the act overall.

 

[Kamikazie]

Let's just say that you're a horny bastard (yes, yes I know you're not because your god said not to have sex. I get it) and you go up to this chick that you want to bang. But then you see a ring or bracelet (whatever the the **** you guys are arguing about) and you say to yourself "Oh, she wants to wait till marriage to have sex." and you continue till you see another chick that is good enough for your penis.

The religion makes everything complicated. I think that god is just a prankster that likes to see christians wait till marriage to have sex, and laughs while the ones that think they're strong christians go their whole lives being "men of god" and not getting laid.

 

[TheSomeone]

source

...that's pretty freaking stupid. As much as I dislike the "abstinence movement", I despise the restriction of self-expression far more. I mean, it's a ring, ffs.


Any comments?

If it's against the school dress code to wear jewelery there is absoluetely nothing up to debate here.

 

[The Kaiser]

Let's just say that you're a horny bastard (yes, yes I know you're not because your god said not to have sex. I get it) and you go up to this chick that you want to bang. But then you see a ring or bracelet (whatever the the **** you guys are arguing about) and you say to yourself "Oh, she wants to wait till marriage to have sex." and you continue till you see another chick that is good enough for your penis.

The religion makes everything complicated. I think that god is just a prankster that likes to see christians wait till marriage to have sex, and laughs while the ones that think they're strong christians go their whole lives being "men of god" and not getting laid.

Apparently no, you dn't get it. Sex in my religion's thought is the ultimate act of love between two people, and I see it as something that shouldn't be just flaunted or done whenever one feels like it. It's not "God told me not to have sex lol", but because of how I view it, I hold a lot of respect to it, and therefore see it as something not to be thrown around.

Seriously, I'm shocked at how many people are having problems with abstinence. It's my choice on how to keep myself safe, why is that such a problem to anyone?

 

[TheSomeone]

Apparently no, you dn't get it. Sex in my religion's thought is the ultimate act of love between two people, and I see it as something that shouldn't be just flaunted or done whenever one feels like it. It's not "God told me not to have sex lol", but because of how I view it, I hold a lot of respect to it, and therefore see it as something not to be thrown around.

Seriously, I'm shocked at how many people are having problems with abstinence. It's my choice on how to keep myself safe, why is that such a problem to anyone?

I don't have a problem with it, I just feel that sometimes people in your position think they have the moral highground and look down on "the others" that do have sex. Everyone should have the right to make their choice without people judging them.