What's so bad about abstinence?

Post Reply New Topic

Just cause you have your mind in the gutter, doesn't mean everyone else does.

And, just because you wouldn't touch a woman with a ten foot pole, doesn't mean that no-one else would.

That makes a lot of sense. In my church, we were always taught that Onan's sin in pulling out was that he was endangering the genetic line from which Christ would be the end result of.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I cannot believe that this has gone on for seven pages and no one has had the presence of mind to point out:

Because the same people who promote abstinence until marriage also seek to deny marriage to people who are gay and lesbian.

We are sexual beings. In most jurisdictions in the world we are denied the capacity to marry, so an argument for abstinence before marriage is an argument for lifelong celibacy for gay men and lesbians.

If you are unwilling to give and unqualified, full-throated, "Halelujah!" to same sex marriage, then you have absolutely no business advocating pre-marital abstinence.



While the risk of STIs and pregnancy increases with the number of sexual partners, that risk can be significantly abated through safer sex practices.

As for "comparing", that's just juvenile. Its corollary is the person who suffers from anxiety disorder because the person has no idea whether or not the person's sexual partner is "normal." ("Are all men/women like that?!?")

And the inability to settle down with one steady spouse and the tendency to cheat are utterly specious. A person who is incapable of fidelity is incapable of fidelity--it matters not whether that person has had no previous sexual partners or a hundred.



Putting on my doctor hat I will say unquivocally that a healthy sex life is part of a healthy life. It is certainly possible for a person to survive without intercourse. But complete abstinence from any sexual contact, and from masturbation is disordered. But note the qualifier--a healthy sex life. The greater the number of sexual partners, and the less the amount of social context for those sexual activities, the greater the risk of a differently disordered sex life.

Sorry, we must have forgot. You get someone like me thinking about jugglies and vaginas, and it is hard to turn from the subject.


Inuyasha isn't.


Unless we're speaking solely about penile/vaginal coitus.


Is any of this in the DSM?

As we used to say in med school, "If it's about sex, it's probably in the DSM."

this is a general reminder to keep this thread on track. baiting and personal attacks are not permitted. i can see that some of you have some history and like to poke at each other, but you're pushing it beyond the acceptable bounds. you are expected to debate and interact with each otehr without engaging in those behavious (as bolded).

also please keep in mind that this is not the Adult forum so keep your posts free of sexually graphic pictures or language.


PMs have also been sent.


===================
WrongPlanet Rules
===================


Conduct
-----------
The following activities are unacceptable on WrongPlanet:

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Here is a movie (I haven't seen it, but it seems good) about Levirate marriage

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1346983/

Yep, that's the viewpoint of religious, conservative, and organized crime families throughout the world. It's the "us first, you're on your own" mentality.

All that that is so bad about abstinence, as are any abstinence oaths, should be in the DSM.

Abstinence might be OK if it doesn't go too far and remains in public places.

Both abstinence and maybe absinthe should remain legal with acceptable age limits (esp. for that high proofed pictured Hemingway stuff). Many societies have prohibited both, which is too extreme.

Tadzio

WHat is so bad about it? Absolutely nothing.

I mean, seriously. People who belittle it are a bunch of moral cowards. Abstinence is the best way to avoid tragedy, hands down. Condoms barely work because microscopic holes let STDs through and burst open inside people all the time

Got anything substantive to back this up?

i dont have a big issue with it as long as people get proper sex ed, not like what the poster above presents.

sure they arent 100% but then again neither is absitence (there are cases of STD's being transmitted with no sexual contact, though mostly herpes as that can infect the mouth as well)
but to say they barely work is evident of lacking understanding or experience.

i dont think it presents a higher or lower moral grounds for anything, just as i dont think healthy sexual activity is grounds for any moral judgement.

unfortunately abstinence is sometimes presented as a "moral" alternative by religious groups.

http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html

Actually, abstinence is not a moral substitute. Abstinence is tried and true. Moral cowards just don't like admitting it.

Oh, puleeze.
I asked for something substantive.

except for the tragedy of not getting laid.
The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied, ranging from 10–18% per year.The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year.
misleading but technically true use of "all the time".
At any given moment i.e. "all the time" a condom breaks but this is only 2.3% of time condoms are used.
[1] change this to mostly.
[2] change this to but
[3] insert the word sometimes.
[4] insert the word they
[5] put a so we know its tongue in cheek.

there we have 100% agreement.

on an unrelated note I only have sex with chicks I am married to.