Used up Tooth brush and chewed gum...

[Big Don]

I'm not talking about virgins or people with limited sex partners. The comment was people that sleep around alot (what alot equals is left up to the individule to decide) are seen by others as less desirable. Especially when it comes to woman. How many times have you heard oh if a guy sleeps with a lot of girls he's a stud but if a girl does it she's looked down upon.
Its just the way it is. An "easy" woman is always seen as "easy". Fair or not that's how it is.

But, it isn't fair, and that will make the less intelligent whine, every time.

 

[MJS]

Analogies the great state of Texas teaches middle schoolers as sex-ed...you know, 'doing it' before the wedding night.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/07/2910611/texas-sex-chewed-gum/

You wonder how well this works for Texas when you read that the state is one with the highest teen pregnancy rates...

IMHO, while I don't have kids, I feel that the message that is being sent, is 100% wrong! I know we've have sex ed threads on here before, with some feeling that it's ok for the schools to talk about it, while others feel that it's only the job of the parents. Regardless of ones stance, they may as well be telling the kids that if they get raped, that they're a useless piece of gum. Sounds like the way some of the foreign countries out there, treat women.

Bottom line...you can't hide sex, unless you're living in a bubble on some island in the middle of nowhere. I'd much rather see them educate the kids on the potential risks, ie: getting pregnant, STD, etc., and the proper use of birthcontrol, rather than have this cult like mentality instilled in them.

 

[WaterGal]

Sorry but its just the why most people feel. Just because you pretend its not doesn't make it so.

What most people? In Saudi Arabia, you mean? Because most people in the United States, in my experience, do not feel that way. I've hardly ever heard anyone say anything like that before, other than religious fundamentalists.

 

[WaterGal]

I'm not talking about virgins or people with limited sex partners. The comment was people that sleep around alot (what alot equals is left up to the individule to decide) are seen by others as less desirable. Especially when it comes to woman. How many times have you heard oh if a guy sleeps with a lot of girls he's a stud but if a girl does it she's looked down upon.
Its just the way it is. An "easy" woman is always seen as "easy". Fair or not that's how it is.

It's true that some people do still have gross outdated sexist ideas like that. But where do you think they get those ideas from? Stuff like what was mentioned in the OP, where far-right religious weirdos compare women who've had sex to chewed up old gum.

But these ideas are something we should be working to rid ourselves of, not going "eh, whatever" about.

 

[ballen0351]

I can tell you I heard that the most when I was in the military and that was about as far away from religious wierdos you can get. Like I said you can pretend its not true to make you feel better if you want.


I also don't disagree with you that's its a backwards way of thinking. I'm just saying you can't deny people think that way.

 

[arnisador]

I'm not sure young people today think of it that way to nearly the extent that the older folks might.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm not sure young people today think of it that way to nearly the extent that the older folks might.

Dude I'm not that old. I was in the military only 15 years ago.

 

[pgsmith]

I can tell you I heard that the most when I was in the military and that was about as far away from religious wierdos you can get. Like I said you can pretend its not true to make you feel better if you want.

That way of thinking is hammered home in the military because of the large possibility of STDs. There are always professionals hanging around military bases, and the military culture works very hard at trying to convince ignorant young men to leave them alone. It was the same way when I was in the military in the 70's, despite the fact that everyone else was engaged in sexual free-for-all.

I'm not sure young people today think of it that way to nearly the extent that the older folks might.

Actually, it has been my experience in working with young people over the last 15 years that they are more likely to think this way than older people. This is, in my opinion, because they have had the 'abstinence is the only way' point driven home to them for quite some time now.

The sex "education" course points out a much deeper problem than sex or self esteem. It points out the largest problem in our society today in my opinion. Nobody is encouraged to think for themselves. The leaders of our society seem determined to try and prevent people from making their own decisions. We are told what we should be thinking and why we should be thinking it. We are no longer given information and allowed to make our own decisions. That "sex education" class is a prime example.

 

[oftheherd1]

That way of thinking is hammered home in the military because of the large possibility of STDs. There are always professionals hanging around military bases, and the military culture works very hard at trying to convince ignorant young men to leave them alone. It was the same way when I was in the military in the 70's, despite the fact that everyone else was engaged in sexual free-for-all.

I don't know how you meant that, but is almost sounds as if you are saying the "military culture" is wrong, and preying on "ignorant young men" who should be left alone to take their chances with prostitutes who in fact, often do have STD. If you have seen people with gonorrhea, you would realize they will be less effective in combat until treatment reduces the symptoms of the disease. Morals aside, there is a good reason to try and prevent military personnel getting STD. And I wonder how many of you posting here would feel if the military decided to set up an area where prostitutes could be controlled by medical personnel, and soldiers could be controlled by MPs? Would you applaud it or jump up on your high horse and vilify the military for corrupting the morals of our military?

Actually, it has been my experience in working with young people over the last 15 years that they are more likely to think this way than older people. This is, in my opinion, because they have had the 'abstinence is the only way' point driven home to them for quite some time now.

The sex "education" course points out a much deeper problem than sex or self esteem. It points out the largest problem in our society today in my opinion. Nobody is encouraged to think for themselves. The leaders of our society seem determined to try and prevent people from making their own decisions. We are told what we should be thinking and why we should be thinking it. We are no longer given information and allowed to make our own decisions. That "sex education" class is a prime example.

I think it is correct that young people should be given all the information available about many things they will encounter in life. But at the right age and development. Teachers won't always know that; parents often have a hard enough time figuring that out. And that will include any legal angles/consequences, social angles/consequjences, and religious angles/conquences. If you put all other things aside and stick only to social angles or consequences, you are committing the same mistake you accuse religious persons of committing.

 

[granfire]

I don't know how you meant that, but is almost sounds as if you are saying the "military culture" is wrong, and preying on "ignorant young men" who should be left alone to take their chances with prostitutes who in fact, often do have STD. If you have seen people with gonorrhea, you would realize they will be less effective in combat until treatment reduces the symptoms of the disease. Morals aside, there is a good reason to try and prevent military personnel getting STD. And I wonder how many of you posting here would feel if the military decided to set up an area where prostitutes could be controlled by medical personnel, and soldiers could be controlled by MPs? Would you applaud it or jump up on your high horse and vilify the military for corrupting the morals of our military?

I do believe at some point in time the 'professionals' did get their health checks by the military hospitals, because while STDs (along with other diseases) are more threatening to troop health than combat (used to be anyhow), sex happens.
It happens and that's the long and the short of it.
but why you want the GIs controlled by MPs isn't quiet clear to me....

I think it is correct that young people should be given all the information available about many things they will encounter in life. But at the right age and development. Teachers won't always know that; parents often have a hard enough time figuring that out. And that will include any legal angles/consequences, social angles/consequjences, and religious angles/conquences. If you put all other things aside and stick only to social angles or consequences, you are committing the same mistake you accuse religious persons of committing.

Social consequences of giving children the facts of life, without religious mumbo jumbo (THAT is the parent's job), legal consequences?!

The social consequences are rather simple: Less teen age girls being put on the fast track to enduring poverty by getting knocked up before they had a chance at being people. having children is still one of the top reasons for women to be poor.
At bare minimum poorer than their male counterparts and often partners. So instead of spending money on this useless 'don't do it' program and then later on the fallout, we could save tons of money by just telling it like it is!

If you told kids half the crap that is spouted in the name of religion, you'd be charged with the mental abuse of children!

 

[oftheherd1]

I do believe at some point in time the 'professionals' did get their health checks by the military hospitals, because while STDs (along with other diseases) are more threatening to troop health than combat (used to be anyhow), sex happens.
It happens and that's the long and the short of it.
but why you want the GIs controlled by MPs isn't quiet clear to me....

All true. The idea of having MPs there was because it was a smallish controlled area of bars/houses-of-prostitution. Having MPs lessened the probability of fights, or if they happened, response was quicker. They also provided some mutual protection for both GIs and women, in quick resolution of any conflicts.

Social consequences of giving children the facts of life, without religious mumbo jumbo (THAT is the parent's job), legal consequences?!

If you are right, (and I think you are) all of that is the parent's job. So why are we inviting the schools in to it? And come on, one person's mumbo jumbo is another's way of life. I don't agree with all religions' beliefs and don't mind discussing my reasons, but I won't have many fruitful conversations if I call their religion mumbo jumbo. As to legal, age of consent, child support, child abandonment would be three.

The social consequences are rather simple: Less teen age girls being put on the fast track to enduring poverty by getting knocked up before they had a chance at being people. having children is still one of the top reasons for women to be poor.
At bare minimum poorer than their male counterparts and often partners. So instead of spending money on this useless 'don't do it' program and then later on the fallout, we could save tons of money by just telling it like it is!

But a parent teaching (or school for that matter) abstinence, if followed, will prevent all that. Why is a 'don't do it' program useless? Is the promiscuity everyone now says we have OK? If so, all we need teach is birth control.

If you told kids half the crap that is spouted in the name of religion, you'd be charged with the mental abuse of children!

Attacks on religion aren't the answer, unless you are talking about a cult that likely abuses its members in other ways as well. If a religion says sex before, or outside of marriage is immoral for the religion followed, how is that child abuse? And what solution would you propose, given that religions get to define their own beliefs? Kill all religious people, brain wash all religious people into your own religious belief or lack thereof?

I get it that you don't think much of any religion. But is your disbelief of religion in any way a religion in itself?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I can tell you I heard that the most when I was in the military and that was about as far away from religious wierdos you can get. Like I said you can pretend its not true to make you feel better if you want.


I also don't disagree with you that's its a backwards way of thinking. I'm just saying you can't deny people think that way.

I certainly wouldn't deny that some people think that way. I will deny that you can reliably extrapolate from your conversations with members of the military 15 years ago to the idea that most people in society at large think that way.

Getting back to the original linked article and the instructional material that was photographed - "People want to marry a virgin, just like they want a virgin toothbrush or stick of gum." Ridiculous, harmful, and false.

 

[ballen0351]

I certainly wouldn't deny that some people think that way. I will deny that you can reliably extrapolate from your conversations with members of the military 15 years ago to the idea that most people in society at large think that way.

Not just the military ive heard it all my life and still do. "Oh did you hear about so and so she such a slut". There is a saying in police work to watch out for bagde bunnies or holster sniffers they are fun to play with but you dont end up with one. You have never heard stuff like that before? All things being equal would you prefer you wife to have been with 5 guys before you or 50?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

All things being equal would you prefer you wife to have been with 5 guys before you or 50?

No real preference either way. I honestly have no idea how many guys my wife had sex with before we were married.

Getting back to the original topic, I certainly wouldn't have wanted her (or myself) to be a virgin before we were married. Making a commitment of lifelong sexual fidelity to each other without having any idea if we were sexually compatible? How in the world would that make any sense?

 

[pgsmith]

I don't know how you meant that, but is almost sounds as if you are saying the "military culture" is wrong, and preying on "ignorant young men" who should be left alone to take their chances with prostitutes who in fact, often do have STD. If you have seen people with gonorrhea, you would realize they will be less effective in combat until treatment reduces the symptoms of the disease. Morals aside, there is a good reason to try and prevent military personnel getting STD. And I wonder how many of you posting here would feel if the military decided to set up an area where prostitutes could be controlled by medical personnel, and soldiers could be controlled by MPs? Would you applaud it or jump up on your high horse and vilify the military for corrupting the morals of our military?

That wasn't my intent at all. The military culture regarding STD's is absolutely necessary. I was simply explaining why the attitude that ballen expressed is prevalent in the military.

I think it is correct that young people should be given all the information available about many things they will encounter in life. But at the right age and development. Teachers won't always know that; parents often have a hard enough time figuring that out. And that will include any legal angles/consequences, social angles/consequjences, and religious angles/conquences. If you put all other things aside and stick only to social angles or consequences, you are committing the same mistake you accuse religious persons of committing.

In my opinion, sex education in schools should teach the science behind it. How it happens, various consequences that can occur. It is up to the parents to teach any moral or religious consequences. This way the school and the parents should be able to give the teenagers enough information to be able to make good decisions. By trying to teach sex education the way the original post spelled it out, you are leaving the the youth almost totally ignorant, and simply hoping that they'll somehow come to the right decisions. Far better to teach them how to make good decisions than to just tell them what they should be doing. Of course, you could say the same thing of society as a whole.

 

[ballen0351]

No real preference either way. I honestly have no idea how many guys my wife had sex with before we were married.

Getting back to the original topic, I certainly wouldn't have wanted her (or myself) to be a virgin before we were married. Making a commitment of lifelong sexual fidelity to each other without having any idea if we were sexually compatible? How in the world would that make any sense?

So you won't answer the question? No preference isn't an answer. Not knowing the real number wasn't part of the question.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So you won't answer the question? No preference isn't an answer. Not knowing the real number wasn't part of the question.

I certainly did answer the question. No preference is the honest answer. Whether she was with 5 guys or 50 or some other number before we were married was and is of no concern to me whatsoever.

 

[ballen0351]

I certainly did answer the question. No preference is the honest answer. Whether she was with 5 guys or 50 or some other number before we were married was and is of no concern to me whatsoever.

Ok so you won't answer I got it.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Ok so you won't answer I got it.

I'm somewhat confused as to why you would keep saying this when I've just answered you twice. Are you really incapable of believing that someone might not have a preference on the matter? Here's a useful tip: different people have different preferences, beliefs, feelings, cultural programming, and so on. If you insist on calling them liars when their preferences/beliefs/feelings/etc don't correspond with your own, then you are cutting yourself off from understanding huge aspects of the human condition - not to mention running the risk of pissing off all the people that you are calling liars.

 

[oftheherd1]

That wasn't my intent at all. The military culture regarding STD's is absolutely necessary. I was simply explaining why the attitude that ballen expressed is prevalent in the military.

That way of thinking is hammered home in the military because of the large possibility of STDs. There are always professionals hanging around military bases, and the military culture works very hard at trying to convince ignorant young men to leave them alone. It was the same way when I was in the military in the 70's, despite the fact that everyone else was engaged in sexual free-for-all.

My bad. Your use of the word ignorant rather than say, naive or inexperienced, is I guess what threw me off.

In my opinion, sex education in schools should teach the science behind it. How it happens, various consequences that can occur. It is up to the parents to teach any moral or religious consequences. This way the school and the parents should be able to give the teenagers enough information to be able to make good decisions. By trying to teach sex education the way the original post spelled it out, you are leaving the the youth almost totally ignorant, and simply hoping that they'll somehow come to the right decisions. Far better to teach them how to make good decisions than to just tell them what they should be doing. Of course, you could say the same thing of society as a whole.

Teaching the science of sex wouldn't be very sexy, would it? :uhyeah: But perhaps you are right, the schools should stop trying to teach sexual morals. That is after all, what is being done for the most part: Use protection, prevent STD and pregnancy- moral value taught, having premarital sex is OK if you don't get STDs or get pregnant. Or, your body is your own, you can decide what you want to do. Moral value taught, as a teenager, you don't have to follow your parent's nor religion's value standards.

And of course, if you don't have to listen to your parents about sex, why should you have to listen about things like drug or alcohol use, or how to drive safely?