Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Derec · 10-07-2002, 02:05 PM

Quote:

For guys, there's the stereotypical "homewrecker" to look out for; same type, other gender model.

I hate the term "homewrecker". Like, if a guy cheats or divorces his wife, then he is a "homewrecker" no matter what led him to do it. But if a woman does the same, she is "liberated", "emancipated", and of course "he did not take care of her so she had to look for it somewhere else"

Ab_Normal · 10-07-2002, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UglyManOnCampus:
I hate the term "homewrecker". Like, if a guy cheats or divorces his wife, then he is a "homewrecker" no matter what led him to do it. But if a woman does the same, she is "liberated", "emancipated", and of course "he did not take care of her so she had to look for it somewhere else"

I have heard "homewrecker" applied to the woman the man cheats with, not the man himself, the implication being that the man would have stayed loyal except for the temptation of a woman. It might be a difference in regional usage.

Derec · 10-07-2002, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ab_Normal:


I have heard "homewrecker" applied to the woman the man cheats with, not the man himself, the implication being that the man would have stayed loyal except for the temptation of a woman. It might be a difference in regional usage.

I heard that one too, now that you remind me. I dislike that one too.
What I was getting at was that infidelity of the wife seems to be more readily tolerated (i.e. it's his fault) and it is also reflected in the fact that a cheating wife can still get half of her husbands money, and alimony etc. Divorce laws are not very fair right now.

Sabine Grant · 10-07-2002, 04:04 PM

Man on campus.... ( sorry I refuse to call you ugly..

. Do you think that only " religious" people save themselves for marriage..? is that what your statement is about ? come on..... abstinence happens in various societies from different backgrounds.
The topic here is whether or not there should be an"abstinence only" curriculum taught in the schools or not.
As to the comment I made about wearing latex gloves let me share the medical information I received as part of my Infectious Disease Control/HIV training. Sorry if it becomes a bit boring but I think it is worth being read. Most people are unaware of those facts.

BODY FLUIDS PROVEN TO SPREAD HIV :
blood
semen
vaginal fluid
breast milk
fluids surrounding the brain and spinal cord
surrounding bone joints
surrounding an unborn child
I think the first three listed fluids do qualify as possible direct contact with an open wound or cut on someone's hand. That is why I always wear gloves when I bathe a patient and that is what all health care workers do if they are susceptible to handle areas of the body where those secretions can occur.
However one extra precaution that can be taken is to apply OTC lubricants that are proven to fight HIV in Lab test: Vagisil is one of them.
The prevention of the spread of HIV by sexual contact can also be improved by using latex condoms with dental dams. ( that is not what is taught to children in the schools....ask as many teens as you wish what a condom with dental dams means ).
Now, here are a few figures which point to not minimizing the highly infectious rate of HIV:
There are 5.9 billion AIDS cases in the whole world. New infections in young people occur at the rate of 5 per minute.
In 2001 in the US, one in 164 adults is infected. ONE QUARTER OF NEW INFECTIONS OCCUR IN AGES 13 TO 21 YEARS OF AGE.
Teenagers account for 1/4 of the STDs.
I still stand firm in my opinion that both curriculum need to be taught in our schools.
As to the choice half a million male and female teens in the Us have made to participate in the True Love Wait program, it was their personal choice. Some may disagree with their choice and ridiculize it ..... it only makes these teen's endeavor more courageous.
Sexual conduct is a personal choice. We are fully responsible for saying yes or no. Our schools have a duty to provide all available data so our kids can make an informed decision. Ultimatly the choice is theirs.

galiel · 10-07-2002, 09:15 PM

Just reinforces my conviction that the next great blow to the influence of religion worldwide will be a cure for AIDS.

4th Generation Atheist · 10-08-2002, 07:33 AM

Uh, the way I've heard it, "abstinence only" emphatically does not mean both sets of information. It means teaching only about abstinence as a viable means of birth control and disease prevention. Complete information about both contraceptives and abstinence is specifically what is objected to by the "abstinence only" crowd; they don't want the kids to know much about condoms or contraception or any other "protection" matter, just what can go wrong with them.

Both sets of information (which if I understand you correctly, Sabine, is what you're suggesting) would include complete health info about women's and men's bodies, about contraception, about disease, and about abstinence as the best possible means of contraception, the only one that's 100% effective against both STDs and unplanned pregnancies, strongly stressing this as the best option for most teens but including the complete info the kids will need as they grow up. This includes the kinds of things the kids can expect from their first trips to a gyneco/urologist, whenever that might be. It also includes the basics of how the things work, a vital thing in the age of HMOs when doctors might not even bother. This would be a good program, but it's not what I usually hear about under the heading "abstinence only".

As to whether only Xns are abstinent, the answer is no. the majority of teens aren't sexually active, and plenty of people of all philosophical persuasions are not emotionally comfortable with physical intimacy until there's a strong commitment. This is stereotypically true mostly of women, but ask some science-geek guys and you might be surprised. I see lots of 22 year olds around the university campus who are clearly not dating, and many of these are nontheists.

Derec · 10-08-2002, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4th Generation Atheist:

Both sets of information (which if I understand you correctly, Sabine, is what you're suggesting) would include complete health info about women's and men's bodies, about contraception, about disease, and about abstinence as the best possible means of contraception, the only one that's 100% effective against both STDs and unplanned pregnancies, strongly stressing this as the best option for most teens but including the complete info the kids will need as they grow up.

Ok, that would not be abstinence only education but it would clearly be "abstinence first". Why, other than for religious or other anti-sex reasons, should a school strongly stress that abstinence is the best option for most teens? And the stuff about abstinence being the only way to avoid risks associted with sex, duh, that is such a truism and is applicable to any and all human activities, many of shich are much more risky than sex. Yet in those other instances it is not strongly stressed that abstinence is the only way to completely avoid risks. That statement, as a matter of fact, is specifically designed to scare young people into thinking that risks of responsible sex are that much higher than general risk they are taking in life.

By the way, what do you think how long people should wait? Until marriage? Until they are 20 (and no longerteenagers)? The risks don't get less when you hit 20 so if you take the "abstinence is the only 100% safe option"-bullshit seriously you should be against all sex bvefore marriage (and only admit fellowvirgins/non-blood-transfusion- recipients as potential marriage partners).

Quote:

This would be a good program, but it's not what I usually hear about under the heading "abstinence only".

I disagree, as it is clearly biased towards abstinence and because risks of sex are clearly exaggerated vis a vis other risks in life.

Quote:

I see lots of 22 year olds around the university campus who are clearly not dating, and many of these are nontheists.

I am in that bracket but not due to choice but due to lack of potential sexual partners. That is partly due to my own unattractiveness and partly due to mothers like Sabine.
However that does not mean I do not get laid from time to time, just that it is too rare.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: UglyManOnCampus ]

lpetrich · 10-08-2002, 09:43 PM

Here's an example:

The way some people drive, I am sometimes afraid to cross streets, because I do not wish to play a sort of Russian Roulette.

But if I suggested banning cars as a way of eliminating car accidents, everybody would think I'm crazy.

4th Generation Atheist · 10-09-2002, 11:09 AM

As far as "asexuals" on campus is concerned, I'm mostly mentioning those who are just plain too busy. Some want to wait until a relationship is well developed (degree of "development" varying, but at least a couple have said marriage; I've had some discussions, actually, as to whether that's even realistic) before commencing any activity, and they don't feel they have the extra time and energy after studies, sports, work and such activities to pursue a relationship "right now". How long each individual person plans to wait I'm not sure, b/c it's not exactly my business to take a survey.

And, I'll reiterate, I'm talking about nontheists. I can count my strongly-Xn friends on one hand (gee I wonder why.)

How long "should" people wait? Until they've reached a certain level of emotional maturiy, definitely. What age that's at is an individual matter. (There are 40 year olds I wonder about, but how can anyone stop them?) While in high school, I think abstinence is best for most, largely b/c most parents aren't willing to support a teenage son-or-daughter's sexual activity (though a few are) and most of the kids lack the requisite level of "people-understanding" on their own.

But I also feel that other possibilities have to be accounted for. I don't think most fundie "parent-activists" are too happy with that idea; they definitely want to scare their kids into abstaining more or less forever, or at least until the parents themselves want grandchildren.

That's manipulative and disgusting; it claims to have the child's best interests in mind, but really is furthering the parents' neurosis---ahem, excuse me, religion.

lpetrich · 10-09-2002, 11:27 AM

4th GA's comments make me wonder what he thinks about masturbation -- does he think that that is an illegitimate activity?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 04:04 PM	#24
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Man on campus.... ( sorry I refuse to call you ugly.. . Do you think that only " religious" people save themselves for marriage..? is that what your statement is about ? come on..... abstinence happens in various societies from different backgrounds. The topic here is whether or not there should be an"abstinence only" curriculum taught in the schools or not. As to the comment I made about wearing latex gloves let me share the medical information I received as part of my Infectious Disease Control/HIV training. Sorry if it becomes a bit boring but I think it is worth being read. Most people are unaware of those facts. BODY FLUIDS PROVEN TO SPREAD HIV : blood semen vaginal fluid breast milk fluids surrounding the brain and spinal cord surrounding bone joints surrounding an unborn child I think the first three listed fluids do qualify as possible direct contact with an open wound or cut on someone's hand. That is why I always wear gloves when I bathe a patient and that is what all health care workers do if they are susceptible to handle areas of the body where those secretions can occur. However one extra precaution that can be taken is to apply OTC lubricants that are proven to fight HIV in Lab test: Vagisil is one of them. The prevention of the spread of HIV by sexual contact can also be improved by using latex condoms with dental dams. ( that is not what is taught to children in the schools....ask as many teens as you wish what a condom with dental dams means ). Now, here are a few figures which point to not minimizing the highly infectious rate of HIV: There are 5.9 billion AIDS cases in the whole world. New infections in young people occur at the rate of 5 per minute. In 2001 in the US, one in 164 adults is infected. ONE QUARTER OF NEW INFECTIONS OCCUR IN AGES 13 TO 21 YEARS OF AGE. Teenagers account for 1/4 of the STDs. I still stand firm in my opinion that both curriculum need to be taught in our schools. As to the choice half a million male and female teens in the Us have made to participate in the True Love Wait program, it was their personal choice. Some may disagree with their choice and ridiculize it ..... it only makes these teen's endeavor more courageous. Sexual conduct is a personal choice. We are fully responsible for saying yes or no. Our schools have a duty to provide all available data so our kids can make an informed decision. Ultimatly the choice is theirs.

10-07-2002, 09:15 PM	#25
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Just reinforces my conviction that the next great blow to the influence of religion worldwide will be a cure for AIDS.

10-08-2002, 07:33 AM	#26
4th Generation Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tower of Ecthelion...by the Starbuck's Posts: 1,815	Uh, the way I've heard it, "abstinence only" emphatically does not mean both sets of information. It means teaching only about abstinence as a viable means of birth control and disease prevention. Complete information about both contraceptives and abstinence is specifically what is objected to by the "abstinence only" crowd; they don't want the kids to know much about condoms or contraception or any other "protection" matter, just what can go wrong with them. Both sets of information (which if I understand you correctly, Sabine, is what you're suggesting) would include complete health info about women's and men's bodies, about contraception, about disease, and about abstinence as the best possible means of contraception, the only one that's 100% effective against both STDs and unplanned pregnancies, strongly stressing this as the best option for most teens but including the complete info the kids will need as they grow up. This includes the kinds of things the kids can expect from their first trips to a gyneco/urologist, whenever that might be. It also includes the basics of how the things work, a vital thing in the age of HMOs when doctors might not even bother. This would be a good program, but it's not what I usually hear about under the heading "abstinence only". As to whether only Xns are abstinent, the answer is no. the majority of teens aren't sexually active, and plenty of people of all philosophical persuasions are not emotionally comfortable with physical intimacy until there's a strong commitment. This is stereotypically true mostly of women, but ask some science-geek guys and you might be surprised. I see lots of 22 year olds around the university campus who are clearly not dating, and many of these are nontheists.

10-08-2002, 09:43 PM	#28
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Here's an example: The way some people drive, I am sometimes afraid to cross streets, because I do not wish to play a sort of Russian Roulette. But if I suggested banning cars as a way of eliminating car accidents, everybody would think I'm crazy.

10-09-2002, 11:09 AM	#29
4th Generation Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tower of Ecthelion...by the Starbuck's Posts: 1,815	As far as "asexuals" on campus is concerned, I'm mostly mentioning those who are just plain too busy. Some want to wait until a relationship is well developed (degree of "development" varying, but at least a couple have said marriage; I've had some discussions, actually, as to whether that's even realistic) before commencing any activity, and they don't feel they have the extra time and energy after studies, sports, work and such activities to pursue a relationship "right now". How long each individual person plans to wait I'm not sure, b/c it's not exactly my business to take a survey. And, I'll reiterate, I'm talking about nontheists. I can count my strongly-Xn friends on one hand (gee I wonder why.) How long "should" people wait? Until they've reached a certain level of emotional maturiy, definitely. What age that's at is an individual matter. (There are 40 year olds I wonder about, but how can anyone stop them?) While in high school, I think abstinence is best for most, largely b/c most parents aren't willing to support a teenage son-or-daughter's sexual activity (though a few are) and most of the kids lack the requisite level of "people-understanding" on their own. But I also feel that other possibilities have to be accounted for. I don't think most fundie "parent-activists" are too happy with that idea; they definitely want to scare their kids into abstaining more or less forever, or at least until the parents themselves want grandchildren. That's manipulative and disgusting; it claims to have the child's best interests in mind, but really is furthering the parents' neurosis---ahem, excuse me, religion.

10-09-2002, 11:27 AM	#30
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	4th GA's comments make me wonder what he thinks about masturbation -- does he think that that is an illegitimate activity?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.