*puzzled*

[labellementeuse]

So my mother got me a Listener subscription, which is fabulous and kind and has made some people very jealous. But, er, I don't think I got last week's edition, simply because I think I would remember a cover that screamed "GAY PARENTS" at the top of its lungs.

Anyway. It doesn't seem to have been an especially well-researched article, so it doesn't bother me too much. But you guys should read some of the letters in this week's Listener and write snarky responses. Unusually for this area, though, every single writer has made a strong attempt to say nice things about gay people- not nice enough, obviously, but never mind. However one letter in particular... well, y'all just read it, and see if you can guess the one that makes me spit, huh?

I would do it myself, but I want to write them a letter about this week's feature: Tamaki and The Abstainers. *sporks* Okay, now look, abstinence is wonderful. But it is not sensible and it is not realistic. The article quotes statistics showing that, while an abstinence pledge may delay loss of virginity, kids who abstain nevertheless have the same rate of STDs- in other words, the rate of contraction of STDs is much higher among kids who have pledged. Why? because along with abstinence pledges come the inability to be prepared. What are we really worried about for our kids? the contraction of STDs. Your kids are at risk from this policy, and I'm goddamn going to write the Listener and tell them so.

I mean, forget the Gay Agenda- the Destiny Church openly admits to wanting to infiltrate school boards to put gorward their plans for abstinence. >:O

Comments

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

Um, I think that by "kids who abstain" you must mean "kids who pretend they're going to abstain and then neither keep their word nor choose to do any research," right? Because oddly enough, choosing to wait and restrict my sexual activity to a mutually monogamous and committed relationship with someone else who did the same thing did not make me incapable of learning about pregnancy, STDs, risks, or risk reduction methods. (Well, thinking too hard about having anything implanted under the skin of my upper arm makes me twitchy. But having sex didn't change that.) If you want to use "abstinence" as a synonym for "sex ed that consists of saying not to," you should probably find some way to distinguish it from the actual practice of abstinence.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Just what I was thinking. I liked my sexed at school which said 'none of these things is 100% and remember you don't ever HAVE to have sex, but if you do...'.

Remember, Destiny wants abstinence as seen in the US which tells kids that condoms don't work and having sex is evil. A well balanced program would surely mention abstinence as a high standard that was a possibility.

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

Okay, first, I think that it would be preferable to use the term "abstinence" to refer, accurately, to the actual practice of abstaining. (Actually, since there are all sorts of things it's possible to abstain from, I'd prefer to stick with the term "sexual abstinence" for the sake of clarity, but I'm pedantic sometimes.) Using it as shorthand for a sex-ed curriculum tends to muddy the waters, in my opinion.

Also, the position I am familiar with in support of abstinence (as a practice), in the US, is that sex is absolutely great, but only within marriage, and that the safety of "safe sex" is often exaggerated. But you probably don't hear about the sane people as much. :P

[rysade.livejournal.com]

Saneness is underrated, it seems. Too bad about that.

[kitsunerei88]

Man, if they're just telling kids that having sex is evil. . .

In some ways, that's just gonna make them have more sex because of the whole teenage rebellion thing. --''

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*considers* Well, I probably meant a combination of the two, actually, but mostly, yeah, abstinence in terms of sex education that teaches only abstinence- which is the only 100% effective of staying free of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but isn't all that effective on a grand scale. On a limited scale, where kids choose to abstain, yeah, it's wonderful, and apparently it's been successful for Destiny Church. But once it's the only thing, or the main thing, that's taught in schools, it starts to fail, because most people probably won't choose to abstain from sex until marriage.

Even then, kids who abstain- really abstain- tend to marry a lot younger, and have a higher divorce rate so, well. *shrugs* It's a great thing when it works, but it's not workable on a grand scale.

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

The sort of abstinence sex-educators and religious groups have in mind is not waiting until you're in a mutually monogamous and committed relationship with someone else; that falls into the non-abstinent category. They're talking about Waiting Until Marriage.

That isn't a response to the point you were making, but I thought that it was important to point out that the way you were defining it could still send you to hell or scar you according to the abstinence theory.

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

I personally believe that Waiting Until Marriage IS the right thing to do, so I'm familiar with the concept. Ideas of marriage that allow for divorce or unfaithfulness aren't exactly committed and monogamous, however, so I thought I'd specify the aspects that actually address STD risk.

Actually, in a religious (as opposed to legal or medical) sense, I'd still say you're probably better off with a genuine and permanent monogamous commitment with no legal wedding, than a wedding where you bleat "till death do us part" in church and sign the papers, then screw around later.

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

See... I think that with a more flexible definition of monogamous commitment, like the one you suggest in your second paragraph, abstinence might work better. One of the problems I see with the abstinence movement is that it offers a simple definition of a relationship that's ready for sex -- one that's graced with a ring -- and chooses to ignore the teens who rush into getting married because they want to have sex and not being married is the only thing holding them back, then fall apart because they're not mature enough or comfortable enough with each other to be married.

[cabaiste84.livejournal.com]

...and chooses to ignore the teens who rush into getting married because they want to have sex and not being married is the only thing holding them back, then fall apart because they're not mature enough or comfortable enough with each other to be married.

Agreed. I'm a Christian, and one thing I've noticed is it's very common for Christians to marry young, and I've had heaps of friends get engaged of late, who aren't even 21 yet! My non-christian mates are always digging at me about it, saying that it's only cos they want a shag, and they have to get married to do so. Very cynical, I know, but for heaps of young couples it's probably not that far from the truth.

In my opinion, sex should most definitely not be the reason you marry. Yeah, it's a beautiful part of a relationship, and the ultimate way of expressing your love for someone, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all.

There's a chick on my friends list, who is Christian, 18 and married. She seems lovely, but she's still got a fair bit of teen angst going on, which can't be good for her marriage. Personally, I reckon that you can't make it in a marriage unless you're secure in who you are and secure in your relationship with God...and at that age you've still sooo much growing to do.

[rysade.livejournal.com]

"I mean, forget the Gay Agenda- the Destiny Church openly admits to wanting to infiltrate school boards to put gorward their plans for abstinence. >:O" This is already happening to an extent in the US. Abstinence pledges starded a few years back and nobody knew who was behind 'S.T.A.R.S.' I'm not sure anybody knows, but it's got to be some neoconservative bigots who also want to ban condoms or something...

[kitsunerei88]

Banning condoms = stupid.

Kids are probably going to have sex anyway, and its better to have protected sex than unprotected sex.

Heck, I dunno about American or New Zealand, but schools here have condom machines in the washrooms. . . it's not that everyone has sex, just that the school is AWARE that kids have sex, and would rather us have protected sex if we're going to have sex. --''

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Banning condoms = stupid.
No, duh? ;)

Yeah, exactly. It's better to be prepared, I guess is my point, and an abstinence education program doesn't prepare anyone for anything.

[cabaiste84.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm, abstinence. Tricky one.
I believe it's something to be encouraged, but definitely not forced. Chances are, if our Destiny chums go ahead and force their their beliefs about sexual purity upon the average kiwi public high school, then I very much doubt the students would take it very well, and that'd quite possibility encourage more pre-marital promiscuity.
As for contraception...DEFINITELY encourage that one! I mean, yes, teens should be encouraged to wait for the right person at least, but if they're going to start having sex, then they need to know they can be protected. I honestly don't think that banning contraception is going to have any kind of positive effect...
I had a similar conversation with two good friends, only it was centred around abortion, and my friends reckoned the only solution was not to have sex before marriage. And I'm like, "What about contraception?" and they're like, "Yeah, but it's not always fullproof." Yes, I'm aware of that, but it does somewhat reduce your chances of getting pregnant, than if you used no contraception at all. And, just because a child is conceived within a marriage doesn't mean it's wanted...abortions don't just happen to unwed teenagers who got drunk and fooled around with their boyfriends in the back of their car. Ok, that was a bit off topic...
So yeah, I think abstinence should be encouraged, but not forced, and big ups to contraception. Personally, I think that if anything, teens should be encourage to take sex seriously, and to think CAREFULLY about having sex, seeing as it's one of the biggest decision you'll make. Then again, I've got quite old-fashioned views on sex, so not everyone will agree...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

No, I do agree: it's our attitude to sex that's the problem in New Zealand, along with fairly poor education.

Our sexual health statistics are actually appalling. :-/ it kind of sucks.

[cabaiste84.livejournal.com]

Oh HECK YEAH!!! I saw the results of a survey Durex did about sex a couple of years back, and it depressed the crap out of me. Heaps of NZers admitted to having one night stands, heaps said they'd sleep with a new partner on the first date, heaps admitted to having casual sex and sleeping around...
Meh, I know this is nothing new, and I should probably just wake up and smell the coffee, but I've always believed (even before I was christian) that sex is a precious, sacred thing, to be shared between two people who truly love one another. Too bad a lot of people don't share that opinion eh.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

It's less the things you mentioned than the actual health risks of it. I'm obviously not Christian, so I don't think that you absolutely must be in a 100% committed monogamous never-ever-ever going to break up way to have sex, mostly because that kind of ideal is sort of... I don't know. 50% of all marriages end in divorce, after all. And as someone said once, who I no longer remember, unfortunately, we put this serious taboo on sex, like it has to be fantastic and perfect and only with the one you love, and of course marriage enters into it, and... how realistic is that, really? To sort of put it up on a pedestal like it's The Most Valuable Thing About Your Body? Eh... *shrugs* I guess I just don't think it's that important.

What I do think is important- really important- is being physically and mentally healthy about it. So if you're going to sleep around, fine, but make sure everyone's having fun and everyone is as protected as they can possibly be. It's not a lifestyle choice I'd personally make, but it's also not the worst thing someone can do either. I guess I think that the way you see sex is a personal lifestyle choice, but being serious about safe sex is not.

Blah, it's too late for these metaphysical discussion. ;) Anyway, all I was really talking about was the physical, disease-and-pregnancy aspect of it, which really disturb me. :-/

[cabaiste84.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you gotta excuse me...when it comes to things like my views on sex and the like I get slightly carried away, and I've gotten into a few arguments about it before. When you said that kiwis have a bad attitude about sex, I thought that was what you meant, the fact that it's no longer consider it to be sacred, and it's now socially acceptable to have as many sexual partners as is humanly possible, and that being a virgin and waiting for the right person just isn't cool. Sorry if this seems like an exaggeration, but it's how I feel sometimes. *shrug*

You're right, our attitude about safe sex is pretty appalling, and the disease and pregnancy aspect freaks me out too. So yeah, big ups to the contraception factor on that.

As for the divorce thing...yeah, touchy one, my parents split up when I was 11, and I usually find a moment to weep over what happened between Mum and Dad, even though I'm generally ok about it now. Seeing what happened to them only makes me want to try all the harder to make my marriage work...if it's the plan for me to be married, of course!

unfortunately, we put this serious taboo on sex, like it has to be fantastic and perfect and only with the one you love, and of course marriage enters into it, and... how realistic is that, really?

Fair enough, and I respect that it's not realistic for you, but in my faith, it's definitely a reality for me. But, I know not everyone shares my views, and I don't want to force the issue.

So yeah. If you think I'm coming across as all fundamentalist and conservative like then please let me know!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

If you think I'm coming across as all fundamentalist and conservative like then please let me know! Not in the least, actually. Or, well, you're coming across as moderately conservative but in the best way possible, so don't worry about it. ;)

And I guess you didn't totally misinterpret me, because I guess I think being totally fast and loose about sex is not exactly the best thing in the world. But yeah, mostly I meant the actual sexual health of it, including mental of course.

And you're putting all these disclaimers on, which is so nice and I always forget and clearly you're a much better person than me so. :) Thanks.

My twenty cents. Sorry, this is an issue that concerns me.

[nic-the-hat.livejournal.com]

Ngheh. Abstinence. All very well for those who have got the resolution, but for everyone else...
Two of my friends beleive in abstinence and we fargue about it quite a bit, because it's clear they think they're taking the 'moral' ground. I try to argue that it's just as moral to use protection when you're having sex with some one, as it shows that you're both comitted to keeping each other safe, and pointed out that your husband/wife may have and STd, to which was replied, "no they won't, because they won't have slept around."
Which begs the question of "Are you only got get married to some one who's also been abstinent?Doesn't that limit you're choices a TINY bit?"

They had an abstinence thing at school once, except they managed to discise it by making it "cool". I didn't realise till afterwards.

Brian Tamkiki? Try to push abstinence at my school and see how far you get.

And if you try to get into schools, the cabal of lesbians who run Parliment and the Sisterhood will stop you, simply cause it's you doing it. It's another part of the Gay agenda.

And Sex Ed in NZ is SHOCKING.

Re: My twenty cents. Sorry, this is an issue that concerns me.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, getting married does not present you with a Certificate of No STDs, Guaranteed. Both partners being virgins may, but I guess I don't think that's also ideal, for a reason I mentioned above- what, we're supposed to think sex is bad, bad, bad until we get married and then suddenly in the space of one night it all changes? If you're really well-educated and pay a lot of attention, I suppose that can work, but it's another choice I wouldn't make myself.

There's nothing wrong with abstinence itself. It's just when it's the only thing that's offered, or where it's presented as the moral, rather than safest, option that i have a problem with.

*snickering* Hey, I got told I won't be let in on the Gay Agenda. Is that true?

Re: My twenty cents. Sorry, this is an issue that concerns me.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

Your point of finding abstinence frustrating when presented as the moral way is something I agree with. I don't think abstinence is nece ssarily more moral than any other attitude towards sex, but so many problems I see people having (unwanted children, confusion or hurt over abortion decisions, confusion over how much someone actually cares about them, betrayal) can be avoided by holding off on sex. I wouldn't say it's more moral but it is easier in many ways.

Re: My twenty cents. Sorry, this is an issue that concerns me.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

But they can also be avoided, especially the first two you mentioned, by safe sex. I mean, condoms fail, and the pill fails, but probably they're not both going to fail at the same time, you know? And things like betrayal and confusion, well, I dunno, really.

Re: My twenty cents. Sorry, this is an issue that concerns me.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

They can be avoided in nearly all cases, and I thoroughly applaud that and encourage people to do that.

I'm not arguing AGAINST safe sex. I just want to note that sex isn't a necessary thing like air, though it has it's place etc. And there are problems that can arise because of it.

Just want people to think about what they do if possible.

Re: My twenty cents. Sorry, this is an issue that concerns me.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Well, the one night thing isn't necessarily true. I mean you don't _have_ to have sex on the first night.

Re: My twenty cents. Sorry, this is an issue that concerns me.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*eyeroll*

No, that's true, but what, suddenly it all becomes "okay" when it hasn't been before?

And, um, thre is a lot of social pressure for that kind of thing. It's called the honeymoon.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Hello, I'm going to come and random up your LJ with a long post, because these two are things I feel particularly strongly about - two of my pet issues.

Ack. I think it's disgusting that Destiny Church are apparently trying to get into school boards and thus force their opinions through. I have no problem with them promoting abstinence, but I do have a problem with them drowning out all the other options.

I think sex ed is extremely important. As people have mentioned, we do have shocking disease rates here, and something needs to be done about that. I will continue to believe that the most effective way to make things change is to start with education - if kids are taught what safe sex is and how important it is, then hopefully that attitude will filter through into the community once they start having kids. That's a somewhat idealistic view and probably not particular pragmatic, but probably the best option we have. If kids are going to have sex, they should be doing it safely, and if they've been bombarded with nothing but Absolute Abstinence that's doing them a big wrong - nobody should be denied knowledge of other options. Sure, if they want to promote abstinence, then promote it. But as one option among many. Obviously Destiny won't take that view, but anyway.

Abstinence until marriage is obviously something I don't personally agree with - considering that non-heterosexuals can't even get married. Well we can get civil unionised, but I don't think the catchphrase is 'abstinence until marriage/civil union'. Also, I don't think marriage really changes anything. A relationship is either going to work or it is not; it is either committed or it is not. A piece of paper and 'God's sanction' aren't going to change anything. I do not understand how sex can go from being bad, immoral, sinful, evil etc to wonderful, amazing, beautiful, God's gift etc just because a formality has been gone through. However, I think Judeo-Christian attitudes to sex in general are not particularly helpful and do not like the fact that sex is considered wrong - that has a lot of implications for society. I don't mean to deny the validity of the views of anyone reading who may be Christian. It's just that I personally don't like a number of views which are commonly held under a morality influenced by the Bible/Judeo-Christian tradition. It doesn't fit me.

As for the gay marriage letters, yep I think I can see which one you hated! Hmmm. 'Their way of life, whether intended or not, tends to have a homoerotic influence. Surely gay couples... should not encroach on the long established practice of family life.' *rage* Something I've never understood throughout this whole thing is why gay people are not considered part of family! Do we not also have brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, mothers and fathers, and even children, god forbid? It's like these people think gays just cloister themselves off into little private sects or something and don't have families! Crikey dick, we're there at all the family occasions that anyone else is at (unless we've been kicked out or something ridiculous). Why can't they just accept that gay people are family as well? Oh, how dare we encroach on family life. Blah. What's with the argument from tradition anyway? Do these people not realise that tradition is not Always Right? Do they not acknowledge that traditions have changed? Throughout most of Western history, women were second class citizens. Should we go back to this? Come on, logic, people.

Secondly, 'their way of life having a homoerotic influence'. Hmmmmmmmm. Letter writer, dear, does not your way of life have a heteroerotic influence that could be uncomfortable for your children if they turn out to be gay? WHY is homoeroticism bad? Oh, that's right, because sexuality is bad. Attraction towards other human beings can be a very good thing, regardless of gender, and does not the impression that its parents are in love and show this towards one another affect a child positively, again regardless of gender? It comes back to the old argument - better two loving gay parents than two distant or abusive straight ones!

Apologies for the length of this, but when I get going I get going! I'm also adding you to my friends, hope there's no objection!

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:D Hey, randomness! Right on.

As for your comment- wow. I would return the compliment with something equally thoughtful, right this second, but I think I will leave it till tomorrow because it's eleven and I have an eight am lecture tomorrow. >.< But I did want to say, right now, RIGHT ON. *thumbs up* And you hit the exact letter.

Also? Frankly, I think anyone suggesting that their parents' sex lives have any "erotic" influence, whether it be homoerotic or heteroerotic, needs to have their head examined and ask actual people who were actually children how much they thought of their parents having sex. *SIGH*

[kitsunerei88]

then you have to ask yourself how old you were before you even knew what sex WAS. . .

I mean, depending on who you ask and stuff, the kid could just be like "What's 'sex?'" At least, I would have been like that until I was like, ten or something. . .

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

... not too old, actually, because some older kid told me. I know that's usually my responsibility, as an oldest child, but when I was little my family hung around a lot with people who had kids up to ten years older than me so, er, I picked up a lot of the facts of life quite young. ;)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

So a more detailed analysis:

Ack. I think it's disgusting that Destiny Church are apparently trying to get into school boards and thus force their opinions through. I have no problem with them promoting abstinence, but I do have a problem with them drowning out all the other options. So do I. Actually, I'm seriously concerned to the extent I'm vaguely thinking about writing a letter and X-posting it all over the shop and sending it in to newspapers and stuff because, hey, this is uncool, and although me writing a letter probably won't make much difference, who knows? it might. But if I wanted to do that i'd have to call Destiny Church and confirm that they want to get involved with school boards and that would suck a lot, so. :P Also it would probably be quite difficult.

And of course, you're right about disease and education. One of my worst concerns in that area, actually, is the probable impending demise of the FPA (http://www.livejournal.com/community/kiwi_ljs/85600.html). The FPA provides so much of our sexual health resources- every girl's school I know has had most of their informative sex ed classes from FPA nurses going around schools; plus, they're just generally available to help with that kind of thing and it's such a shame that they're so at risk. :(

Hmm, somehow I don't think a lot of the people who are pro-abstinence are really all that concerned with gay people having sex. ;) But I know what you mean- the Biblical idea seems to me to be that any sex you have that isn't about procreation is Bad, Bad, Bad- which is a shame, and kind of sad. :(

As for the letter- you got it in one and what's worse is that she actually sounds like she thinks she's being really liberal, the sort of person who'd preface an argument with "Now, I'm not homophobic, but..." Unfortunately I can't find her letter online to quote from but man, that kind of thing ANNOYS me. Although I suppose it's better than flat-out "gay people are going to hell, muahahah, and we're not, muahahah, we wear black t-shirts of doom, muahahah, watch us pervert the minds of little children, muahaha."

And I sort or wanted to write a letter saying exactly what you said: gay people are part of families too. Everyone is part of a family and, yeah, because it is traditional, no-one should be denied it. :(

And finally, EXACTLY. >:O Apart from the total bullshit opinion that's implied in this, she proceeds to almost beging that hideous "gay recruitment drive" theory. Uh, what EVER.

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

mean- the Biblical idea seems to me to be that any sex you have that isn't about procreation is Bad, Bad, Bad

Which leads to strange situations, such as Lot(?)'s daughters getting him drunk and shagging him so they could have babies...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*chokes* See, the Bible is Bad, Bad, Bad. Or, you know, very, very obscene. >.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

That is not good about the FPA. Why is it that organisations like that are in danger, while people like Destiny flourish? There is no god, I say, except knowledge...

What do you mean there's no gay recruitment? I personally was cornered in a dark alley by a butch feminazi lesbian who cajoled me to cut off men's dangly bits in exchange for a toaster. I could not resist the toaster, I'm afraid. The next gay agenda meeting, by the way, is next Tuesday at 4. Spread the word to all homos.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:( It is pretty terrible. I'm nto sure I would agree about knowledge, but hey.

*laughing* Why a toaster? :P And thanks for the tip. :D

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

The knowledge thing was somewhat facetious, as is much of what I appear to say seriously. I haven't yet worked out what god there is or isn't.

I have no idea why it's a toaster. Maybe you should ask the weird paranoid people who made up that particular myth...

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:P Ah, fair enough. I'm fairly sure there isn't, myself, up to and including knowledge, but you know. :)

*snickering* maybe I will.

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I just realised that comment made me sound agnostic or religious in some way. I don't believe in any gods, in the sense of omnipotent beings. No way. The world doesn't work like that. What I do think, however, is that there is possibly something beyond what we see, not something that is caused by a god, but some common thread that ties humanity together. It's hard to express. I sometimes identify with pantheism, but either way, I don't think there is a god, so I guess I'm an atheist. I identify to a large extent with humanism, rationalism, science.

But I like to keep an open mind and consider other arguments, even if I don't agree with them. I think atheism sometimes places too much stock in scientific empiricism, when it's possible that such things deceive us, and there is so much we don't understand. Sometimes, it's nice to just give up your science and logic and let yourself be taken in by the world in all its strangeness, and admit that some things are just beyond our ken.

Philosophy courses also do strange things to your thinking.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'm humanist and a Bright and atheist. *puts self in boxes* I know what you mean, though- sometimes absolute pure fact-ism can get a bit much. I think humanism, as I understand it, fills that for me- that it's the human responsibility to care about or for other people, ultimately. I guess Secular Philosophical Humanism (http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html) as defined by that page, although I also like the sound of Cultural and Renaissance Humanism. ;)

Great essay, actually. Very informative.

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

Piker. I have two toasters. Bwahahaha!

[jo-nzl.livejournal.com]

Aw, no fair. What'd you get another one for? *sulks*

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

When you're bi you operate a double recruitment scheme.

That's one of the advantages of versatility ;-)

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Actually, the thing that really gets me in NZ is the fact that contraception is FREE when you're under 22 and we still have a high teenage pregnancy rate. People are so stupid.

But yeah, I agree - well, you know that. Abstinence is a good idea, however, it is useless when promoted as "the only way", and it's also...well, I think that some sort of sexual activity is part of a healthy relationship. And actively avoiding it when you're at an age and stage where looking at marriage is not possible is not going to be good for you. The basic problem here is the idea that sex = bad. No. Sex = human. Irresponsible sex = bad. (And what gets me is the fact that I have never seen a virgin promoting abstinence. The people who run those programmes always seem to be married. *g*)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

YEAH, I know. :-/

Thank you. :P and yes, exactly. Or they're, hah, "born again" virgins. Can't you just be a born-again abstainer every day? So you're, like, moral, but still having lots of sex? *amused*

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Ah, see, that's what confession is for. But only Catholics get to go to confession. Clearly they are on to something. :P

Actually, we had the most insane discussion about penance, confession and purgatory in my history tut. The tutor was asking us to suggest a sin, and the conversation went "Adultery!" "Guys always think of sex...anything else?" "Dishonouring your parents." "By committing adultery." "Murdering your brother." "Because he slept with your wife." "Okay, so someone goes to confession because they have committed adultery against their parents' orders and murdered their brother for sleeping with their wife. Did I mention teaching first-years is STRANGE?"

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

No, no, Destiny's doing it too. :P Honest to God (hurr) born-again virgins.

*dying* rock on. :P Why did she want a sin??

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

She was explaining the concept of confession-forgiveness-penance-purgatory, and she wanted a sin so she could explain what would happen once you'd confessed. Mind you, if you confessed to all THAT I think it'd be hands and knees to Jerusalem. She's horribly disappointed by priests today - apparently all they give you is ten Hail Marys and such. Standards are clearly slipping.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Oh, right. :P

[disturbed-kiwi.livejournal.com]

well, I think that some sort of sexual activity is part of a healthy relationship.

I'm not going to argue that at all. If you have a healthy relationship, you are in a postion to deal with any of the problems that can arise from sex (and, being helthy, unlikely to fall apart because of sleeping around or sexual jealously or envy or whatever).

So, yes:
Irresponsible sex = bad.
and some people might have disagreeing values for irresponsible.