*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

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.