Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did we just implicate Jesus in the JFK assassination?

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

"Depressing teenagers is like shooting fish in a barrel."
-Bart Simpson

Goliath wrote:
Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

You're a teenager so the answer should be obvious: Anyone older than you, cause you know better than they do.

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

I'm sure that as a happy and well-adjusted teenager you'll engage in some mindless violence and unfulfilling sexual escapades.

biccat wrote:

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

I'm sure that as a happy and well-adjusted teenager you'll engage in some mindless violence and unfulfilling sexual escapades.

I think that I've decided where my ire is going. Of course seeing as you are obviously a happy and well adjusted adult who is far superior to me in terms of age you would already know where it's going wouldn't you?

although the need to make petty insults over the internet obviously demonstrates your greater maturity to me...

Oh wait!

Monster Rain wrote:Did we just implicate Jesus in the JFK assassination?

where do you think i got that picture

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

I'm sure that as a happy and well-adjusted teenager you'll engage in some mindless violence and unfulfilling sexual escapades.

I think that I've decided where my ire is going. Of course seeing as you are obviously a happy and well adjusted adult who is far superior to me in terms of age you would already know where it's going wouldn't you?

although the need to make petty insults over the internet obviously demonstrates your greater maturity to me...

Oh wait!

Frazzled wrote:"Depressing people is like shooting fish in a barrel."
-Bart Simpson

Not the precise quote, but let's be honest here, it isn't really that hard to get at any given person.

Phototoxin wrote:Actually the WHO had it at about 85% effective in practice - including things like slipping breaking, wrong size and general user error. This was about 3 years ago.

Ah, fair enough. It must be 85% effective overall and something like 97% effective when used properly. I knew the point was that most condom ineffectiveness is due to user error, and not the condom, and therefore teaching people to use condoms properly makes a huge difference. I just my figures a little mixed up.

Thanks for the correction.

But yes not having sex is the only guaranteed way.

But as I've explained several times now it's only effective when people actually stay celibate. And every serious study on the subject has shown that it hardly happens.

Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode. Additionally if you're in a loving monogamous relationship you dont need to worry about STIs or getting pregnant in the same way.

No, it doesn't. You're completely wrong and I'm guessing have never looked at a single study on rates of pregnancy and STIs under different forms of sex ed. In fact, I'm guessing you've just made up your opinion and assumed that the facts must back you up.

They don't. The US observed a long term decline in the rates of pregnancy and STIs among teens from 1990 to 2006, the years in which the most number of kids across the country had comprehensive sex ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Do they teach that they will fail or that they aren't 100% effective?

There's a pretty fine line between the two.

The documents I've seen from some US sex ed classes is that they do nothing but focus on the failures of each method. The result is that kids are unlikely to use protection (having been convinced it will likely fail) and if they do use it they are likely to use it incorrectly.

I couldn't agree more.

Then you support comprehensive sex ed. Because that's exactly what it teaches.

Let's face it, we're driven biologically to have sex.

Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Melissia wrote:Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Really? Is there something you'd like to share?

............ No thanks. ta.

Melissia wrote:Let's face it, we're driven biologically to have sex.

Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Should they?

I mean, if a couple consents, has a good time and does it sensibly with an understanding of the risks... why shouldn't they?

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:Let's face it, we're driven biologically to have sex.

Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Should they?

I mean, if a couple consents, has a good time and does it sensibly with an understanding of the risks... why shouldn't they?

And just how often does that happen when one or both of the members of the couple are either drunk, high, or teenagers and thus drunk and high off of hormones?

sebster wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Actually the WHO had it at about 85% effective in practice - including things like slipping breaking, wrong size and general user error. This was about 3 years ago.

Ah, fair enough. It must be 85% effective overall and something like 97% effective when used properly. I knew the point was that most condom ineffectiveness is due to user error, and not the condom, and therefore teaching people to use condoms properly makes a huge difference. I just my figures a little mixed up.

Thanks for the correction.

I believe that 97% is the effectiveness against STIs (or maybe just HIV), and 85% is for pregnancy. (There's some degree of immune system protection against STIs that stacks with using a condom, conversely biology is trying to make a baby).

Melissia wrote:And just how often does that happen when one or both of the members of the couple are either drunk, high, or teenagers and thus drunk and high off of hormones?

I have no idea what the proportion is. For starters I have a big problem with the subjectivity that tries to draw a line between 'had some drinks' and 'too drunk to give consent'.

The point is to get kids at a point where they can make the choice for themselves. Just crying out "hormones!" doesn't make any sense. Instead you look to inform them as best you can.

And yes, some kids are ready and will not be negatively harmed by having teen sex. Once you're looking at ages 18 and 19, most kids fit this description.

Requia wrote:I believe that 97% is the effectiveness against STIs (or maybe just HIV), and 85% is for pregnancy. (There's some degree of immune system protection against STIs that stacks with using a condom, conversely biology is trying to make a baby).

Well, you prompted me to look it up for myself. Cheers, because it turns out phototoxin had it a bit wrong.

The 85% figure from the WHO isn't the effectiveness rate at all, but the reduction in risk. That is, according to WHO, the rate of infection over the course of a year goes from 6.9 to 0.9, a reduction of about 85%. So effective condom use increases the chance of avoiding STIs to 99.1%

For pregnancy, with all condom use the rate of failure is 10 to 18%. If you look at correct use only, the rate of failure is 2%. You can then stack that with the pill.

What would Jesus cut?

The mustard?