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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
[
As for one night stands, those just seem to be extra extra risky. You don't even have the possibility of clarifying beyond their word that they aren't infected with an STD, and just looking for Cold Sores is a terrible method of staying safe. And I've never heard of a one night stand that didn't involve alcohol in some fashion, which adds impaired judgement into the mix.

Simple correlation. The reason for why ONS often involve alcohol is that they most often start at places where alcohol is handed out - as those places are primary pick-up places.

That doesn't exactly make it any better

 Grey Templar wrote:
There are a lot of benefits to being monogamous.

There are also benefits to not being monogamous. The state has no business endorsing one or the other.

(Also, don't forget that "monogamous" only refers to how many other people you're involved with simultaneously. Serial monogamy with a new partner every week is much worse, from a risk point of view, than a non-monogamous relationship where three people all have sex with each other but not with anyone else.)

Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?

Given that everyone at my university just had to complete a course involving consent and how to recognize the signs of relationship violence I would say that there probably are people who don't realize that, and probably a larger chunk who don't care.

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?

I honestly think some don't. I've seen some crazy definitions of what constitutes consent (ranging from "she didn't say no, which means yes!" to "drunk girls are easy" < is actually shocked when girl's friends nearly get him thrown out of school). I don't think kids are so stupid they can't figure out a follows b only if a happens in the first place, but I do think it's somewhat evident that a lot of teenagers and young adults have yet to put together that looking to get laid at wild drinking parties is a recipe for messing gak up.

Its the whole "lead a horse to water" scenario...

Kids have all the right information, know they *should* use condoms and birth control, know they *shouldnt* do drugs, they *should* do their homework, ect ect ect.


Doesnt mean they do it...

Education is one thing, one that you can indeed argue our educational systems do an ok to poor job of, but *enforcement* of what is taught is 100% out of the schools power.

Also, in a thread where the topic is specifically the rise of STD's ... asking for citation on that very topic is akin to asking someone to point out where the sky is.

I know canada is different, but up here the pill/condoms are free, education is modern, the information is there at no charge and in schools. Birth control is there and free for the taking, but we still have a surge in STD's and the culture is very much a hook up culture of YOLO free love ect ect.

 Grey Templar wrote:


I think both Abstinence only programs and other "normal" programs are all doing it wrong.

The thing is, even if places that don't do "abstinence only", and offer/require courses that include STDs, preventive measures/contraceptives.... the statistics bear out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/07/texas-high-school-with-chlamydia-outbreak-has-abstinence-only-sex-ed/

That is the result of "abstinence only" programming.

The simple fact is, areas of the country such as Oregon (at least when I was in school there) and more "liberal" places that cover use of condoms/contraceptives, the potential hazards of anal, etc. and generally cover the human reproductive system in a more indepth manner than "don't touch each other" have far fewer cases and outbreaks of easily preventable STDs and teenage pregnancy. These "normal" programs may do it wrong by your book, but if they are seriously more effective than that school in Texas I just linked to.

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?

That is something older people don't seem to have a handle on, either. I have to agree with Hotsauce on this. It seems too much is entrusted to the common sense of teenagers with the illusion that they know more about the world than they really do.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A relationship which doesn't involve sex isn't going to be on the same level as one which doesn't.

I don't agree with this.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I think both Abstinence only programs and other "normal" programs are all doing it wrong.

The thing is, even if places that don't do "abstinence only", and offer/require courses that include STDs, preventive measures/contraceptives.... the statistics bear out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/07/texas-high-school-with-chlamydia-outbreak-has-abstinence-only-sex-ed/

That is the result of "abstinence only" programming.

The simple fact is, areas of the country such as Oregon (at least when I was in school there) and more "liberal" places that cover use of condoms/contraceptives, the potential hazards of anal, etc. and generally cover the human reproductive system in a more indepth manner than "don't touch each other" have far fewer cases and outbreaks of easily preventable STDs and teenage pregnancy. These "normal" programs may do it wrong by your book, but if they are seriously more effective than that school in Texas I just linked to.

And I am not advocating for Abstinence only Sex Ed. I am asking that Abstinence be properly taught in addition to other methods. The issue is that Abstinence isn't viewed as a legitimate option, but only because its been improperly presented. Everyone is at fault here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

And I am not advocating for Abstinence only Sex Ed. I am asking that Abstinence be properly taught in addition to other methods. The issue is that Abstinence isn't viewed as a legitimate option, but only because its been improperly presented. Everyone is at fault here.

Perhaps there's something we're missing here then because, based on what I went through in school, there isn't much better way to cover abstinence... Take for instance, the teacher went through various STDs, a few pictures of what they look like (pretty damn tame compared to ones I saw later on in the military) and then followed up the scare session with "the only 100% way to not get those, is abstinence"... She then covered contraceptives, saying condoms are 99.9% effective, IUDs are 99 or whatever % effective, etc. and followed it up with, "the only 100% sure way to not get pregnant is abstinence"

At no point did she ever say, "if you jerk off, you're going to hell because the BIBLE!!!" at no point did she say, "girls, if you have sex before you're married, you cant get to heaven because they don't accept dirty sluts, which is what you'd be because of your impurity"

No... all she said was factually true: you can't get knocked up, get an STD or any thing like that if you completely abstain.

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?

They don't, but it's not just "young people". There are plenty of people in my own age group (the 35-45 age bracket on the tax form) that have a very, very murky view of what "consent" means.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
No... all she said was factually true: you can't get knocked up, get an STD or any thing like that if you completely abstain.

Abstinence education is like job training where you're told you'll never get a work related injury or fired if you never get a job

 Grey Templar wrote:
Odd, to me it seems like underthinking and just being all apathetic is how we got in this situation.

I'd say overthinking and being paranoid has caused more issues around young people's self esteem and feelings of self worth than anything else.

 LordofHats wrote:

Abstinence education is like job training where you're told you'll never get a work related injury or fired if you never get a job

I fear that's the most fantastic thing I'll read all week.

I'll just lead with that next time

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

No what? If someone is drunk they cannot give consent, period.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

Ehm, yes... It's the US mate. if a person, or both people are drunk, their "consent" is pretty much invalid in court due to their inebriation.

The problem (or at least, FB keyboard warrior problem) is that if say, 2 college kids are drunk, but both regret it in the morning, it can become a "race" to the police station to report that they'd been raped (assuming the local law allows for male rape)

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

I don't know about Germany, but in the US the answer is yes. If someone is drunk and you have sex with them, you can be charged with sex assault or rape even if they said yes because some laws specify that consent cannot be given if someone is drunk.

The general gray area (which is a complete cluster) is what happens when both parties are drunk? Well the law still qualifies it as a crime (like drunk driving).

And of course, a lot of people in the US do think that it's okay to have sex with a drunk person if said drunk person agrees, completely ignorant that is a crime and they can be charged.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

Ehm, Yes, if you are drunk, you cannot legally consent.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

It's rather terrifying to see you post this.

I hope that was a mistake of some kind, because if it wasn't...

To clarify;

Going out with the GF, having some drinks with dinner, catching a movie, and going home for some "cuddling" is not a crime.

Going to a bar, and walking home with a woman who can barely stand, slurs her words, and "cuddling" very well could be. Even if she was smiling the whole time and said yes enthusiastically.

It's not just a sex thing. Under US law, people can't legally do a lot of things while legally intoxicated. Signing legal documents and making verbal agreements (i.e. consent) is one of them. It's why notary publics exist and lots of agreements are signed in front of witnesses. I mean, a drunk person might sign over the deed to their house, but if they take you to court the next day the court is gonna declare that agreement nonbinding (i.e. in the eyes of the law it never happened). This is all practical because well... We don't laugh at stupid things drunk people do because they were being smart.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

It's rather terrifying to see you post this.

Don't you know though? 'Drunk people can't consent' is something only a filthy SJW would say, so Sigvatr must oppose it with all his heart.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I think both Abstinence only programs and other "normal" programs are all doing it wrong.

The thing is, even if places that don't do "abstinence only", and offer/require courses that include STDs, preventive measures/contraceptives.... the statistics bear out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/07/texas-high-school-with-chlamydia-outbreak-has-abstinence-only-sex-ed/

That is the result of "abstinence only" programming.

That story has been debunked.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/07/west-texas-school-chlamydia-outbreak-may-never-have-happened

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent

Ehm, no.

Ehm, Yes, if you are drunk, you cannot legally consent.

In the US, but maybe not in Germany. Only him can confirm that anyway.

In the uk you can consent when drunk to a certain extent.

You have to be paralytic before concert becomes an issue, and even then it's a grey area.