It's not a matter of the Pope's intelligence. He's arguing from a dogmatic point of view, and part of Catholic dogma is the sanctity of sex in a married environment and as a means of procreation. Condoms obviously prevent the procreating part, and it's probably fair to say that most condom users are unmarried. I'm sure he's very aware that condoms physically prevent the disease from talking about, but I don't think he really cares about that.
Obviously this has been argued a lot here, so I won't go into it further. As a Catholic I find the whole thing disappointing. I think it would be lovely if there were a nice middle ground where dogma and reality could meet. Unfortunately that doesn't exist yet, at least not in the Roman Catholic bureaucracy.
Doesn't the pope have a very strong hand in the changing/shaping of the Catholic dogma though?
Certainly. He's the only person who really can, and I wish he would. But if you know anything about Benedict, you know that when he was Cardinal Ratzinger they called him a Rottweiler, and not just for his stunning good looks. The guy is a stubborn, hyper conservative theologian, and probably wants to make the Church more insular, not less. We're not going to see change from this guy. In fact, he was probably picked because he is so conservative.
The irony of course is that the word "catholic" means "universal." Sadly, the Church that bears that name is sometimes anything but.
I think you're missing part of the pictures. It isn't about controlling themselves and acting a certain way because that's just how they should be. That isn't the way life works. If they understood why they shouldn't do certain things, they wouldn't do them. If you tell a person that something is wrong JUST BECAUSE, there's a much better chance that they'll eventually think otherwise than if you take the time to explain to them the repercussions of their actions. Is the Catholic church afraid that people will use this new found understanding and begin to critically ask questions?
You're missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying the Catholic position on birth control is correct--it's totally wrong, and abstinence-only education is stupid.
I was responding to the statement that teaching abstinence as an option shouldn't happen. There is a disturbing sentiment that keeps cropping up in these types of threads along the lines of "Oh, they're just kids, they can't control themselves"--I think this kind of absolution of personal responsibility for one's actions is inappropriate and unhealthy for society. Ideally, people should understand as well as possible what consequences their actions might have, and should be encouraged to make wise decisions based on that knowledge. There is nothing wrong with weighing the risks and deciding you'd rather remain abstinent for a time.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
There needs to be an Anti-Pope, who says the opposite of whatever the Pope says. That way, Catholics can choose which one to listen to. It's basically the system they seem to use now, it just needs to be codified.
I think you're missing part of the pictures. It isn't about controlling themselves and acting a certain way because that's just how they should be. That isn't the way life works. If they understood why they shouldn't do certain things, they wouldn't do them. If you tell a person that something is wrong JUST BECAUSE, there's a much better chance that they'll eventually think otherwise than if you take the time to explain to them the repercussions of their actions. Is the Catholic church afraid that people will use this new found understanding and begin to critically ask questions?
You're missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying the Catholic position on birth control is correct--it's totally wrong, and abstinence-only education is stupid.
I was responding to the statement that teaching abstinence as an option shouldn't happen. There is a disturbing sentiment that keeps cropping up in these types of threads along the lines of "Oh, they're just kids, they can't control themselves"--I think this kind of absolution of personal responsibility for one's actions is inappropriate and unhealthy for society. Ideally, people should understand as well as possible what consequences their actions might have, and should be encouraged to make wise decisions based on that knowledge. There is nothing wrong with weighing the risks and deciding you'd rather remain abstinent for a time.
Ahh, now it makes sense. Unfortunately, the last thing you said doesn't really fly in our culture, which has a disdain for people who make educated, informed decisions. I'm with you on that. I think there are plenty of reasons to not have sex until you're in a stable relationship. I also know that some people like having sex and will continue to have sex with or without a stable relationship. I wish we could have sex education that wasn't funded by people with political or religious agendas. Scientists need to rule the world already please kay thanks.
It's not a matter of the Pope's intelligence. He's arguing from a dogmatic point of view, and part of Catholic dogma is the sanctity of sex in a married environment and as a means of procreation. Condoms obviously prevent the procreating part, and it's probably fair to say that most condom users are unmarried. I'm sure he's very aware that condoms physically prevent the disease from talking about, but I don't think he really cares about that.
Obviously this has been argued a lot here, so I won't go into it further. As a Catholic I find the whole thing disappointing. I think it would be lovely if there were a nice middle ground where dogma and reality could meet. Unfortunately that doesn't exist yet, at least not in the Roman Catholic bureaucracy.
Doesn't the pope have a very strong hand in the changing/shaping of the Catholic dogma though?
There needs to be an Anti-Pope, who says the opposite of whatever the Pope says. That way, Catholics can choose which one to listen to. It's basically the system they seem to use now, it just needs to be codified.
I think you're missing part of the pictures. It isn't about controlling themselves and acting a certain way because that's just how they should be. That isn't the way life works. If they understood why they shouldn't do certain things, they wouldn't do them. If you tell a person that something is wrong JUST BECAUSE, there's a much better chance that they'll eventually think otherwise than if you take the time to explain to them the repercussions of their actions. Is the Catholic church afraid that people will use this new found understanding and begin to critically ask questions?
You're missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying the Catholic position on birth control is correct--it's totally wrong, and abstinence-only education is stupid.
I was responding to the statement that teaching abstinence as an option shouldn't happen. There is a disturbing sentiment that keeps cropping up in these types of threads along the lines of "Oh, they're just kids, they can't control themselves"--I think this kind of absolution of personal responsibility for one's actions is inappropriate and unhealthy for society. Ideally, people should understand as well as possible what consequences their actions might have, and should be encouraged to make wise decisions based on that knowledge. There is nothing wrong with weighing the risks and deciding you'd rather remain abstinent for a time.
This is fine as long as everyone on every level of government and religion realizes that people will occasionally have sex out of wedlock.
I think you're missing part of the pictures. It isn't about controlling themselves and acting a certain way because that's just how they should be. That isn't the way life works. If they understood why they shouldn't do certain things, they wouldn't do them. If you tell a person that something is wrong JUST BECAUSE, there's a much better chance that they'll eventually think otherwise than if you take the time to explain to them the repercussions of their actions. Is the Catholic church afraid that people will use this new found understanding and begin to critically ask questions?
You're missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying the Catholic position on birth control is correct--it's totally wrong, and abstinence-only education is stupid.
I was responding to the statement that teaching abstinence as an option shouldn't happen. There is a disturbing sentiment that keeps cropping up in these types of threads along the lines of "Oh, they're just kids, they can't control themselves"--I think this kind of absolution of personal responsibility for one's actions is inappropriate and unhealthy for society. Ideally, people should understand as well as possible what consequences their actions might have, and should be encouraged to make wise decisions based on that knowledge. There is nothing wrong with weighing the risks and deciding you'd rather remain abstinent for a time.
This is fine as long as everyone on every level of government and religion realizes that people will occasionally have sex out of wedlock.
Of course. Sex education should include condoms, birth control, and so forth. It can also include abstinence. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I think you're missing part of the pictures. It isn't about controlling themselves and acting a certain way because that's just how they should be. That isn't the way life works. If they understood why they shouldn't do certain things, they wouldn't do them. If you tell a person that something is wrong JUST BECAUSE, there's a much better chance that they'll eventually think otherwise than if you take the time to explain to them the repercussions of their actions. Is the Catholic church afraid that people will use this new found understanding and begin to critically ask questions?
You're missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying the Catholic position on birth control is correct--it's totally wrong, and abstinence-only education is stupid.
I was responding to the statement that teaching abstinence as an option shouldn't happen. There is a disturbing sentiment that keeps cropping up in these types of threads along the lines of "Oh, they're just kids, they can't control themselves"--I think this kind of absolution of personal responsibility for one's actions is inappropriate and unhealthy for society. Ideally, people should understand as well as possible what consequences their actions might have, and should be encouraged to make wise decisions based on that knowledge. There is nothing wrong with weighing the risks and deciding you'd rather remain abstinent for a time.
This is fine as long as everyone on every level of government and religion realizes that people will occasionally have sex out of wedlock.
Of course. Sex education should include condoms, birth control, and so forth. It can also include abstinence. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Catholicism needs to hurry up and abandon this moronic doctrine as bullshit ASAP.
Except they won't, nor should they. This is the point of values and creeds. You keep them no matter what. If you're willing to abandon them, you're not strong in those values or creeds. The Vatican can do whatever it wants. People who obey the Vatican can do whatever they want. They have the right to pass it on to their children. We can think the teachings hurt people in the long run, but people are capable of walking a different path from their parents. But anyway.
The Pope is technically right. Condoms break, or otherwise not used / stored properly, and people don't pay attention to those things. It's not a flaw of the condom itself.
The flaw is in the creeds / beliefs of the men who think that raping a virgin will cure their AIDS. Which is wrong. And I guess I have to amend my mini-rant above to include, "Unless it is physically hurting others."
Except it is hurting others. You'd have to be pretty damn blind to not see this is the case. The catholic church is teaching bullshit, and that bullshit is directly leading to people getting AIDS. Especially given that they spread lies to discourage condom use. And it's not like your average african can jump on wiki to inform themselves.
John Paul, dude. And of course the new pope sucks, how could he compare to a Polish person? Truly, we are made in God's own image: potato-shaped, lumpy, and horrifically ugly.
It's not a matter of the Pope's intelligence. He's arguing from a dogmatic point of view, and part of Catholic dogma is the sanctity of sex in a married environment and as a means of procreation. Condoms obviously prevent the procreating part, and it's probably fair to say that most condom users are unmarried. I'm sure he's very aware that condoms physically prevent the disease from talking about, but I don't think he really cares about that.
Obviously this has been argued a lot here, so I won't go into it further. As a Catholic I find the whole thing disappointing. I think it would be lovely if there were a nice middle ground where dogma and reality could meet. Unfortunately that doesn't exist yet, at least not in the Roman Catholic bureaucracy.
I don't doubt the man's intelligence. I know good and well that he's intelligent and educated... he has access to one of the best education systems in the world. That's what's disappointing me. He is hewing to dogma as if he's planning to run for re-election.
It's not a matter of the Pope's intelligence. He's arguing from a dogmatic point of view, and part of Catholic dogma is the sanctity of sex in a married environment and as a means of procreation. Condoms obviously prevent the procreating part, and it's probably fair to say that most condom users are unmarried. I'm sure he's very aware that condoms physically prevent the disease from talking about, but I don't think he really cares about that.
Obviously this has been argued a lot here, so I won't go into it further. As a Catholic I find the whole thing disappointing. I think it would be lovely if there were a nice middle ground where dogma and reality could meet. Unfortunately that doesn't exist yet, at least not in the Roman Catholic bureaucracy.
I don't doubt the man's intelligence. I know good and well that he's intelligent and educated... he has access to one of the best education systems in the world. That's what's disappointing me. He is hewing to dogma as if he's planning to run for re-election.
And, I'm stealing Count Popula.
No condoms = people get AIDS and then go to Heaven
Promote condoms = people are much less likely to get AIDS but more likely they'll go to Hell
It's not a matter of the Pope's intelligence. He's arguing from a dogmatic point of view, and part of Catholic dogma is the sanctity of sex in a married environment and as a means of procreation. Condoms obviously prevent the procreating part, and it's probably fair to say that most condom users are unmarried. I'm sure he's very aware that condoms physically prevent the disease from talking about, but I don't think he really cares about that.
Obviously this has been argued a lot here, so I won't go into it further. As a Catholic I find the whole thing disappointing. I think it would be lovely if there were a nice middle ground where dogma and reality could meet. Unfortunately that doesn't exist yet, at least not in the Roman Catholic bureaucracy.
I don't doubt the man's intelligence. I know good and well that he's intelligent and educated... he has access to one of the best education systems in the world. That's what's disappointing me. He is hewing to dogma as if he's planning to run for re-election.
And, I'm stealing Count Popula.
No condoms = people get AIDS and then go to Heaven
Promote condoms = people are much less likely to get AIDS but more likely they'll go to Hell
It's not a matter of the Pope's intelligence. He's arguing from a dogmatic point of view, and part of Catholic dogma is the sanctity of sex in a married environment and as a means of procreation. Condoms obviously prevent the procreating part, and it's probably fair to say that most condom users are unmarried. I'm sure he's very aware that condoms physically prevent the disease from talking about, but I don't think he really cares about that.
Obviously this has been argued a lot here, so I won't go into it further. As a Catholic I find the whole thing disappointing. I think it would be lovely if there were a nice middle ground where dogma and reality could meet. Unfortunately that doesn't exist yet, at least not in the Roman Catholic bureaucracy.
I don't doubt the man's intelligence. I know good and well that he's intelligent and educated... he has access to one of the best education systems in the world. That's what's disappointing me. He is hewing to dogma as if he's planning to run for re-election.
And, I'm stealing Count Popula.
No condoms = people get AIDS and then go to Heaven
Promote condoms = people are much less likely to get AIDS but more likely they'll go to Hell
..... the argument can't be that simple.
We should baptize babies then murder them so they can get into heaven before they can do anything bad!! What could go wrong?!
OremLK: Personally, I don't think abstinence should be an option, because it is unhealthy in terms of a person's psychological and sexual development, and can be detrimental to their relationships.
I think that waiting until you're married is one of the worst mistakes you can make, and any sexually satisfying relationship born of that is a stroke of luck.
Regardless, the reason abstinence-only education doesn't work is that kids - and adults - can't control themselves, and that's not a bad thing. This doesn't mean that no one could be abstinent ever; it's possible for some people, especially if they are strong-willed, or asexual to some extent, etc etc. But if you try to teach a group of people or a society, it's not going to work; they will have sex.
Hell, even informed people who are completely aware of the risks of AIDS will end up having unprotected sex. The urge to have sex is very strong, especially on a group level.
OremLK: Personally, I don't think abstinence should be an option, because it is unhealthy in terms of a person's psychological and sexual development, and can be detrimental to their relationships.
I think that waiting until you're married is one of the worst mistakes you can make, and any sexually satisfying relationship born of that is a stroke of luck.
Regardless, the reason abstinence-only education doesn't work is that kids - and adults - can't control themselves, and that's not a bad thing. This doesn't mean that no one could be abstinent ever; it's possible for some people, especially if they are strong-willed, or asexual to some extent, etc etc. But if you try to teach a group of people or a society, it's not going to work; they will have sex.
Hell, even informed people who are completely aware of the risks of AIDS will end up having unprotected sex. The urge to have sex is very strong, especially on a group level.
"Abstinence" doesn't have to mean specifically teaching kids to wait until marriage, it can (and probably should) just mean telling kids that the best--and only foolproof--way to avoid getting pregnant or contracting an STD is to hold off until you're more mature and prepared to deal with either consequence (especially the former). And then follow that up with a rigorous course on how to be safe if you do choose to have sex.
But yeah, I think it's total bullshit to say that kids and adults can't control themselves, on an individual level. Will there always be people who don't control themselves? Yeah, sure. That doesn't mean they can't. It means they chose not to.
Once again, I find it troubling how eager you are to wave away personal responsibility in this matter. Even the urge to reproduce can be controlled, and should be expected to be kept under some level of control. You're with a girl and realize you don't have a condom handy? You don't have sex. You're in an exclusive relationship? Sorry, you don't get to bang that receptionist who's been flirting with you at the front desk.
All abstinence is is a series of these choices, choices that we expect every civilized person to be able to make. I don't see why we should pretend it's not an option and pretend kids aren't responsible for contracting an STD or getting a girl pregnant if they have sex and the condom breaks; they made the choice to have sex. They are responsible, even if the consequences were unintentional.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
By rule, all catholics think what the pope think. His word is absolute, and cannot be wrong. If any particular catholic disagrees with the pope, he is automaticly wrong. Such is the catholic church.
That's why a lot of weight is given to the pope's statements. He is the absolute spiritual (moral) ruler of hundreds of millions of people. The catholics church stance on issues such as abortion, euthanesia, gay marriage, sex in general holds a lot of weight in the politics of many countries. See for instance the recent drama in Italy over a man who desperately wanted to terminate the life of his daughter, who had been in a coma with severe braindamage for decades.
No, this is wrong. It's wrong not only in practical terms, but also in theological terms and according to canon law. The ultramonatist doctrine of "papal infallibility" was only established by Vatican I in the 1880s, and the Pope must be speaking explicitly ex cathedra. The only time that I can remember that a Pope has spoken ex cathedra was when Paul (or maybe it was Pius X) established the assumption of Mary ex cathedra.
The church very often comes into error in its teachings, and popes and bishops and the clergy can perpetuate these errors. The Church itself recognizes this fact, which is one of the reasons why you'll never see the Pope speak ex cathedra on something that isn't very core doctrine (divinity of Christ is core, church policy on condoms is definitely not).
The problem is that you have a bunch of old, celibate men who've never had (or ought not to have had, according to their rules) a sexual relationship making judgements about those who regularly engage in sex. The problem is one of perspective, really, and has very little to do with the office of the papacy or the Roman Catholic Church.
Pretty much. Its about 20% catholic overall, and I suspect a lot of that is people hybridising it with the local animist beliefs, judging by all the witch-burning stories popping up in the news. Catholicism's growth areas are Africa and South America, and the same goes for quite a few flavours of old-school monotheism, because God is popular with people who live in shitty conditions.
What? Christianity doesn't exactly need to be hybridized with anything else to have witch-burnings.
OremLK Wrote: Personally, I don't think abstinence should be an option, because it is unhealthy in terms of a person's psychological and sexual development, and can be detrimental to their relationships.
I think that waiting until you're married is one of the worst mistakes you can make, and any sexually satisfying relationship born of that is a stroke of luck.
Regardless, the reason abstinence-only education doesn't work is that kids - and adults - can't control themselves, and that's not a bad thing. This doesn't mean that no one could be abstinent ever; it's possible for some people, especially if they are strong-willed, or asexual to some extent, etc etc. But if you try to teach a group of people or a society, it's not going to work; they will have sex.
Hell, even informed people who are completely aware of the risks of AIDS will end up having unprotected sex. The urge to have sex is very strong, especially on a group level.
"Abstinence" doesn't have to mean specifically teaching kids to wait until marriage, it can (and probably should) just mean telling kids that the best--and only foolproof--way to avoid getting pregnant or contracting an STD is to hold off until you're more mature and prepared to deal with either consequence (especially the former). And then follow that up with a rigorous course on how to be safe if you do choose to have sex.
But yeah, I think it's total bullshit to say that kids and adults can't control themselves, on an individual level. Will there always be people who don't control themselves? Yeah, sure. That doesn't mean they can't. It means they chose not to.
Once again, I find it troubling how eager you are to wave away personal responsibility in this matter. Even the urge to reproduce can be controlled, and should be expected to be kept under some level of control. You're with a girl and realize you don't have a condom handy? You don't have sex. You're in an exclusive relationship? Sorry, you don't get to bang that receptionist who's been flirting with you at the front desk.
All abstinence is is a series of these choices, choices that we expect every civilized person to be able to make. I don't see why we should pretend it's not an option and pretend kids aren't responsible for contracting an STD or getting a girl pregnant if they have sex and the condom breaks; they made the choice to have sex. They are responsible, even if the consequences were unintentional.
Your post is beautifully naive.
So you can hide behind the 'if you dont have sex, you wont catch Aids' argument if you like, but the fact is that when you choose to attack a problem with a less effective method - because of your own beliefs - You're doing a huge disservice to people that suffer every single fucking day.
Your post is beautifully naive.
So you can hide behind the 'if you dont have sex, you wont catch Aids' argument if you like, but the fact is that when you choose to attack a problem with a less effective method - because of your own beliefs - You're doing a huge disservice to people that suffer every single fucking day.
What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything I said?
Sex education should include a thorough discussion of condoms, birth control, and how to prevent the transmission of STDs.
Say it after me: "Orem is not arguing for abstinence-only education."
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I'm surprised that the Pope/church hasn't just gone out and said that if we killed everyone with AIDS then it wouldn't be a problem anymore. Man that dude is crazy.
Pretty much. Its about 20% catholic overall, and I suspect a lot of that is people hybridising it with the local animist beliefs, judging by all the witch-burning stories popping up in the news. Catholicism's growth areas are Africa and South America, and the same goes for quite a few flavours of old-school monotheism, because God is popular with people who live in shitty conditions.
What? Christianity doesn't exactly need to be hybridized with anything else to have witch-burnings.
No, it just needs an ignorant and superstitious population. That said, some features are unique to what I'm talking about. The devil is in the details, so to speak. Read some of the stories and you'll see what I mean.
OremLK: Personally, I don't think abstinence should be an option, because it is unhealthy in terms of a person's psychological and sexual development, and can be detrimental to their relationships.
Abstinence does not require "waiting till mariage". When taught in a non-insane way, it means nothing more than a basic level of self-control, and especially it means taking the time to examine whether you're having sex because you actually want to or just because its expected, or you're being pressured, or whatever. In that light, it becomes especially important for teenagers in less-than-gender-progressive locations and subcultures. In failing to consider that, your statement above takes on some fairly sinister implications.
And there's a massive difference between sexual repression and sexual-self control. Conflating the two is frickin' nutty
Um, abstinence is totally an option. People are not animals. Teaching it as the only option is where the stupid starts.
And an option to solve over-population is to stop breathing. And it totally works. Except for all that breathing you inevitably end up doing.
100s of millions of years of invertebrate evolution have channeled my genes to encourage me and my predecessors to put their penis in vaginas. It's a hugely powerful driving force. Hell no one in my ancestry has failed in the task. Ever.
It's a huge step forward for humans that we are aware of our genetic desires and know that the outcome of those desires may not be in our best interests. And the fact that we can subvert those desires and overcome billions of years of evolution is a massive deal. And something to be proud of.
If you're not mature enough to buy a package of condoms from a female cashier at the supermarket without feeling uncomfortable, embarrassed, or giggly, you are not in any way ready for sex.
This is what I plan on telling my children. I also plan on telling them that they should take sex seriously, understand its implications (both moral and emotional), and that if they do opt to have pre-marital sex they had better practice safe sex or else their Dad is going to be very, very disappointed in them (and I am an awfully hard guy to disappoint, part of being a perpetual optimist).
Having said that, the Pope is still being a complete idiot.
If you're not mature enough to buy a package of condoms from a female cashier at the supermarket without feeling uncomfortable, embarrassed, or giggly, you are not in any way ready for sex.
This is why I'm thankful for self-checkout lanes! :winky:
Saying that people 'can't'/'won't' control themselves is silly.
They just 'don't' when you take humanity as a whole. That's the only important fact here. And it's not like nobody has tried selling populations on the idea of abstinence and religiosity over the centuries. They've tried their very hardest, and their way has not worked.
Once again, a focus on altering individual choice causes a failure to address how people (not 'a person') are in general. People don't abstain. Abstinence may be the best choice for an individual, but condoms are clearly the best choice for a population.
So the question is: what does more good -- dealing with individuals or dealing with the needs of a group?
OremLK: Personally, I don't think abstinence should be an option, because it is unhealthy in terms of a person's psychological and sexual development, and can be detrimental to their relationships.
I think that waiting until you're married is one of the worst mistakes you can make, and any sexually satisfying relationship born of that is a stroke of luck.
Regardless, the reason abstinence-only education doesn't work is that kids - and adults - can't control themselves, and that's not a bad thing. This doesn't mean that no one could be abstinent ever; it's possible for some people, especially if they are strong-willed, or asexual to some extent, etc etc. But if you try to teach a group of people or a society, it's not going to work; they will have sex.
Hell, even informed people who are completely aware of the risks of AIDS will end up having unprotected sex. The urge to have sex is very strong, especially on a group level.
"Abstinence" doesn't have to mean specifically teaching kids to wait until marriage, it can (and probably should) just mean telling kids that the best--and only foolproof--way to avoid getting pregnant or contracting an STD is to hold off until you're more mature and prepared to deal with either consequence (especially the former). And then follow that up with a rigorous course on how to be safe if you do choose to have sex.
But yeah, I think it's total bullshit to say that kids and adults can't control themselves, on an individual level. Will there always be people who don't control themselves? Yeah, sure. That doesn't mean they can't. It means they chose not to.
Once again, I find it troubling how eager you are to wave away personal responsibility in this matter. Even the urge to reproduce can be controlled, and should be expected to be kept under some level of control. You're with a girl and realize you don't have a condom handy? You don't have sex. You're in an exclusive relationship? Sorry, you don't get to bang that receptionist who's been flirting with you at the front desk.
All abstinence is is a series of these choices, choices that we expect every civilized person to be able to make. I don't see why we should pretend it's not an option and pretend kids aren't responsible for contracting an STD or getting a girl pregnant if they have sex and the condom breaks; they made the choice to have sex. They are responsible, even if the consequences were unintentional.
I agree with OremLK... people can control themselves and must be held responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to their desire for sex. Some people don't, but for the most part they can. Some probably can't (like addicts, if you believe in sex addiction) but for the most part, people are capable of self-restraint. The problem isn't that abstinence is impossible--it's that people aren't empowered to make choices. They fall into the "I can't help it!" trap.
For teens, in particular, abstinence is tough. Teens are at a stage in their social development where acceptance and belonging are extremely important, so social pressure to have sex can be very influential. It takes a really strong personality to stand against social pressure and risk being an outcast... I mean, for teens there are reminders everywhere that without a relationship they're incomplete, then there are reminders everywhere that relationships are incomplete without sex. Their friends are all getting into relationships, they're all talking about all the awesome sex they're having (lies)... It is a tough thing. So I think we need education solutions that focus on personal responsibility and making informed choices. Abstinence should be presented as a valid choice, but it shouldn't be presented as the only option. Give them the support they need to say no and stand by that choice, but give them the tools they need to choose yes responsibly.
When it comes to societies it's an entirely different issue... it's a lot like teens in the sense that you have group norms and social pressure, but adults have a greater capacity to resist social pressure. So you have to combat the group norms that result from misinformation (for ex, the myth that having sex with virgins cures aids) and have to give people tools to make informed, responsible choices. Abstinence isn't a tool, it's a choice... so abstinence will never work as a complete solution. It must be part of a comprehensive approach. Just like teaching people about safe sex won't work if you don't give people condoms, dental dams, etc. The whole problem is more than just a strategic issue--it's a class issue, a feminist issue, a religious issue, a political issue... you can't improve anything with a single solution.
I find OremLK's "civilized person" comment troubling though. Every human can make choices when he/she has sufficient information. It's not a matter of being civilized... frankly, I don't think there's any such thing as an "uncivilized" human. That term stinks of white privilege and colonialism.
Your post is beautifully naive.
So you can hide behind the 'if you dont have sex, you wont catch Aids' argument if you like, but the fact is that when you choose to attack a problem with a less effective method - because of your own beliefs - You're doing a huge disservice to people that suffer every single fucking day.
Ohhhh man you're right on. Not that OremLK is naive--not that part... but the part about women's choices? Dead on. When women lack education and social power, they can't just choose abstinence... and often, they can't choose safe sex either.
Worst of all, women are at a greater risk for contracting AIDS than are men because penetration causes tiny tears in the walls of the vagina. One man with AIDS in a patriarchal society can cause an awful lot more harm than can one woman with AIDS.
And that's part of why traditional religious notions of gender roles really piss me off. Not all religious people believe in or uphold those roles, but the pope is wayyyyy behind the times on that one. As if you can fix anything if you keep telling people that women should be subservient and impotent. Yuck.
I find OremLK's "civilized person" comment troubling though. Every human can make choices when he/she has sufficient information. It's not a matter of being civilized... frankly, I don't think there's any such thing as an "uncivilized" human. That term stinks of white privilege and colonialism.
I was thinking more along the lines of somebody who lives as a functioning member of society--respecting other people's boundaries and such. Maybe "civilized" isn't the best word for it.
What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything I said?
Sex education should include a thorough discussion of condoms, birth control, and how to prevent the transmission of STDs.
Say it after me: "Orem is not arguing for abstinence-only education."
Actually, you know what? you're right.
I misread the post in an effort to catch up, and I'm not all here today.
I apologise.
Now, I need to rind a real apologist to go vent my anger at this topic at.
Sorry for reacting so strongly, it's just that this was like the third time people misinterpreted my comments and thought I was defending the pope. ('Cause I'm not, he's an idiot.)
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Posts
Certainly. He's the only person who really can, and I wish he would. But if you know anything about Benedict, you know that when he was Cardinal Ratzinger they called him a Rottweiler, and not just for his stunning good looks. The guy is a stubborn, hyper conservative theologian, and probably wants to make the Church more insular, not less. We're not going to see change from this guy. In fact, he was probably picked because he is so conservative.
The irony of course is that the word "catholic" means "universal." Sadly, the Church that bears that name is sometimes anything but.
You're missing the point of my argument. I'm not saying the Catholic position on birth control is correct--it's totally wrong, and abstinence-only education is stupid.
I was responding to the statement that teaching abstinence as an option shouldn't happen. There is a disturbing sentiment that keeps cropping up in these types of threads along the lines of "Oh, they're just kids, they can't control themselves"--I think this kind of absolution of personal responsibility for one's actions is inappropriate and unhealthy for society. Ideally, people should understand as well as possible what consequences their actions might have, and should be encouraged to make wise decisions based on that knowledge. There is nothing wrong with weighing the risks and deciding you'd rather remain abstinent for a time.
Nega-Pope
Dr. Pope
Antimatter Pope
Dark Pope
Count Popula, Denizen of the Dark Realms
Dorpopepu
I could do this all day.
Ahh, now it makes sense. Unfortunately, the last thing you said doesn't really fly in our culture, which has a disdain for people who make educated, informed decisions. I'm with you on that. I think there are plenty of reasons to not have sex until you're in a stable relationship. I also know that some people like having sex and will continue to have sex with or without a stable relationship. I wish we could have sex education that wasn't funded by people with political or religious agendas. Scientists need to rule the world already please kay thanks.
This is fine as long as everyone on every level of government and religion realizes that people will occasionally have sex out of wedlock.
Of course. Sex education should include condoms, birth control, and so forth. It can also include abstinence. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Fuckers like to fuuuuuuuuuuck.
Except it is hurting others. You'd have to be pretty damn blind to not see this is the case. The catholic church is teaching bullshit, and that bullshit is directly leading to people getting AIDS. Especially given that they spread lies to discourage condom use. And it's not like your average african can jump on wiki to inform themselves.
Seriously though... WTF catholic church! I hate how legalistic Benedict is compared to the more progressive John Paul.
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
And, I'm stealing Count Popula.
No condoms = people get AIDS and then go to Heaven
Promote condoms = people are much less likely to get AIDS but more likely they'll go to Hell
..... the argument can't be that simple.
Less condoms = more baby Catholics
We should baptize babies then murder them so they can get into heaven before they can do anything bad!! What could go wrong?!
Man, how old is that guy?
Fixed my post
EDIT: GOD DAMNED WORST T.O.P. EVER!
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
Granted, that was during the Inquisition period several centuries ago.
I think that waiting until you're married is one of the worst mistakes you can make, and any sexually satisfying relationship born of that is a stroke of luck.
Regardless, the reason abstinence-only education doesn't work is that kids - and adults - can't control themselves, and that's not a bad thing. This doesn't mean that no one could be abstinent ever; it's possible for some people, especially if they are strong-willed, or asexual to some extent, etc etc. But if you try to teach a group of people or a society, it's not going to work; they will have sex.
Hell, even informed people who are completely aware of the risks of AIDS will end up having unprotected sex. The urge to have sex is very strong, especially on a group level.
Can we just start calling him Pope Hilarius II, Humor Strikes Back?
"Abstinence" doesn't have to mean specifically teaching kids to wait until marriage, it can (and probably should) just mean telling kids that the best--and only foolproof--way to avoid getting pregnant or contracting an STD is to hold off until you're more mature and prepared to deal with either consequence (especially the former). And then follow that up with a rigorous course on how to be safe if you do choose to have sex.
But yeah, I think it's total bullshit to say that kids and adults can't control themselves, on an individual level. Will there always be people who don't control themselves? Yeah, sure. That doesn't mean they can't. It means they chose not to.
Once again, I find it troubling how eager you are to wave away personal responsibility in this matter. Even the urge to reproduce can be controlled, and should be expected to be kept under some level of control. You're with a girl and realize you don't have a condom handy? You don't have sex. You're in an exclusive relationship? Sorry, you don't get to bang that receptionist who's been flirting with you at the front desk.
All abstinence is is a series of these choices, choices that we expect every civilized person to be able to make. I don't see why we should pretend it's not an option and pretend kids aren't responsible for contracting an STD or getting a girl pregnant if they have sex and the condom breaks; they made the choice to have sex. They are responsible, even if the consequences were unintentional.
No, this is wrong. It's wrong not only in practical terms, but also in theological terms and according to canon law. The ultramonatist doctrine of "papal infallibility" was only established by Vatican I in the 1880s, and the Pope must be speaking explicitly ex cathedra. The only time that I can remember that a Pope has spoken ex cathedra was when Paul (or maybe it was Pius X) established the assumption of Mary ex cathedra.
The church very often comes into error in its teachings, and popes and bishops and the clergy can perpetuate these errors. The Church itself recognizes this fact, which is one of the reasons why you'll never see the Pope speak ex cathedra on something that isn't very core doctrine (divinity of Christ is core, church policy on condoms is definitely not).
The problem is that you have a bunch of old, celibate men who've never had (or ought not to have had, according to their rules) a sexual relationship making judgements about those who regularly engage in sex. The problem is one of perspective, really, and has very little to do with the office of the papacy or the Roman Catholic Church.
What? Christianity doesn't exactly need to be hybridized with anything else to have witch-burnings.
You're forgetting that there is still a huge amount of ignorance and stigma about AIDS in Africa. Hell, a politician in South Africa (probably the one African country where you could argue that awareness is increasing) actually had sex with a woman he knew to have HIV but had a shower after, to avoid catching it.
And lets not get to the parts where some tribes actually believe that having sex with a virgin can cure you of Aids. That women don't have the luxury of abstinence.
Your post is beautifully naive.
So you can hide behind the 'if you dont have sex, you wont catch Aids' argument if you like, but the fact is that when you choose to attack a problem with a less effective method - because of your own beliefs - You're doing a huge disservice to people that suffer every single fucking day.
What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything I said?
Sex education should include a thorough discussion of condoms, birth control, and how to prevent the transmission of STDs.
Say it after me: "Orem is not arguing for abstinence-only education."
I never asked for this!
And there's a massive difference between sexual repression and sexual-self control. Conflating the two is frickin' nutty
Actually, you know what? you're right.
I misread the post in an effort to catch up, and I'm not all here today.
I apologise.
Now, I need to rind a real apologist to go vent my anger at this topic at.
And an option to solve over-population is to stop breathing. And it totally works. Except for all that breathing you inevitably end up doing.
100s of millions of years of invertebrate evolution have channeled my genes to encourage me and my predecessors to put their penis in vaginas. It's a hugely powerful driving force. Hell no one in my ancestry has failed in the task. Ever.
It's a huge step forward for humans that we are aware of our genetic desires and know that the outcome of those desires may not be in our best interests. And the fact that we can subvert those desires and overcome billions of years of evolution is a massive deal. And something to be proud of.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
This is what I plan on telling my children. I also plan on telling them that they should take sex seriously, understand its implications (both moral and emotional), and that if they do opt to have pre-marital sex they had better practice safe sex or else their Dad is going to be very, very disappointed in them (and I am an awfully hard guy to disappoint, part of being a perpetual optimist).
Having said that, the Pope is still being a complete idiot.
This is why I'm thankful for self-checkout lanes! :winky:
They just 'don't' when you take humanity as a whole. That's the only important fact here. And it's not like nobody has tried selling populations on the idea of abstinence and religiosity over the centuries. They've tried their very hardest, and their way has not worked.
Once again, a focus on altering individual choice causes a failure to address how people (not 'a person') are in general. People don't abstain. Abstinence may be the best choice for an individual, but condoms are clearly the best choice for a population.
So the question is: what does more good -- dealing with individuals or dealing with the needs of a group?
Seems obvious to me.
I agree with OremLK... people can control themselves and must be held responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to their desire for sex. Some people don't, but for the most part they can. Some probably can't (like addicts, if you believe in sex addiction) but for the most part, people are capable of self-restraint. The problem isn't that abstinence is impossible--it's that people aren't empowered to make choices. They fall into the "I can't help it!" trap.
For teens, in particular, abstinence is tough. Teens are at a stage in their social development where acceptance and belonging are extremely important, so social pressure to have sex can be very influential. It takes a really strong personality to stand against social pressure and risk being an outcast... I mean, for teens there are reminders everywhere that without a relationship they're incomplete, then there are reminders everywhere that relationships are incomplete without sex. Their friends are all getting into relationships, they're all talking about all the awesome sex they're having (lies)... It is a tough thing. So I think we need education solutions that focus on personal responsibility and making informed choices. Abstinence should be presented as a valid choice, but it shouldn't be presented as the only option. Give them the support they need to say no and stand by that choice, but give them the tools they need to choose yes responsibly.
When it comes to societies it's an entirely different issue... it's a lot like teens in the sense that you have group norms and social pressure, but adults have a greater capacity to resist social pressure. So you have to combat the group norms that result from misinformation (for ex, the myth that having sex with virgins cures aids) and have to give people tools to make informed, responsible choices. Abstinence isn't a tool, it's a choice... so abstinence will never work as a complete solution. It must be part of a comprehensive approach. Just like teaching people about safe sex won't work if you don't give people condoms, dental dams, etc. The whole problem is more than just a strategic issue--it's a class issue, a feminist issue, a religious issue, a political issue... you can't improve anything with a single solution.
I find OremLK's "civilized person" comment troubling though. Every human can make choices when he/she has sufficient information. It's not a matter of being civilized... frankly, I don't think there's any such thing as an "uncivilized" human. That term stinks of white privilege and colonialism.
Ohhhh man you're right on. Not that OremLK is naive--not that part... but the part about women's choices? Dead on. When women lack education and social power, they can't just choose abstinence... and often, they can't choose safe sex either.
Worst of all, women are at a greater risk for contracting AIDS than are men because penetration causes tiny tears in the walls of the vagina. One man with AIDS in a patriarchal society can cause an awful lot more harm than can one woman with AIDS.
And that's part of why traditional religious notions of gender roles really piss me off. Not all religious people believe in or uphold those roles, but the pope is wayyyyy behind the times on that one. As if you can fix anything if you keep telling people that women should be subservient and impotent. Yuck.
I was thinking more along the lines of somebody who lives as a functioning member of society--respecting other people's boundaries and such. Maybe "civilized" isn't the best word for it.
Sorry for reacting so strongly, it's just that this was like the third time people misinterpreted my comments and thought I was defending the pope. ('Cause I'm not, he's an idiot.)