Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 10:11 AM CDT

Several years ago the so-called abstinence movement had this big protest in Washington, DC. Afterwards, most of the folks who had attended the rally went into tourist mode around D.C. I happened to be riding on Metro at that time with an ex-girlfriend, who took one look at the behavior of the teen abstinence girls on the train and remarked that abstinence would be a quickly passing phase for that bunch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 11:34 AM CDT

I would agree with them that 14 year olds are too young to have sex- but not orgasms! Wouldn\'t it be funny to infilterate one of these groups and promote masturbation? After all, the safest sex is sex with yourself. It\'s a great plan.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 01:07 PM CDT

What were they doing that made her say that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 02:01 PM CDT

LOL. Good plan, I\'m all for it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 02:54 PM CDT

I want a pair of those \"Keep It\" underwear, those things sound hot.

Pro-masturbation campaign = awesome.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 03:15 PM CDT

how do you have safe sex?


go fuck yourself

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 04:12 PM CDT

I\'m nearly 40, disabled. Never married. I;ll be damned if a bunch of brainwashed teenaged girls are going to tell me to to wait for something that may never happen in my lifetime! I rather would have sex once, enjoy the pleasure of someone loving my body in that way ONCE than never ever at all in my life.

Sex is also a natural way to increase endophins, as scientists found, which boost immune system. Bet there\'s be less disease with more health, happy people. Stress also reduces immune system. Abstinance is NOT healthy!

Have sex. Wear a rubber, be careful who you\'re with.

And marriage isn\'t what will prevent disease... cheating spouses can also give disease from spouses.

Gov. want to brainwash them to \'wait for marriage\' because they make money off of marriage licenses and divorces. if nobody married and just went on to raise a child and family when they themselves and their bodies felt ready, they would be happy, their kids happy, and the gov. bankrupt!

Old argument that really pisses me off... I will teach kids - HAVE ALL THE DAMN SEX YOU WANT! -- responsibly -- with the right safegaurds in place... intercourse, whatever you like. just be CAREFUL.

Don\'t say NO to sex.. say KNOW!
And they should BAN MARRIAGE... I don\'t need to PAY the damn government for a LICENSE to have a PERSONAL PRIVATE INTIMATE relationship with another human being that is NONE OF ANYONE\'S DAMN BUSINESS anyway!

Sex is not just for marriage-- it\'s for when your body is ready and needs it. Starve your body and you get ill. Feed it poison and you die. Be careful what and when you feed it, but DO FEED IT!

Marriage also causes people to become jelous, angry, distrusting (not just the married couple, but those still lookign) and frustrated that there\'s nothing else out there. Married couples are selfish and arrogant - they think they have some right or something someone else can\'t or aren\'t supposed to have, and own each other (or the man owns the woman since she had to tak on HIS last name), marriage violates human rights, and makes the couple love only each other and not everyone else equally. And breeds jelousy and discontent. Causes anger and frustration. Wearing a wedding ring only touts that they think they are more important than those who don\'t have or aren\'t \"allowed\" to have sex.

Sex is exploited in this way to control otehrs, as is other basic human needs - lodging/housing, food, medical care - even water (pay the water bill for your home or it\'s included in the price of your rent), disposal, anything necessary for life is regulated by government and religion via shame and punishment.

Capitalism has to go, and organized religion along with it. Or we\'ll have single people killing spouses so they can get some sex... wait... we already have that.

Oh what a loving world we live in... NOT. :(

For those who disagree with me... FU!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 04:18 PM CDT

BTW, I agree you should be careful who you\'re with, but not wait until you marry. Some relationships you get into the other person may not believe in marriage or not feel they can marry (www.unmarried.org). They are treading on a person\'s right to their own beliefs.

It\'s not worth the wait, folks. Wiating is what is making me unhappy... not being able to find and knowing I have to find a LIVELONG partner and marry first, and still can\'t.

If someone likes me enough even temporarily to give me the love/affection/intercourse, orgasms, etc. and sex I feel I need and I enjoy it, it\'s NONE OF ANYONE\'S DAMN BUSINES>

someone should get in there and tell them to keep their asses out of our bedrooms.

They aren\'t donig this for teens, if you read the paper above... they are telling even ADULTS this.

I\'m not waiting any longer. I might die tomorrow unhappy and unfilfilled. I can\'t take that chance. If I enjoy bieng with someone intimately, i won\'t let them shame me out of that pleasure which I might never otherwise have in my life.

You only life once... don\'t wait for something that may never happen just to enjoy an opportunity (and do it SAFELY) right NOW. You might not be around tomorrow to enjoy it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 04:18 PM CDT

While dads are awesome things and I love my Dad, I think the whole \"more likely to become single mothers\" as the worst thing on earth is laughable. Most of the single mothers I meet are *so* happy to rid of the men who wanted to play Daddy, while not contributing anything to the household. Many of them are happier to be rid of those men. In the \"A Women\'s History\" book, the author talks about conflicting evidence to the whole \"hunter-gatherer\" mindset, indicating that its very possible that the men and women often lived in separate camps, while the women provided the vast majority of the daily sustinance through gathering and childrearing.

I don\'t entirely disagree with these abstinence-minded folks arguements about waiting longer. I\'ve seen a lot of young women emotionally damaged by fucked-up early relationships, not to mention the STDs. It\'s just that their monogamous, hetero-biased \"solution\" (marraige) can be just as messed up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 04:38 PM CDT

wait longer? If a child needed sexual releif at say, 12, they should be allowed to have an orgasm brought on by another person (close friend, etc.) maybe not even due to intercourse, but safely.

People aren\'t fucked up by relationships. They are fucked up by what OTEHRS SAY aobut the relationship they been in. I\'ve seen many who had a lot of bad relationships where the woman was always used for having sex when the man was drunk. I know several women like that and they are not \"fucked up\" - quite the opposite... they are stronger, wiser, and KNOW what to look for and WHAT THEY WANT AND DON\'T WANT... they had experience! The more experience you have, the stronger you are.

If not waiting for sex fucks people up, I have seen the opposite... waiting for sex causes more frustration and rapists than not.

Pile of bonk. And I agree with you monogomy is bullshit too -- humans are not naturally monogomous (at least, not MOST humans.. even in biblical times kings had many sex partners they kept in their casels - harems!)

If you\'re ready - your body needs releif and affection - you should be allowed that.. no matter what age! SCIENTIFIC studies even showed infants stimulated to orgasm even did better emotionally and healthwise than those that haven\'t been.

No wonder were\' in a deseased fucked up angry world...

lack of love and affection, and relief from that tention from not getting what you need WHEN you needed it.

I\'m outta here. This is all busllshit waiting and for marriage or \"logner\". I hope they don\'t come around me with that shit... they\'ll be in for an earful for sure... maybe I should pass out pamphlets to tout NOT waiting for marriage or \"longer\". If I can get someone to type them right for me. (hands hurt, can\'t type good)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 04:49 PM CDT

One more...

\"Stories of deception persist. Many online daters turn out to be married, and it is taken for granted that everybody lies a little. But they are more often trumped by a pervasive dissatisfaction with singles bars, dates set up by friends and other accepted ways of meeting prospective mates.\"

From:
NY Times

Ya... wait for marriage... and seeing as even HEALTHY people have a very hard time to find people to marry.. and then you see even MARRIED people look for dates/get some from others... that\'s going to stop the spread of disease and increase loyalty how?

These \"virgins\" are brainwashed, unimformed idiots!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 04:51 PM CDT

i bet at least one of them got laid in Vegas.. probably many

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 04:55 PM CDT

One more thing...

NY Times

\"Stories of deception persist. Many online daters turn out to be married, and it is taken for granted that everybody lies a little. But they are more often trumped by a pervasive dissatisfaction with singles bars, dates set up by friends and other accepted ways of meeting prospective mates.\"

So wait for marriage for what reason? Even married people go cheat and can bring home a disease. Marriage means NOTHING as for gaurantee of loyalty or safety of sexual health!

And... waiting for marriage is also not a good idea in another reason...

\"We\'re at a time of life where nothing\'s structured where you can mingle,\" said Judith Carrington, a public relations executive who lists herself on Match.com as in her late-50\'s. \"And as you get older it\'s hard to find a deep bond with people because you\'ve had rich lives and you haven\'t lived them together.\"

And she\'s in her 50s!

There are many MORE IMPORTANT reasons NOT to wait... and they shouldn\'t be telling ANYONE - child or adult this. It breeds shame, frustration and discontent and unhappiness feeling you should be ashamed if you wait for marriage.

\"You\'re worth the wait\" they say? Is your happiness worth the wait? CAN you wait for happiness? YOu could die tomorrow and still not be happy. Happiness can\'t wait. You have a right to be happy NOW... not having someone make you feel ahsamed for waiting for something you might not be able to find.

stupid people. :(

Like I say now I am really OUT OF HERE!

(this pisses me off...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 09:39 PM CDT

Before everyone gets all in a tizzy over this shit, take a look at this link... maybe it might give some \"abstinence only\" supporters some food for thought (if that is, their minds aren\'t already shut tight)

http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secJ6.html

I support this stance in the link above. It is a good way to teach children to THINK. Something that is very much missing in society now days. With the power of free thought, one can\'t be converted or brainwashed. Therefore things like the virgin campaign will have no effect whatsoever on them.

Don\'t teach kids (or anyone for that matter) to \"say no\" or even to \"abstain\". Better yet - teach them freedom - especially of thought - and let THEM make the choice that they feel is right for themselves. And respect that right (even if you\'re a parent and disagree with their decision - allow them to practice their beliefs). Respect their bedroom and privacy and they\'ll naturally feel they can respect yours as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 08:41 PM CDT

this shouldnt be under weird imo, more like fascism

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 09:14 PM CDT

I\'ll agree that this won\'t solve many problems or work for everyone, but some of the responses here seem just as narrow-minded as the original group.

Different people have different sexual needs and ought to know what their partner(s) need as well. I mean, I have intimacy problems and I don\'t want to have sex with someone I\'m not completely comfortable with in everything else, a close friend and closer. Given this, a monagamous relationship (at least on my part) hardly seems the sort of horror some posters imply.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 09:25 PM CDT

And you should be allowed to do that, but brainwashing children and teenagers is no good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 09:27 PM CDT

I agree with Mike. I think monogamy is an okay idea, if it is really chosen because the individual thinks that is what makes the most sense for him or her, and not imposed as a rule by others or by society as a whole.

That said, I think making a \"federal case\" about it and advocating it for (and wishing they could force it on) people they know nothing about is nuts. If it were for everyone, it wouldn\'t be so hard to get poeple to live by, right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 09:31 PM CDT

I need a spell checker on this thing...ugh!
Somehow, in my mind, after reading Mike\'s post, I shifted the whole point from abstinence to monogamy. I wouldn\'t recommend abstinence to anyone, but to each his own.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 01:11 AM CDT

Take the
Technical Virgin Pledge!

Circuit

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 01:19 AM CDT

http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 12:23 PM CDT

We\'re celibate until the revolution, dammit!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 03:59 PM CDT

Yeah, but are the children happier that they don\'t have a father around? How about a male role model? Children learn about being men and women from who teaches and guides them when they are young. It\'s very important to have both men and women be part of children\'s lives.

A question that needs to be asked is why do women become involved with men who wouldn\'t or don\'t beocme good fathers?

[ Reply to This | # ]