What did I just get done saying about jumping to conclusions?
Yeesh.
NO.
More this:
"Do you think you could support a family right now? Lose all your free time, and instead invest it for the child you are risking the making of? No? Then you shouldn't be having sex."
I promote a position of being responsible, and making rational, and informed choices.
NOT a position for everyone to be purpetual virgins.
Not a position based on promoting ignorance.
NOT a position based on some perverse idea that people don't have sex for a variety of reasons completely unrelated to procreation.
And NOT a position based on whatever perverse strawman you can whip together.
I have no problem with sex for pleasure, when it is between adults who know what they are doing, and are in a position to hande the consequences of a failure of birth control.
Frankly, I have just about had it with people trying to lump me in with fundies. Ok?
Here is *exactly* what I advocate, once more, so you know for sure exactly what that is, so you won't jump to any more conclusions that I then have to refute over 3 pages of thread. Ok?
It is in the child's best interest to not have a baby, and have their bodies screwed up by beng pregnant at a young age.
It is in the child's best interest not to have a child support payment at the age of 16.
It is in the child's best interest that you tell them the whole truth, and not treat them like they are 5 years old. It is likewise important to instill in one's children the tools they need to make rational choices, and that the reason you are telling them to say no, is not because you hate them, or because you want sex all to yourself and want to deny them forever. Instead, you sit down, and tell them in no uncertain terms that until they are ready to deal with the possible consequences of an action, any action-- incuding sex, they should avoid doing that action, and that this is for THEIR interest, not yours.
Because you are being painfully and truthfully honest, you tell your kids everything there is to know about sex, about birth control, and the risks involved with getting abortions. Until the benefits outweigh the risks, it simply isn't smart to do that thing. WE DO NOT WITHOLD KNOWLEDGE FROM OUR KIDS. We approach our kids from the standpoint that they will be responsible adults. Not that they will stay 5 years old and innocent forever.
If the kid is gay, ask if they are ready to be in a relationship. If they assert that they don't want a relationship, just the sex, and are gay, then ask if they are prepared to deal with possible stds from having an active sex life, and what preparations they have made. We don't ask these questions because of what is best for us. We ask because of what is best for them.
And yes. We do let them go when they are making mature decisions.
Even with all this, some kids aren't very smart, and only learn by being burned. This will always be the case, no matter how detailed and intricate your information you present to them is. We don't make this effort for these kids; they will do what they want to do no matter what. We do this for the kids that will listen, understand, and make better, more informed choices.
Asserting that all kids will belong to this latter group is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If all kids refused to listen, there would be no advantage to providing the information at all. You can't hold this view, and rationally expect sex ed to be effective.
We shouldn't give kids a permissive message like "You don't have to say yes." We should give them a message more rooted in reality: "If you aren't able to support kids, or can't accept that being sexually promiscuous can make you sick for life, and fully understand the costs and risks, then you should always say no."
Again, we don't do this because sex out of wedlock makes baby jesus cry.
We don't do it because we have some perverse view that sex is only for making babies.
We do it because having sex can ruin their lives.
Author
Topic: Things that made you RRRRRRAAAAGGGGEEEE today: Trust-o-nomics Edition (Read 3693713 times)