Programmed Promiscuity

From a conspiracy perspective: it would seem that, as they did with feminism, they are trying to destroy the family to implant a new society where people don't procreate that much, and rely solely on the system rather than family values.

From a bussiness perspective: They know that sex sells, and for many years have been slowly introducing it on TV and other media so they make more money (ie. they get more rating, commercials are better paid)

reply to post by seb2882


The family is definitely under attack, especially the father as head of household. I do believe it is deliberate. The state wants to usurp the role of the father and family in the lives of citizens, imo.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Icarus Rising]

The only 'problem' in society and sex, is the hush-hush/shame factor (thanks religion!) that discourages the use of condoms.
Condoms should be distributed in all high schools for free, and there should be more public awareness ad campaigns.
We are sophisticated enough now to have sex solely for pleasure, instead of a tool for procreation. Thanks to science.

For that matter, women should legally be allowed to go topless! It is gender discrimination, plain and simple.
And no, I'm not joking.

All of the social taboos associated with sex, stem from religous indoctrination. The idiot pope tells people they may not use contraception, and may not have abortions either. Stupid.
The government tells our youth that abstinence is the best policy.Stupid.
What a naive policy... obviously it has been too many years since they were teenagers.
Teens can, will, and do have sex. The only variable that adults can have any effect on, is wether or not it will be Safe Sex or Unprotected.
Leave it to the government and the church, and I guarantee those teens will be Pregnant with STD's.

Oh, and I totally agree with what JustAMomma said about marriage. You can't legislate love and affection with a piece of paper. Marriage destroys relationships because it is merely a 'Contract of Ownership'. Love is freely given, not something that can be contained.

Peace

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Tattoo1377]

reply to post by Tattoo1377


Ah, secular humanism. Too bad most of us have to get into our 40s before we see what a failed social model it really is.

Since when did condoms protect against STD's?

Abstinence is still the only proven way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

Yes, some teens will and do have sex. It is a fact. Encouraging abstinence won't stop them all from doing it. Providing condoms will only encourage it. I hope you can see the difference.

I thank God for the teens in my church that I am blessed to lead. They choose abstinence out of a sense of responsibility to themselves and each other. They choose to overcome the world and its encouragement of promiscuity, and I applaud them for it. They understand that sex is defined by God in the context of marriage for procreation and pleasure.

Genesis 2

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I don't see an ownership clause here. You may have been deceived.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by Tattoo1377

 

Ah, secular humanism. Too bad most of us have to get into our 40s before we see what a failed social model it really is.

Since when did condoms protect against STD's?

Abstinence is still the only proven way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

Yes, some teens will and do have sex. It is a fact. Encouraging abstinence won't stop them all from doing it. Providing condoms will only encourage it. I hope you can see the difference.

I thank God for the teens in my church that I am blessed to lead. They choose abstinence out of a sense of responsibility to themselves and each other. They choose to overcome the world and its encouragement of promiscuity, and I applaud them for it. They understand that sex is defined by God in the context of marriage for procreation and pleasure.

Genesis 2

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I don't see an ownership clause here. You may have been deceived.

Well, I respect your view that secular humanism is failed, but I don't agree with it. And this is coming from someone in their late 30's

As for your rhetorical question on Condoms vs. STD's:
Since they were invented! I'm not saying they are 100% effective against transmission, but I can say with confidence (after googling the topic and checking several studies) they have a minimum of 70% effectiveness. What really affects the prevention rate is consistent use.

As to your comparison of encouragement of abstinence vs. condoms-
I can understand you wishing to protect your sunday school students' innocence, but at what cost?
Example:
You take 100 teenagers and tell them please do not have pre-marital sex, but if you do, please use these condoms.
Then..
You take 100 teenagers and tell them please do not have pre-marital sex.

Over time, which group would have a higher rate of pregnancy and/or STD's (assuming none of them married) ?
I think we can both agree on which group it would be.

Kudos for starting an interesting thread!

reply to post by Tattoo1377

Over time, which group would have a higher rate of pregnancy and/or STD's (assuming none of them married) ?

That would depend on their commitment. Telling a person to do something isn't enough. A person has to believe what they are doing is right and have a vested interest in sticking with it no matter what comes along.

I think you are still assuming they would all have sex regardless of what they were told and what they believed about sex outside of marriage. It is hard to maintain the caveat that none would marry, as well. I don't think that is a realistic condition to place on a group being asked to abstain from sex until marriage based upon Biblical principles. The deck is stacked in favor of unprotected sex outside the confines of marriage for the second group.

Kind of like the way society is structured right now based on secular humanism, don't you think?