and BTW Spore I wasn't necessarily suggesting that NFP was ineffective, but having someone with 13 kids tell you that it is doesn't exactly instill confidence. Even if they were all planned.

Whereas "not farking" is responsible for exactly 0% of all pregnancies and STD's in the world! So farking defeatist. But I guess it's much easier for a parent not to give enough of a damn to raise their kid to save sex until marriage, than to take the time and effort to instill those values in your child.

Yeah, you go girl. Where was dem baby's parents all dese years?

But baby, I could die from blue balls.

cool, this comes from my school.

"Whereas "not farking" is responsible for exactly 0% of all pregnancies and STD's in the world!"

Well, there was the story about that chick from somewhere round Bethlehem, you know the one I mean...

Revise figure to 0.0000000001 %

2003-07-08 02:26:27 PM We'refourofthethreemusketeers


Spore:
And Catholics do not take Genesis literally.

Just like nobody takes the Catholics literally.

/i have no idea what that means

From my experience, most Catholics don't even take Catholicism literally (I'm engaged to one).
We're sitting through the NFP classes right now. It's pretty complicated, and I think the results are fairly good for a lot of people. However, I will certainly not rely on it until we are fully comfortable with the idea of having a kid. I wouldn't be too excited about a "mistake" in this department. Anyway, all their anti-birth control propaganda is quite amusing (it can kill people who take it, it objectifies the woman, it keeps the couple from being as close as they should, etc.). And I don't know a single Catholic my age that buys any of it.
All I know is that if you keep it wrapped up and she uses the pill, your chances are pretty good. No matter what the Pope says.

Jive_Turkey: I have and I found it to be...goopy. Maybe they've changed the formula since then, but at the time it was like screwing a cream-puff.

Mwahahahhaha. I hope that sticks in everyone's mind for a while.

Why are men such babies about using condoms? If you don't want a baby why not just wear one instead of doing all that compicated crap like taking temperatures and marking a calendar. Yes, condoms are not 100% but niether are pills, NFP, diaphrams, or anything else.

THAT'S WHY YOU DOUBLE UP. Condoms + another method of birth control = no disease and no babies. It's not that hard. I have so many friends who were in monogomous reLationships and "accidentally" got pregnant. I ask them if they suddenly got amnesia and forgot how babies are made. If you pay attention it's very easy.

And ladies, do not take any crap. Just say no condom, no sex, no matter what. We always have the final say. Period.

Cream puff?
I'd hit it.

'This time, we chose to do something unprecedented. We actually studied women.'

Does anyone else find that odd?

HISSBH:
you gotta be kidding me.

Feetza
I'd take you up on that offer, but I had the ol' vasectomy done last year. Now thats effective! w00t!
I envy you that (I don't think Freud had a term for that kind of envy), but I still plan on having another kid or two, so I need the seed. *Still* not 100% effective, believe it or not (I'm sure the doc told you that), but certainly better than the Pill or NFP.

WTF!
They finally did a study on the body organ that is responsible for the generation of the eggs, and they found some interesting results. So prior to this was just like the 3 blind men trying to describe a elephant? Religious dogma is once again uncovered as a cruel joke on the unsuspecting sheep.

Umm why can't the teens jsut keep their damm pants own?

I assume you mean "keep their damn pants on" and the answer is: Because they never have and they never will.

Preaching abstinance has never worked and will never worked. Call me defeatist if you want to, but I've got all of recorded history on my side here. If we know it never works, how about teaching kids how to do it right rather than pretending that they won't do it.

loki see loki do:

Why would I be kidding? Is it the condoms you object to or a woman require their use?

require=requiring

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax
So farking defeatist. But I guess it's much easier for a parent not to give enough of a damn to raise their kid to save sex until marriage, than to take the time and effort to instill those values in your child.

It's amazing when people presume to know what set of values all people should have.

You truly believe that all people should save sex until marriage? Why does this make sense to you?

Speaking as an ex-catholic..
Back when I first got engaged to a CofE/Episcopalian, My mother started acting like it was the end of the world and all our kids would be bastards in the eyes of the lord and go to hell, etc etc.

I went to visit her Catholic priest who said he would do the ceremony, but on condition my bride-to-be took some course in marriage (given by him, of course) and it would all be ok in the eyes of the church. Of course, she'd get the whole anti-birth-control propaganda, and have to sign a sworn statement she'd have any kids brought up Catholic!

I was struck by the utter stupidity of the whole thing, some celibate, octagenarian MAN giving marriage advice to a young couple. It's like a gardener giving advice on brain surgery! I said "no way" to that crap.

I would then have been happy getting married by a J-P, but my bride-to-be didn't want to upset HER parents, so we went to see her mother's CofE minister. He said he'd perform the ceremony "no problem, no strings attached". He even allowed my mother's priest to say some of his "mumbo-jumbo" at my wedding. A cool guy indeed!

Of course my mother was upset. But, she got over it eventually. Blood is indeed thicker than water.

The moral of the story: Don't let your parents butt-in in these matters. In most cases, they WILL get over it (unless they are really brainwashed fundies, then you best bet is to keep them at arms length anyway!)

Turns out she was right....

Actually, Myrna, some do and some don't. "They never have blah blah blah" is one rather unsettling portion of the story. Another is that kids are more inclined to do what they see and what they are taught. I have at least 10 good friends in their 20's who waited for/are still waiting for marriage. A great deal of the drive to make that commitment is how they were raised. If you're going to tell me that there is no way to impress on teens the importance of abstaining (until marriage, or until you're 'ready,' until you're prepared to deal with pregnancy) or at least until you're not a goddamn teenager, whenever), then I will call you a defeatist, because that's what you are being in those posts.

Abstience "education" is the cause of a lot of our country's problems, including the spread of STDs and teenage mothers.

Doublethink much?

Meanwhile, prescriptions for the birth control pill are still not covered by some HMOs (if they are, it's for a select few, read cheap, kinds), while viagra is covered and prescribed like candy (so i've heard). They've researched male impotence to death, yet they're just now getting around to actually observing ovaries to learn how ovulation really works, instead of more indirect methods.

/very, very, very bitter

You truly believe that all people should save sex until marriage? Why does this make sense to you?

That's not what I said. I just don't like the idea that if you want to instill a particular set of values, you might as well go screw yourself sideways because there's no damn way to get damn kids to do anything except what damn kids are gonna damn well do. To me, that's a scary, scary way to look at the world.

Teaching any values, and getting them to stick, is hard work, and takes guts. But to say it can't be done is needlessly pessimistic, or maybe just lazy.

FLAME ON!!

Encare works great. It's cheap, but it can get a little messy if you know what I mean. My girlfriend brought that home from the pharmacy and I was the happiest man alive.

Dang, I just spent $50 on a new metronome, too.

Call me defeatist if you want to, but I've got all of recorded history on my side here.

Well, lets see:

The modern era brought us a new style of sex ed, that says "abstinence is the only sure way, but there are less sure ways like condoms pills etc et al"

The old-school way was taught by parents who said keep your legs closed.

Teen pregnancy and STDs are on the rise... this means something has changed. Seems like the historical method worked better, and in fact history isn't on your side at all.

Oh wait... that's right. We're no longer a society that believes in personal responsibility, we can't be expected to keep our little sailors in the sub.

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax
I just don't like the idea that if you want to instill a particular set of values, you might as well go screw yourself sideways because there's no damn way to get damn kids to do anything except what damn kids are gonna damn well do. To me, that's a scary, scary way to look at the world.

Might be scary, but it's pretty much the way it is. Values are incredibly important in a child's development, but just because they have good values doesn't mean they aren't going to make the wrong choice at some point. To believe otherwise is simplistic and naive.

Teaching any values, and getting them to stick, is hard work, and takes guts. But to say it can't be done is needlessly pessimistic, or maybe just lazy.

I believe the original point was that you can try as hard as you want, but you'll never get every kid to wait for marriage. You can either choose to accept and deal with the reality or continue to carry on about how you think things should be.

Nah, just being called a baby because we don't especially like them. Ther eare plenty of euphemisms for the effect, but lets just suffice to say that it ain't the same with.

Plus, its kind of a hassle at a time when you want nothing like a hassle (not every girl is an accomplished condom donner - I've known exeptions, especially during my reaquaintance with dating around thiong of several years ago) but once in a long term monogamous gig, I gotta say nay.

I'm just old, I guess.

Myrna, I was using 2 forms of b/c when I conceived my oldest son. Plus, I was told by my doctor that if I wanted children, I would have to have some medical help -- I didn't believe him, and we were using 2 forms of b/c.

I went into the docs for bronchitis, came out with a positive pregnancy test. They had to test me before they gave me the meds for the bronchitis.

Adman12

If you are caiming that teens do not have the ability t osay no to sex/ have the will power to abstain untill the yare ready (note that by ready I mean ready to be a parent, not marraige) Then I say they also don't have the will power to have sex for the right reasons/ not use people/ stay safe. Teen pregnancy is not the fault of adstinace education (the rates where going up when teens where taught safe sex) its teh faults of lazy parents not holding kids responsable for their actions from an early age.

Hell I have no problem with kids haveing sex if they are ready to be parents, I jsut don't think any of them are ready

GIS for creampuff:

I'm just a firm believer that everyone is responsible for birth control. Women and men should always carry condoms. I do my part by taking the pill. My boyfriend does his part by using condoms. We both cover our respective asses.

HISSBH:

Good Jorb!

lookanematode
That proves HMOs amd health insurance plans are controlled by rich old men.

I only see things as getting worse. As governments try to cut spending to give all the dumya types their tax cuts and the insurance companies try to make up for the billions they supposedly lost in investments following 9/11, more and more health-care services will be "delisted" and insurance premiums will become WAY too expensive.

You'll soon see the old "self-inflicted wound" arguments from the insurance providers such as "well, that cancer is self-induced because the person CHOSE to work in a chemical factory, so we won't cover the medical bills." used more and more.

Unfortunately, Canada is heading down that path right now too, so moving their would be a temporary reprieve.

Solution? Save, save, save!

loki see loki do:

nice creampuff!

I prefer the condom method myself. One scare was good enough for me. Don't need any kids right now.

And Myrna, the only sure-fire way to not become pregnant IS to not have sex. I'm not a religious person (at all!) but I am ALL FOR personal responsibility.

Keeping ones privates in his/her underwear (even dirty underwear in Norway) is the best way to keep from getting pregnant. Teaching kids responsibility isn't evil.

Have you ever tried screwing with a condom when you're drunk? It's like trying to jam a half filled balloon through a sheet of plywood.

Other than that, they're all we have. Seems like the last three girls I've had a monogomous relationship with didn't like the pill, and after a while condoms just get old. Maybe I'll have to try the Encare again...

just because they have good values doesn't mean they aren't going to make the wrong choice at some point. To believe otherwise is simplistic and naive.


To hope for and foster an atmosphere of expectation for otherwise, however, is not simplistic, but rather idealistic. Unfortunately the latter is often labeled as the former.

Anyway, my main objection was to the ludicrous assertion that abstinance "education" (quotes not mine) is responsible for pregnancy and the spread of STD's. I just can't stand it when people get as offended at preaching abstinance as a Catholic would at preaching birth control. That takes the prejudice-pendulum a swing too far to the other side.

I do believe that abstinance should be presented as the ideal, even while educating kids about birth control. The government might have a hard time making the case for both at the same time without appearing to water down one message or the other. But a parent should be able to do both.

Just date post-menopausal women!

Day_Old_Dutchie:

Another great tale of HMOs. I decided that I wanted to stop smoking, so I visited my doctor to get Welbutrin (the stop smoking one has a different name, but same exact stuff). Doctor said it wasn't covered under my HMO. I ended up getting the stuff for free through people I know in the medical field.

Moral of the story? The HMOs would rather wait until I get cancer (that they will cover, smoking or no smoking) rather than do preventive (sp?) care. It would be cheaper to take care of the problem up front than later, but I guess in some warped way, they don't see it as cost effective.

loki see loki do: "Just date post-menopausal women!"

Well, geriatric sex seems to be the in thing. I'll have to start masturbating with a baseball glove to get some practice in.