Girls less likely to use protection = Boy still to blame

Remove all ads!

As another side note. Nakia, nature loves promiscuity we are programmed to be quite promiscuis. Spread our risks so to say.

 

Scanning through the boards the past couple of weeks, I've seen one prime example of why women need to take responsibilty when it comes to contraception.
Casual, unprotected sex can result in the catastrophic creation of someone who is of low intelligence, self-important, opinionated, vulgar and, most alarmingly, boring

 

Mordea, you have some good points. I know you don't care why people don't look at your opinion very credibly, but it is once again the conveyance.

I'm sure every parent would like to have complete trust in their children to be responsible and make the right decisions; but if they're young enough (14-15-16-17) they may not be mature enough. Some people never are. Many teenagers, especially girls, have low self-esteem. Even a mature, responsible girl/women can be guilted into sex. The only difference is that when they're adults, their fathers aren't always around to scare off the 'nasty guys.' It's pretty obvious that Chandos didn't mean every guy who ever thinks about sex is nasty. I chose not to have sex as a teenager because I did not want to risk a 0.01% chance that I could get a girl pregnant; some people take longer to respect themselves and their bodies. There's nothing wrong with that. For the same reason you would protect a three year old from licking a hot stove; they don't know any better, but eventually learn over time. (Some kids never learn not to touch hot things... luckily that number is smaller than the amount of people who never learn to respect their bodies)

Mordea, I agree with you that some women are hypocritical when it comes to their bodies. If they want an abortion, it's her baby. If they want child support, it's his baby. Not all women, but it does happen. However, you are appearing more and more sexist, Mordea. You know that I don't think women are above men, but you take it to the extreme. You are acting like the very thing you preach against. You are acting like a sexist, blaming women for everything and absolving men of nearly all guilt.

It is 100% a woman's fault if she gets pregnant because she made the choice? The guy is just a disembodied penis without a brain, incapable of making the choice to use contraception or to not have sex? You seem like a thoughtful person, very opinionated, but you think about things. Think about what you're saying. Do you really believe that men are not responsible at all for pregnancy?
By that same logic someone can easily say it is 100% the man's fault because he made the choice to put it inside of her. It's his body that he's putting inside of her; the penis isn't a divine object independent of a man's body.
If a man allows his penis to enter a woman, knowing the risk of getting her pregnant, then it is *his* fault if he gets her pregnant. Not the woman's. *He* allowed his penis to enter her body. His body, his choice.
See? Same argument you made. Unless you're saying that men don't have a choice.


On a side note, I know that you don't like Mordea, Silvery, but I don't think you need to publicly insult him on every post he makes. At least not without refuting his argument in some logical way. (He's also obviously pretty intelligent, just because he has opinions that are different than everyone else doesn't mean he's stupid! I employ the philosophy of J.S. Mill here. No opinion, true, false or in-between, should be censored. [There's a difference between opinion/action/causing of action])

 

I know hun and I have agreed with him on this one already. Everyone needs a hobby though

 

If that's what she does I can comprehend the sentiment, generally speaking. In the n-th instance of an intractable dispute that can be as fun as it gets, so why not brighten your day with at least that ray of light? After all, 'a knotty timber requires sharp wedges', so to speak ... another oblique description would be 'maximising return for investment'.

 

What he said

 

mordea, the law disagrees with you.

 

I know it was not directed at me, but on a side note: laws should not dictate opinions, methinks. They should influence deeds, yes, but not beliefs.

 

Fathers generally don't, but I find that while fathers tend to look out more for their daughters in terms of whom they date, mothers are more inclined to do so for their sons. I know that my mother was always more opinionated about whom my brothers and I dated than my father. I don't have any sisters or daughters, so I cannot comment much on the inverse situation from any direct experience. Perhaps some other board members who have teenaged and/or adult children of both sexes can add something here. (I think T2 may be the only member posting on this thread who would fit that criteria.)

Of course we know it's a real condition - tongues were firmly planted in cheeks when those comments were made. Which brings me to...

Then you need to gain some perspective. Look, if you call someone who is Vietnamese a slant-eyed gook, chances are you aren't kidding. Having your sexuality called into question and taking some barbs from male friends about not being able to hold your wad is a rite of passage during your adoloscence and young adulthood.

For example, I have been called a "fag" during my adolscent years by male friends who knew I was straight. Likewise, when I was a teen I called male friends a "fag" even though I knew they were straight. That makes neither them nor myself homophobic or discriminatory towards gays. If you cannot differentiate between crude humor employed by teens and young men with genuine insults, you must have had a very unusual childhood.

Well here, I CAN speak from experience. For me the quick recovery time lasted from my teenaged years until my early 30s. While the "down time" isn't on the scale of hours for me, the turn around time is considerably longer than the near instanteous recovery time of my younger years. I do not think I'm all that unusual in this regard. As you are still well under 30, you're probably still good. Talk to me in 10 years.

 

I see little distinction between knowing and acting on that knowledge (or, rather, not acting based on that knowledge). If you know that unprotected sex has a probability of inflicting you with a permanent, stigmatizing, painful, and incurable condition, not to mention saddling you with a child, why would you do it? I suppose having sex with a virgin is substantially less of a risk on the one front (though not the other), but still. Of course, on top of that, I was raised on an abstinance principle, so it was all really a mental exercise to begin with.

Oh, I'm not saying I liked them at all. I would much have preferred not using them. But I would much have preferred not having a kid when I had almost no income, as well. The latter preference won out by a large margin.

Always happy to help.

I feel increadibly dirty saying this, but I actually agree with Mordea on this, one, very limited point. I realize the rest of you are probably joking. Coming to the door with a shotgun is a cliche joke. In reality, though, if you can't trust your child's decisions and self-control at that point, you may want to re-think your parenting for the next child.

I realise kids feel a lot of pressure to 'fit in', and that for girls, in some crowds, that means becoming a complete **** (and I use that as a technical term), but I can't help think those girls (and boys, to boot) are some stupid dipsticks! 'Of poor moral fiber' would be the classical way to describe them. Not the kind of crowd my daughter should be hanging out with at age 18 with a black belt in 5 martial arts, much less at age 13 with no protection. And I'd make sure she had learned that by age 13, if not sooner.

Rahkir, I don't care what you say, the only people who can't learn things like that are those not smart enough to do so. Those people should be carefully lookede after, as they are not capable of looking after themselves. Everyone else has the capacity to learn. If they choose not to, it's their choice and their fault. In part, it's also the parents' fault, but ultimately parents are only responsible for their childrens' actions to a certain degree.

---------- Added 0 hours, 8 minutes and 2 seconds later... ----------

Yes, they're just adolescent jokes, and I know they aren't serious, but those jokes feed real opinions. By making those jokes, you reinforced your own low opinion of gays, even if only a little. While society may have corrected that in you, me, and many others over the years, it hasn't yet gotten there for ED. On top of that, people who do suffer from ED will be deeply hurt by that whether they know you're joking or not. I may not suffer from this, but I've been on the recieving end of other, similar jokes in the past. I don't care how you play it, it hurts. So, yes, I consider this on par to joking about someone's race. Even if you do it as a completely innocent adolescent joke, it's the same as joking about race as an adolescent.

Maybe I should put it another way. I count them about as high up as blond or pollock jokes. I'm sure we all have our favorites. I've since become thoroughly disgusted with them.

 

Why though? Why cannot you take a joke for what it is - a joke? I've had people tell me bald jokes, and I don't get offended even though I've lost a good deal of hair. Or, if you want to get into race and ethnicity, I don't get offended by Italian jokes even though I'm Italian. I won't be offended if I get called a "guido", or a "genea", or a " greasy dego", or a "whop", etc. The mere fact that I can rattle off so many off the top of my head should tell you that I've encountered them on a not-too-infrequent basis.

Context matters. It is possible to use non-derogatory language, yet, if your intent was to verbally insult the other person, it doesn't really matter is you avoided obviously offensive language. Conversely, if something is said in jest, even if it is derogatory, then the other person shouldn't be offended.

 

@mordea, yelling 'sexist' is an Ad Hominem argument and proves nothing but name calling. As I understand it you are saying that the boy or man is not responsible for his actions. Does that mean that males are governed by their hormones and the brain has no control? IE: A man sets out to seduce a woman (girl) simply because of some automatic sex-drive and he doesn't think about it, doesn't plan it with his mind?

Women are the only ones capable of thinking? mordea, you paint a bleak picture of males. Even in the boxing ring there are rules. Surgeons and doctors are held responsible for their actions and can be sued.

Women are solely responsible if they are made pregnant by this disembodied penis? I suggest to the parents of girls that we go back to the days of Chaperon es, maybe we should veil the girls so that you poor uncontrolled and irresponsible males won't be tempted so much. (yes, I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek here.) Segregation of young men and women. Marriages arranged by parents or marriage brokers.

"All generalizations are false including this one." Don't remember who said it first. Of course there are exceptions.

 

My son had unprotected sex with his girlfriend when he was 17 (her mother caught them). If I would have had the same inclinations as my parents I would have beat him within an inch of his life. I don't believe in striking my children (even as adults) but I still made it very clear that I was very disappointed in him and just how that stupid decision could have impacted his life. When you have a child it comes with responsibility, whether you wanted the child or not.

To say that "she should've protected herself so I'm not at fault" is very akin to a murderer saying "he should have been wearing body armor, I'm not responsible for the bullet after it leaves the gun." The hard core "it's her problem" stance is extremely self-centered and self-serving -- it shows a total lack of responsibility and is an open display of anti-social behavioral issues.

 

Sorry, that's a load crap. Many of his posts are intentionally demeaning and insulting to women. His threads, in which he trolls his bigoted view point, of course rattles women who are stronged willed and then when they respond, it's suddenly "insulting." I'm surprised you don't get this. It's quite obvious that you are saying that when women fight back, they really have to stand-aside because someone else thinks the offender is "intelligent" and likes to "debate," even though the topic is his dislike of women on almost every thread. His points are so feeble it's embarrassing. Here's a fine example:

And how many boxers are there boxing in the ring? That would be two. How many have the risk of brain damage? That would be two also. IN other words, BOTH know the risk. Thank you for making MY point with your fine analogy.

You do realize that you may be speaking of under-aged girls don't you? You do understand that soliciting sex from a minor is a criminal offense? It is a matter of criminal law, not just parenting.

 

I don't know about mordea, but speaking for myself, I firmly believe that boys should be held accountable for their actions, in sex as in all other things. But With that responsibility comes certain rights as well. The girl should have them, so should the boy. Once the girl becomes pregnant, IMHO the boy should be informed within a reasonable amount of time. The decision on what to do should be made by both of them, and it they are too young or stupid to cooperate with each other and find a solution that both can accept, then the law should be there to ensure that the rights of both parties are respected.

As it stands, call me sexist if you will, but the focus of society today is all about the girl's rights and the boys responsibilities. That is imbalanced in the extreme. If you want to hold boys responsible, which is logical, then it is only logical that he also have some rights too.

 

I think most everyone is in agreement with that point, but to claim that the guy bears no responsibility is just plain, well, irresponsible. Notice that the girl makes the "stupid" decision, because she is "using the guy's penis." I think someone fantasizes a bit too much.

Note: that it is under-aged, virgin girls that are getting, and I quote, "pounded" as well. And soneone has the nerve to complain that I would want to defend my family at my doorstep.....

 

Er.. no that is not what I am saying at all. I could care less if Silvery thinks he's a stupid twat. I highly enjoy it when she refutes his points and calls him out.

All I meant was that while the "You're stupid LULULUL" types of posts are funny, they're not beneficial. If she wants to keep doing it, that's fine. But imo it's no different than Mordea insulting women. It's not right for Mordea either (remember when I told him to stop taking pot shots at 8people?). I just don't think she's the type of person to descend to his level of petty insults in any more than a joking way.

Once again, I have no problem with women standing up for themselves. I don't know where you read that Chandos, but I sincerely hope that you stop thinking I hate all women and want to dehumanize them [taking from the Ashley thread]. It's really not what I'm saying at all. I said my piece to Silvery, I wasn't planning to give her any more grief and won't try to set her on fire if she keeps insulting mordea. (Once again, if she actually refutes one of his points I'm all for it.)

Edit- Clarification; her gender has nothing to do with it. I would have told you it was unnecessary as well, if you were doing it, Chandos.

 

No, but I may have missed that.

Ok, I can agree with that.

I will quote you:

Sounds like you are making excuses. Using garphic, sexual explicit comments regarding uinder-aged girls, is at best offensive, especially to those of us who have young girls. The study that he posted is regarding girls who are having sex for the first time. These young girls are inexperienced in such matters, as the guys themselves are, at least those in the hyothetical, and that has been pointed out by some of us already. Yet, we are "treated to such sexually explicit language reagarding young girls in this manner:

Here's my point: He knows full well that these are NOT adults he is speaking of, and he is speaking of girls that are under the age of consent, and still living at home and having sex for the first time. You take it for what it's worth.

Once they become adults and they move away from home, yes, they are making decisions on their own, like any other adult. Then yes, we can have an argument regarding "decision making" and just how responsible two consenting adults are in behaving and where their responsiblity begins and ends. Why do I have to explain all this to you, I don't know. It just seems odd that some of you don't get that the study was about those girls who are having sex for the first time and are still quite young.

 

I will agree that he is socially inept and crude, but that doesn't really impact his intelligence. Unless you use intelligence to broadly define every sort of knowledge; social intelligence, political intelligence, menial intelligence etc. I simply meant his cognitive intelligence is apparent by his apt use of grammar, sentence structure and out-side of the box thinking.

I will extrapolate on my previous statement about J.S. Mill:
No belief should be censored because of the innate values of all beliefs.
A completely true belief should not be censored by the simple virtue of being true; censor it and you lose the truth. A belief that contains any shred of truth should not be censored for the same reason. A completely false belief should not be censored because the only way people can truly understand and appreciate their beliefs is by being exposed and arguing with multiple opposing or different view points.
This hinges, of course, on the idea that there is a universal truth to certain things. I agree with his assessment of false beliefs however, and for this reason I see no point to getting mad or giving in to Mordea's taunting, insulting commentary. (I've stated before that I don't approve of the way Mordea contextualizes his thoughts, but I'm not going to hassle him about it. ) Even if I completely disagree with Mordea and think his opinion is an atrocity against humanity, I can still draw something useful from him and possibly reinforce my own point of view.
The point of what I said was that simply because Mordea has different views than the majority of people, that doesn't make him stupid.