Thread: Abstinence, a poll

Originally Posted by tessaesque

I sat back and thought about this for a minute, but I can't think of any logical reason that would be put forth that wouldn't be somehow linked to a religious/moral aversion to sexual behavior.

If you have a few I'd be glad to give you a thoughtful answer, though.

Nope. I can't think of a single rational reason for doing so. I can think of dozens of irrational religious, ideological and pseudo-psychological reasons though. I am constantly astounded at why followers of Abrahamic religions are so super-obsessed with sex and sexuality. It's as if they believe that unless people are constantly told to procreate they'll suddenly stop doing so. I think the global population crisis is testament to the fact that they won't.

Originally Posted by Andalublue

Nope. I can't think of a single rational reason for doing so. I can think of dozens of irrational religious, ideological and pseudo-psychological reasons though. I am constantly astounded at why followers of Abrahamic religions are so super-obsessed with sex and sexuality. It's as if they believe that unless people are constantly told to procreate they'll suddenly stop doing so. I think the global population crisis is testament to the fact that they won't.

I read a book once about sexuality and the history of the Christian church. Original Christian sects apparently expected all followers to live completely aesthetic, hermit-ish lifestyles, completely separate from others. At some point, leaders realized it would be pretty damned hard for them to recruit and grow the religion this way, so they relegate such lifestyles to religious teachers only (monks, nuns, etc) and encouraged the general population to follow a different path defined by strict limitations on sexuality, marriage, and behavior.

I don't get the issue either, to be honest. Then again, I'm not at all religious.

So you're either a slut or a religious nut, according to this thread.

That's why OP was given the eye-roll in post 2.

Originally Posted by Jerry

So you're either a slut or a religious nut, according to this thread.

That's why OP was given the eye-roll in post 2.

Nope, it was given the largest eye-roll I could find because the notion is a straw man based upon actual beliefs and actual discussions.


This "law" would be right out of 1984, and no one would want it. In the meantime, if you don't have sex when you don't want kids, you don't run any risk of having kids, shocking no one.

Originally Posted by JayDubya

Nope, it was given the largest eye-roll I could find because the notion is a straw man based upon actual beliefs and actual discussions.


This "law" would be right out of 1984, and no one would want it. In the meantime, if you don't have sex when you don't want kids, you don't run any risk of having kids, shocking no one.

Your backward thinking is laughable. It's sad that people still maintain this 15th-century-outlook concerning sex. In modern times, just because someone has sex, that doesn't mean that children need to be the result.

Originally Posted by evanescence

Your backward thinking is laughable. It's sad that people still maintain this 15th-century-outlook concerning sex. In modern times, just because someone has sex, that doesn't mean that children need to be the result.

No it doesn't mean. As long as you are responsible and take the proper precautions. Killing a human life because you are irresponsible should not be a reasonable and widely available solution.

Its is awfully backwards, and laughable of course, of you to consider personal responsibility a thing of the 15th century. Although from looking around at society, I guess it was.

Originally Posted by Aberration

No it doesn't mean. As long as you are responsible and take the proper precautions. Killing a human life because you are irresponsible should not be a reasonable and widely available solution.

Its is awfully backwards, and laughable of course, of you to consider personal responsibility a thing of the 15th century. Although from looking around at society, I guess it was.

How can the government determine who is or is not "responsible"? Birth control fails, people forget...preaching about personal responsibility doesn't change anything. But a life is created, and if it isn't wanted, nothing can change that.

Originally Posted by molten_dragon

No, I wouldn't obey such a law, and I don't see how anyone would be able to enforce it.

Homeland Security needs something to do now that OBL is dead. Long live the Patriot Act.

I'd wonder how I got to Iran without a plane ticket.

Not an awful idea, but it shouldn't be a law. People are free to do what they want, even if it's going to mess up their life at an early stage. The only thing I ask is when they make the mistake, don't cater to them. They knew the consequences, now it's time to pay-up. Let's not go murdering babies left and right (well mostly left...). If you did this and they knew that once they chose there would be no do-over teen pregnancy's would plummet. The truth is that if you start telling them that everything is going to be okay, they won't learn anything because they didn't suffer the consequences they were told. I'm not saying make them starve trying to feed an infant, because that's when adoption comes into play. My mom, my uncle, my aunt, are all adopted and in their mid 40's. Another good thing about adoption: if they have good parents, they'll understand why they were put up for adoption in the first place. that makes them 50 times less likely to make the same mistake. Adoption is not a horrible thing. My mom actually used a service to find her biological parent(other one died in car crash after she was born). and we went down and spent Christmas with her family