# american prudery



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

this is lol funny.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... sage_x.htm


----------



## itsmemaggi (Sep 26, 2005)

Hm. I agree with that article. But I'm weird. :stu 

xoxo
Maggi


----------



## KimberlyK (Nov 11, 2004)

I don't think I am a prude for wanting to prevent STDs, aborted babies, and unwanted children.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

YES! :boogie :boogie :boogie - fewer Maury show out-of-control teens!

And get this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


> Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs
> 
> The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.


I'm 31 and in the 10% - :boogie :boogie :boogie
Looks like I don't need it! :lol


----------



## Lonelyguy (Nov 8, 2003)

> The National Center for Health Statistics says *well over* 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.


Well over 90% means less than 10% of adults in that age range are still virgins. It would be interesting to view the statistics of this group to see how many of them are celibate by choice.


----------



## Drella (Dec 4, 2004)

But what if you never want to get married? I guess I'm just a hussy. I better open up a brothel now while the sinning runs rampant :b ! It seems that I would be one rich madame. I mean.. I'm all for waiting until one finds someone he/she wants to spend, um, a significant amount of time with. I won't say "the rest of his/her life," because most marriages end in divorce. Abstinence is good, but I really don't see why the government should be promoting it to people in that age group unless they are also expending the same amount (or more) funding towards disease prevention. We already know that "abstinence only" sex education doesn't work with teens, so perhaps they should be focused more on informing all age groups about STD's, protection, doctor check-ups, and such. There are people in all age groups who are still misinformed on these issues.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I'm just glad they said 90% and not 99.9% - I would have gotten _really_ depressed. :?


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

:hug


----------



## BMSMA1A2B3 (Apr 7, 2006)

millenniumman75 said:


> YES! :boogie :boogie :boogie - fewer Maury show out-of-control teens!


Maury, I am out of control. Yeah, I use drugs. I can do what I waunt, ******! Yeah, I have sex, and I don't use protection! It's my hot body; I'll do what I waunt! I don't go to school and I kill people! What-evah! I'll do what I waunt! - Cartman from South Park


----------



## instil (Aug 19, 2005)

> Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.


How ridiculous is our government?! Can we possibly waste any more money on these crazy programs/ anti-whatever campaigns?

Anyway, not like im paying for it...........oh...........wait.......... :cry


----------



## odun (Nov 9, 2003)

so you people actually want the government to spend tax dollars to convince us twenty-somethings of the evils of sex?

how silly!

what business is it of the police state what adults do?

yes i certainly support monogamy and all of that.

but in the end, sex is healthier than anhedonia!


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

Phhhhhhhhht


----------



## instil (Aug 19, 2005)

BeNice said:


> Phhhhhhhhht


Exactly


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

odun said:


> so you people actually want the government to spend tax dollars to convince us twenty-somethings of the evils of sex?
> 
> how silly!
> 
> ...


seriously. this is such an idiotic idea my brain refuses to respond. i'll copy Benice: Phhhhhhhhht


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

Marriage is overrated. There's nothing wrong with having sex/children outside of marriage.


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

Drella's_Rock_Follies said:


> But what if you never want to get married? I guess I'm just a hussy. I better open up a brothel now while the sinning runs rampant :b ! It seems that I would be one rich madame. I mean.. I'm all for waiting until one finds someone he/she wants to spend, um, a significant amount of time with. I won't say "the rest of his/her life," because most marriages end in divorce. Abstinence is good, but I really don't see why the government should be promoting it to people in that age group unless they are also expending the same amount (or more) funding towards disease prevention. We already know that "abstinence only" sex education doesn't work with teens, so perhaps they should be focused more on informing all age groups about STD's, protection, doctor check-ups, and such. There are people in all age groups who are still misinformed on these issues.


Agreed, I'd rather see the money go to teaching techniques of safe sex.


----------



## archaic (Jan 16, 2006)

Someone on Feministing suggested making this a campaign issue as a way to mobilize the targeted demographic to vote. It'd definitely get my apathetic friends to register!


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Drella's_Rock_Follies said:


> But what if you never want to get married? I guess I'm just a hussy. I better open up a brothel now while the sinning runs rampant :b ! It seems that I would be one rich madame. I mean.. I'm all for waiting until one finds someone he/she wants to spend, um, a significant amount of time with. I won't say "the rest of his/her life," because most marriages end in divorce. Abstinence is good, but I really don't see why the government should be promoting it to people in that age group unless they are also expending the same amount (or more) funding towards disease prevention. We already know that "abstinence only" sex education doesn't work with teens, so perhaps they should be focused more on informing all age groups about STD's, protection, doctor check-ups, and such. There are people in all age groups who are still misinformed on these issues.


Divorce is high because we've accepted it as a society and are entirely too selfish. People are really pathetic in the regard.

If I could have one fantasy come true it would be one women that I could trust and spend the rest of my life with. The way I see it is divorce and having a new partner every 2-4 years is an accomplishment that most in society have. Being with one person until they die is rare and in turn way more valuable in my opinion.

Your also playing with words. Abstinence works if it is practiced; however no one has enough self control for abstinence to be worth the work. Why wait for marriage when you know it is going to end for most with in a few years? Bottomline the majority of society doesn't want marriage. If they say they do then what they are really saying is it would be nice but the sacrifices are just too difficult.


----------



## Ventress (Jul 30, 2006)

Inturmal said:


> Marriage is overrated. There's nothing wrong with having sex/children outside of marriage.


So, now we're just amoral animals? Just because marriages are failing these days doesn't mean we should just forget about it. Marriage has worked for humans for thousands of years. If it suddenly stops working, then the problem is with US, not marriage itself...


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Ventress said:


> Inturmal said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is overrated. There's nothing wrong with having sex/children outside of marriage.
> ...


I totally agree. We make excuses for our failing society. Why can't we just say it like it is? Anyone that believes divorce is an option shouldn't get married and those that are selfish and exploitive shouldn't get married. As soon as you believe divorce is an option and an escape you aren't going to put every ounce of energy into the relationship. At the sametime though you shouldn't take advantage of the idea that divorce isn't and option and abuse the other person making their life hellish.


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

Ventress said:


> Inturmal said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is overrated. There's nothing wrong with having sex/children outside of marriage.
> ...


I don't see what morality has to do with it. 
There's absolutely nothing wrong with two non-married people:
- having consentual sex. 
- living together.
- having babies together.

And there's nothing wrong with a single female wanting to have a baby by herself.
Also, it quite possible to be in a committed relationship, without having a ceremony in a church or a courthouse.
"Marriage" is just a piece of paper handed out by the government, giving recognition for a certain type of relationship.


----------



## Ventress (Jul 30, 2006)

Inturmal said:


> Ventress said:
> 
> 
> > Inturmal said:
> ...


Well, we just SEE this issue two different ways. But, you can't deny that marriage has its benefits over just living together. Those are numerous, so I won't bother to mention them. I mean, maybe you should do some research and discover why every culture in this world has marriage as a vital part of its social system and has had it for millennia. Why has it been around for so long? Why only _now_ is marriage something our culture is rejecting? You may discover something about it that really is useful and valid, afterall...


----------



## whiteclouds (Mar 18, 2004)

scairy said:


> We make excuses for our failing society. Why can't we just say it like it is? Anyone that believes divorce is an option shouldn't get married and those that are selfish and exploitive shouldn't get married. As soon as you believe divorce is an option and an escape you aren't going to put every ounce of energy into the relationship. At the sametime though you shouldn't take advantage of the idea that divorce isn't and option and abuse the other person making their life hellish.


I agree big time. I also think society gives us the wrong ideas about love and marriage in the first place, which heavily contributes to the high divorce rate. We're led to believe that love should be easy, and if it isn't the easiest thing in the world, then it cannot possibly be "true love". These are impossible standards, because every relationship goes through tough times at some point. Not just marriages, but every long-term relationship, whether it's parent, child, brother, sister, friend, etc.


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

Ventress said:


> Inturmal said:
> 
> 
> > Ventress said:
> ...


Might you actually let us know what these benefits are?


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

scairy said:


> Ventress said:
> 
> 
> > Inturmal said:
> ...


how's that supposed to work?


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

Ventress said:


> But, you can't deny that marriage has its benefits over just living together.


The only benefits I can think of are tax breaks and certain legal powers, which are given by the government.

Without government, marriage doesn't mean much. There's plenty of non-married couples out there that are more committed to each other than married couples are.


----------



## Roberto (Aug 16, 2004)

Inturmal said:


> The only benefits I can think of are tax breaks and certain legal powers, which are given by the government.
> 
> Without government, marriage doesn't mean much. There's plenty of non-married couples out there that are more committed to each other than married couples are.


It may appear that way until they bring a child into the world that either party may not want to commit themselves to. This how unwanted babies happen - this is how I happened. =[]

Marriage may not mean a lot to you or I, but it should mean a lot to the people who do it. It's an unspoken contract between two people to forfeit their personal interests to each other and the well-being of the family they intend to start. It's not easy raising a child. :no Little girls and boys need to be taught the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of life. They need to be taught how to survive. =/ Unwanted babies _typically_ do not have people in their lives to teach them all the things they need to know and alas they never learn.~ ; - ; So I would say the benefit of marriage is not for men and women, but for their children.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

It's funny how some people think a title and tax breaks are somehow a cure-all for all of America's children woes. If you can't stay together without a title and tax breaks, what makes you think you can stay together with tax breaks and a title? 


Btw, abstinence is a ridiculous idea. The majority of people aren't going to follow it. And it is simply naive to think so. It's better to teach responsible sex. So that when jimmy and lucy get together to have intercourse, they'll know the responsible way to do it. That is a lot more useful than irrational religious threats of hell. 


The same problem is happening in Africa, where the Catholics are teaching abstinence and aren't giving out condoms. What a bonehead thing to do.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Ventress said:


> Well, we just SEE this issue two different ways. But, you can't deny that marriage has its benefits over just living together. Those are numerous, so I won't bother to mention them. *I mean, maybe you should do some research and discover why every culture in this world has marriage as a vital part of its social system and has had it for millennia. Why has it been around for so long? *Why only _now_ is marriage something our culture is rejecting? You may discover something about it that really is useful and valid, afterall...


I find fault with the part that I've bolded. "Marriage" as a word is incredibly generic and changes its meaning based on time and place. A medieval European wouldn't understand our modern system of marriage. A medieval Chinese person *definitely* wouldn't understand it. You can't say that marriage has survived millennia without putting an asterisk next to that statement. Marriage has survived for millennia because it's an incredibly adaptable word that can be applied to wholly different systems of human communal organization. For example, to use our understanding today of marriage to explain medieval marriages would be anachronistic.

Marriages didn't always used to be about love, but rather, economic convenience, to form alliances between families, to increase power within a certain group, to produce children, etc.

In our world, it's become acceptable for two people to live together, because of love, without needing what we consider to be an official "marriage."

The only thing about marriage that's survived in all its various forms is the fact that it must somehow be recognized as one by society. In this sense, marriage is just that piece of paper from the government that gives tax breaks and makes it really expensive to break up. When it comes to emotional bonds or creating a family, marriage is no longer necessary.

You asked, "Why only _now_?" and I think that might be a part of the answer. Marriage has been masquerading as something it really isn't - a social institution that recognizes the union of two (or more, in some cultures) people. The key word in that phrase is "recognition" and not "union." The union can exist without official recognition by other social institutions (i.e. government or church.)

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## whiteclouds (Mar 18, 2004)

Yeah, I agree that it's much more realistic to teach safe sex instead of abstinance.



Inturmal said:


> There's plenty of non-married couples out there that are more committed to each other than married couples are.


If they are so commited to each other, than why not get married? They may as well tie the knot and grab up those little perks like tax breaks.


----------



## ColdFury (Nov 6, 2003)

> Marriages didn't always used to be about love, but rather, economic convenience, to form alliances between families, to increase power within a certain group, to produce children, etc.


Right. Hell, among European nobility, "married" couples didn't even live in the same residence and barely talked to each other. It was purely a political bond.


----------



## leppardess (Nov 8, 2003)

Hypatia said:


> The only thing about marriage that's survived in all its various forms is the fact that it must somehow be recognized as one by society. In this sense, marriage is just that piece of paper from the government that gives tax breaks and makes it really expensive to break up. When it comes to emotional bonds or creating a family, marriage is no longer necessary.


 :agree


----------



## VoxPop (Nov 9, 2003)

For a moment I thought the headline read "abstinence _massage_ goes beyond teens" as though intimate petting and massages were actively being promoted as an alternative to sex. I don't believe government has any business whatsoever preaching to adults about sex, the government's responsibilities don't include being a cantankerous surrogate mother to the electorate, a mother who insists on controlling the behaviour and choices of her grown kids.


----------



## RMJS (Jun 9, 2005)

itsmemaggi said:


> Hm. I agree with that article. But I'm weird. :stu
> 
> xoxo
> Maggi


Agreed. I agree with it, too.


----------

