quote:But you don't want to lie, Not to the young ...
The secret to sex is that there is no secret.
Surprising, isn't it, what with all the whispers and the winks and the you-better-nots. You'd think that the world must have something up its sleeve, something really good that everyone else is holding onto.
Sex isn't more than you can imagine. It is the same fumbling and cuddling and exercise that you can do anywhere else, but there can be love and tenderness and extra-good feelings (like there can be anywhere else). Some parts of it you only get when someone else is there, especially the closeness, when it comes (sometimes, it doesn't).
To be good at sex, you have to practice, it is true. But that practice is as much getting over your own sense of embarrassment and fear that you'll make some funny noise or that you don't look good, as it is any special flip of the fingers or special technique. And the people in your life who love you don't want you to have sex in large part because that fear and embarrassment can last a long, long time, often longest when you start early.
Sometimes not. You may see friends that are happy with being sexually active (this is very different from just saying you are, by the way). But your best bet is to wait until you've had enough other experiences to get a bit of a hard edge, to spot the users and abusers behind the pretty lies and flowers. This goes for guys as well as girls -- if you think you don't have a heart that can be trampled on and smushed underfoot into bits, just wait. The world has a few things waiting for you.
Heartbreak is easier when there isn't a mess of hopes and dreams made more complicated by sex. You feel less used. You don't feel like you gave something away that will always be out there in the world.
What about being experienced enough at life to be "ready for it?" Don't you still get your heart broken?
Sure, a lot of the times, you do. But you also have other skills to make it easier, and you get to know how to weed out the people who will do the most damage before you let them in.
Waiting to have sex means you'll have a better chance of doing what you want with your life (college, a good job, success in sports), other things being equal. And sex isn't going away anytime soon. People will still be having sex five years from now, even ten years from now.
You won't be growing cobwebs anywhere, you won't get rusted out, and you won't lose it if you don't use it. It will still be there, healthy and ready, without any extra bugs or scars that can come back to bite you later.
Sex isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
It's sometimes tremendous, sometimes comforting, sometimes unworkable. It will be different things to you at different times in your life on different days. This is another reason why those who love you want you to wait: it is as much about what you bring to it as it is what you do. Right now, what you have is still unfolding, and we don't want you to have less out of this or any experience than you could.
Now, sometimes people who love you will tell you to wait to have sex until you are married. Listen to them. Hear them out. They often have good reasons, and they often have a lot of love and caring for you. It isn't my reason, but there are many good reasons besides my reason.
And if you do have sex before you are ready (whenever that is happens to be different for everyone -- there's no date we can point at for you, unfortunately), the world won't fall in. You just may not have as much out of it and of life as you could have. But if bad times come, the thing to do is pick yourself up and carry on. The world will go on.
And sex isn't going anywhere, anyway.
[ September 12, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
It comes from a question asked of me. I'm curious as to what letters others here would write on the same topic.
If sex had been made less mysterious, I think I wouldn't have been so afraid or intrigued by it as a young adult. I mean, it is a fearful and intriguing thing, but not at all in the way you'd expect. And the mystique of that makes both more and less of it than it should be.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Sara! This is one of the most truthful and beautiful treatises of the subject I have ever read.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that a frank discussion about sex would necessarily dissuade curious and hormonally-driven teens to really alter their approach to sex.
A thorough and frank discussion about the consequences of sex, including STDs of the throat might seriously impact the casual nature with which people approach the topic, but it kinda falls into the love-and-sex issues.
I was something of a social cold fish, so I can't really speak to how the average young man views the topic and as rivka has pointed out, my experience with teen and pre-teen women is more than a little lacking, but I think the overall attitude towards sex and sexual activity is changing.
Given the rise of toys like "Bratz" and the massive influx of erotic themes in pop culture, teens are taking a more casual attitude towards the subject which is even scarier, given the consequences of risky behavior.
Where is my rather meandering reply going? That's a good question. Trying to define "love" and "sex" and the implications of both would go a lot further, I think, than trying to demystify the experience.
Because, let's face it, plenty of adults engage in risky behavior long after the mystery of sex has been explained.
-Trevor
Edited for poor word choice and why lie? I'm still a cold fish.
What I got from Sara's note is that she is just trying to give some advice to some young people who might be overawed or fascinated with sex. I don't think it's necessary to critically evaluate that advice, since the advice is not harmful, absolute or insistent. People will find it helpful or not, just as they have done for as long as advice has been given.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't get much more casual in adult attitudes than WesternEurope, especially the Netherlands. And basicly, increasing casualness is linked to an increase the age at which people begin having sex, along with a decrease in STD transmissions, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and unplanned-for children.
What "sex between unmarried partners is a sin" accomplishes is to encourage youth to engage in high risk behaviours such as abusing drugs (yeah, alcohol is included) to get past the psychological inhibitions, to work up the nerve to "sin". Which in turn leads to sex at a younger age, high risk casual sex and the consequent increase in STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and unplanned for babies. The other aspects are "getting married because of a pregnancy" and increasing serial polygamy -- marry, divorce, marry, divorce... -- cuz folks get married and have kids because they mistake temporary lust for a committed love relationship.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant no offense and I hope Sara as a medical professional can appreciate my opinions on her essay and not misconstrue my thoughts as an attack on her.
But she wanted to know how others might approach the same topic and I think her approach would work for teens who are enraptured with the mystery of sex, but my thought is not that teens are enamoured of sex, but rather don't appreciate the consequences of what they are about to do and as such cannot make rational decisions on the subject, not that anyone would typically accuse a teen of being rational at the best of times.
-Trevor
Edit: And for all the former teenagers, do you remember your first crush? Your first love?
Looking back, do you feel the same way as an adult that you did as a teen?
I come from a culture where children are strongly encouraged to wait until marriage to have sex. Some of them do wait. Some don't. But something that often happens in this culture is that children grow up with strong sexual taboos that die hard upon marrying. This can cause strong inhibitions that make it difficult to enjoy married sex.
But I have seen for myself that it doesn't have to be this way. Two families in particular come to mind. The parents were very open about discussing sex and do so with joy, respect, and a fun-loving spirit. The children raised in these families have grown up to have a very healthy view of sex despite waiting until marriage. They are not weighed down with inhibition and guilt.
I have been deeply touched by this. My family was fairly open in talking about it, and as a result I feel I have come away with a fairly healthy attitude about sex. My husband comes from a family where such things were *never* discussed. As a result, he has had some difficulty with his inhibitions. I have inhibitions too, but they mostly come from insecurity--particularly from the cruelty of other kids and the feeling that I don't "measure up".
Anyway, I want to emulate the accomplishment of the two families I mentioned: teaching my children to respect and hold sex sacred, encouraging them to wait until marriage, but to also approach it without fear, guilt, and unrealistic awe. I want to pass on to them positive feelings about it and any wisdom I can impart that will help them to make better choices. I don't know if I will succeed, but I will sure try!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the advice, but one important subject is left out: Babies.
Don't have sex until you are ready to have a baby. After all, that's what it's for (and there's no protection out there that can absolutely promise you won't end up having to face the difficult choice between killing an unborn child and raising a child you are not ready for.)
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jenny, beverly, katharina. Spot on, Johnny. That indeed is where I was aiming.
Trevor, I appreciate the reflective, thoughtful feedback. I was gearing this to a specific person. Although trends may describe many in the group, any personal advice would best be geared to the individual -- and individual experience, background, and sets of assumptions will vary. But your response does help me understand more of how a different individual might better respond to a different approach.
And certainly I would not expect your feedback to have anything to do with a critique of me in my profession. I'm glad you were so frank.
aspectre, I share an understanding of global perspectives with you. Thanks for the real-world reminders.
Tres/Xap, of course. Of course. (Thank you! I needed this feedback. It was a rough draft, but even the roughest draft should have included this.)
How could I have forgotten two of the best pieces of advice I found as a teen?
quote:If anyone tries to get you to do something you don't want to do by saying "trust me," you have very good reason there not to.
and
The appropriate response to "If you loved me, you'd do it" is "If you loved me, you wouldn't push me to do something I don't want to do."
posted
And Tres/Xap, you've reminded me to be clear about what "sex" is. Much of sex comes with no risk of resultant pregnancy, but it still counts. (Amazing how many young folk will not include anything but the traditional intercourse in the definition. Really amazing.)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, let's discuss this in a secular manner, since you are a secular-minded individual. There is no such thing as a two-week old fetus. I know what you meant, or at least, I think I do, but it is an important point for accuracy of communication.
There are two different ways to measure the "age" of a developing human. One counts from the first day of the last period. According to this method, week two is the moment of conception. According to another method of accounting, two weeks is approximately the time of implantation and certainly the soonest a woman is capable of even knowing she is pregnant. This is not a fetus, it is an embryo.
This is an honest question, I don't know the answer: how many abortions happen at this point? How many women, the moment they discover they are pregnant rush out and get an immediate abortion? My guess is not many. It is probably difficult to abort something so small without risk to the woman. Again, I don't really know.
Now, granted an embryo is a far more simple life-form than a fetus. A fetus is a far more simple life-form than a newborn. A newborn is far more simple a life-form than a child, and so on. At what point does it become wrong morally to kill? Don't tell me that killing an embryo is not killing. It is a life-form. It is a dependant life-form, a parasite if you will, but it can be killed. The question here is whether or not this killing is moral.
Quite often at the end of a movie we see a phrase to the extent of "No animals were harmed or killed in the making of this movie". But at what point does something cease to be an "animal" under this phrase? Does a fish count? An earthworm? A fly? Certainly a horse does. Or a puppy. People would get really upset if you killed or hurt one of those in the making of a film. But where do you draw the line?
From a completely secular POV (which is not my actual POV) I can see killing a zygote as not such a big deal. But an embryo, with a heartbeat and nervous system.... I am not so comfortable (secularly) with that. Especially if the reason is "convenience". If the mother's life is at stake, or even if there is something seriously wrong with the child, then there might be some room for leeway, weighing one moral choice for another.
I believe that the beating hearts inside the wombs of women deserve protection and life, regardless of my religious beliefs on the matter. Women and men alike should be taught to respect sex because it makes babies. They should be taught not to seek abortion as a solution except in extreme circumstances.
Why is it murder to kill a pre-mie born at 6 months? It certainly is less intelligent than the dog your neighbor euthenized the other day. Because it is human. Why does this reasoning not extend to implanted embryos--if not zygotes which are naturally discarded on a regular basis by the human body?
I think we need to have a hybrid attitude towards sex, restraint and respect, yet at the same time understanding the gravity and pull of it. It is a very powerful pull. It should be considered a sacred bond of sort, creating some sort of energy between people or new life... I have romantic views on the subject.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Therse are good questions. I think my answer would be that there is no 'point' at which it becomes immoral to kill the developing life; that is a fiction of convenience that we introduce for legal purposes. However, there is a period of time in which it is not immoral, a period in which it is a bit of a grey zone, and a period (much longer than the other two) in which you definitely do not kill. The current abortion laws, both in the US and in Norway, draw a line at a time that is slightly further into the grey zone than I am entirely happy with - a consequence of being drawn up in the seventies, when a six-month baby was certainly going to die. A limit of eighteen or twenty weeks might be better.
But I think what you are asking is : Do I really think there is a moral difference between a three-week and a three-month fetus? (Or embryo, if that is the correct term). And the answer is, yes, I do. If you like, it is a question of the mother's control over her own body and life. The earlier in the pregnancy, the less separate is the fetus from the mother.
On a side note, have you read Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan books? (If not, you should do so right away). The ideal solution might be the uterine replicator : If the mother does not want the child, just transfer it to a replicator and let it become a ward of the state. Sort of a pre-birth adoption, without all the messy contractions. Or, of course, there's the nice Betan solution : Everybody gets sterilised at fourteen, and to have children you need to have a permit and an operation. But that's with thirtieth-century technology, admittedly - hardly a solution we can apply here and now.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do I really think there is a moral difference between a three-week and a three-month fetus? (Or embryo, if that is the correct term). And the answer is, yes, I do. If you like, it is a question of the mother's control over her own body and life.
I can understand this reasoning. Certainly there is a unique relationship between mother and the unborn. The unborn is dependant on the mother and the mother must take risk in order to bring that life to the point of relative independance. This is why I am understanding of women who's health is at stake. But when it is a matter of "oops, forgot my pill!" or even "we did everything right to prevent pregnancy and still got pregnant" I have issues.
I have not heard of the book you mentioned. I am fascinated by the idea of transfering an unborn to another fetus--perhaps that of a donor mother--a woman who is willing to bear it. That is a beautiful idea, and I far prefer it to killing that life-form. I would give my full support for research in that direction. I wonder how much more difficult it would be than a routine abortion?
The concept of needing a permit to become fertile is an interesting idea. I must admit being a little sad that it is not feasable technologically right now.
posted
Routine abortions normally consist (for a large part) of "vacumming" the womb and just sucking out the zygote (or whatever stage the child is at then), doing it in such a way as to preserve and seperate the child from everything else would undoubtly be much more invasive.
[Note: vacumming is a very crude term I know, but I can't think of a better one, and it's pretty much it as far as I know ]
quote:and there's no protection out there that can absolutely promise you won't end up having to face the difficult choice between killing an unborn child and raising a child you are not ready for
I don’t want to step into a debate about abortion anything like that. But even setting aside all moral questions about when life begins, abortion is a fairly serious medical procedure (I’m basing this on the fact that as a woman, ANY procedure involving that area of my body is considered serious). You can’t just say that, “Since I don’t believe a fetus is a person, if I get pregnant I’ll just have an abortion.” That’s like saying, “I don’t have to brush my teeth, I’ll just get dentures.”
Not to mention most women I know don’t exactly look forward to their yearly GYN exam, and dread any other procedures that might have to be performed. The female reproductive organs are frighteningly fragile. I’m not saying that an abortion is going to necessarily damage you so you won’t be able to have kids if you want them. All I’m saying is that there are risks that have to be weighed.
And that’s just the procedure itself.
No matter what you think about abortions, it is still a horribly difficult decision for most women to make, that, I think, is Xaposert’s point. There are plenty of women who have had an abortion and never given it a second thought, but there are also plenty of women for whom their abortions have resulted in a lifetime of guilt.
Maybe Xaposert could have said “face the difficult choice between an terrifyingly uncomfortable procedure involving an extremely sensitive area of your anatomy often resulting in lifelong mental angst and raising a child you are not ready for.” But, even as it stands his point about being able to deal with the consequences of your actions before you act is a very valid one. Not only about sex, but about anything we choose to do.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is probably difficult to abort something so small without risk to the woman.
AFAIK, not really. The limiting issue is really the diagnosis of pregnancy, not that something so small makes it dangerous for the woman to abort. D&C isn't used routinely now; most early elective abortions are by vacuum aspiration [as noted by Hobbes above ]. This is being replaced (I believe) by mifepristone (RU486) prescribed with a prostaglandin, which is about 96-97% effective and can be used as early as pregnancy is diagnosed, again AFAIK & can tell by research.
quote:Abortion is by definition a failure. The failure can be the result of the mother's lack of access to care, failure of the contraceptive method, failure to use contraceptives, or failure of the normal reproductive process (eg, fetal anomalies, fetal death, maternal illness)
and
quote:Adequate counseling with discussion of all options available for the pregnancy and explanation of abortion options, risks, and complications is mandatory.
Also of note are the national stats: "Most abortions in the United States were performed in the first trimester. Eighty-eight percent of abortions were performed at less than 13 weeks of gestation, 55% were performed at less than 8 weeks, and 18% were performed at less than 6 weeks."
quote:Women and men alike should be taught to respect sex because it makes babies.
I really appreciate the testimony of your [belief]* and your clarification of terminology, beverly. I'd add a plug that we include certain non-reproductive actions in the term "sex," too, but that's certainly more of an enhancement than a contradiction. My definition of "sex" as communicated to young persons is whenever lips or hands or "parts" touch anyone else's "parts," with "parts" being what is covered by the typical bathing suit.
I suppose one could be creative with elbows and such, but that exhausts my ability to cover in five minutes.
[edit: *changed from "faith," as I understand you are striving for a secular approach. You (and everyone else) are welcome to discuss faith, BTW -- I just started this as a notedly secular approach to address any expectations early on.]
[ September 12, 2004, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly- From a secular standpoint, there really isn't much difference between an abortion (at least up until some ill-defined point) and eating an egg. The reason is, that most people who look at it from a secular standpoint won't see an embryo as a person, and hence not worthy of an extra moral value compared to any other non-person life, such as cows, chickens, eggs, flies, or sometimes vegetables depending on the person's moral world view. (Differentiating human from person). To grant extra moral value to an embryo as compared to other non-person life, requires either granting extra weight because of a soul, or becauce of potential personhood. Most people who grant weight because of potentiality, believe in the soul, as well.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For clarification regarding immediate complications for first trimester elective abortions (from emedicine as above):
quote:Complication rates are low: 0.071% for hospitalization and 0.846% for minor complications. Abortion complications requiring hospitalization include incomplete abortion (0.028%), sepsis (0.021%), uterine perforation (0.009%), vaginal bleeding (0.007%), inability to abort (0.003%), and combined pregnancy (0.002%). Minor abortion complications include infection (0.46%), repeat suction (0.18%), cervical stenosis (0.016%), cervical tear (0.01%), seizure (0.004%), and underestimate of dates (0.006%).
Manual vacuum aspiration has the following complication rates: infection, 0.7%; perforation, 0.05%; retained POC, 0.5%; and repeat aspiration, 0.5-0.25%.
Long-term complications of first trimester elective abortions are yet more rare. This is in marked contrast to long-term complications of PID, by the way -- it is a significant cause of infertility.
adam613, what a delightful and considered response. I wish I had you with me during conversations with young people. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The uterine replicator is a machine, actually. The sort of transfer you mention might be more feasible, since you wouldn't have to engineer something capable of supplying the whole environment of the womb - clearly a complex business at best. It does pose a bit of a moral issue, though, in that such a transfer would clearly be rather risky before the technology was perfected - sort of a 90% abortion. I get confused, here : Is it OK to do surgery that has a 90% chance of killing the embryo, if the alternative is a 100% chance of an abortion? I think so, but I can see where you could start a rather slippery slope.
You should definitely read the Vorkosigan saga : You're in for a treat. When I first discovered these books, I bought one per two days for two weeks, until I'd bought all that were out. Which didn't do my budget any good, but was a lot of fun while it lasted.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, KoM! Anne Kate from here at Hatrack introduced me to Lois McMaster Bujold, and I'm forever in her debt.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Maybe Xaposert could have said “face the difficult choice between an terrifyingly uncomfortable procedure involving an extremely sensitive area of your anatomy often resulting in lifelong mental angst and raising a child you are not ready for.” But, even as it stands his point about being able to deal with the consequences of your actions before you act is a very valid one. Not only about sex, but about anything we choose to do.
This is a *very* important point. Yes, I firmly believe we should counsel our women against abortion for all these reasons. But legally, it is their choice.
Hobbes, sounds like preserving a fetus would be far more difficult than your average abortion. Pity.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, it would Bev. But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be the main obstacle, if we conquer the artificial womb I'm sure we'll be able to conquer extraction.
quote: From a secular standpoint, there really isn't much difference between an abortion (at least up until some ill-defined point) and eating an egg.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. I would equate eating a bird egg with menstration--in both cases an unfertilized egg is lost. As a side note, in the Philippines they eat fertilized duck eggs at different stages of development. I have eaten them more than once, kind of a "dare" sort of thing. Anyway, they are often jokingly referred to as "abortion eggs".
Since I eat far more developed animals than an unhatched duck on a regular basis, I don't feel all that bad about it. But I also would not eat human flesh (unless maybe I were desperate and no one had been murdered.)
Why will humans eat animals but not other humans? Why won't humans eat eat dog, cat, or horse nearly so often as pig, chicken, and cow? Why is it wrong to kill a 6 month old premie?
We seem to hold a different morality for humans than for animals, at least, the majority of us do. Why doesn't this extend to the unborn human?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
An artificial womb! Wow. Could science ever really immitate the function of a placenta? That would be truly amazing.
Oh, and I am intrigued by these books you mentioned. It sounds like they need to go on my reading list. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, as I said, from a secular standpoint, there really isn't the "human" identification (I list it as person) until much later in development.
Most people will put the human fetus above a dog or a cat in terms of the amount of moral value it has, but still below a person.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most people will put the human fetus above a dog or a cat in terms of the amount of moral value it has, but still below a person.
OK, so along this line of reasoning, is a newborn below a person? Is it OK for Jane Doe to euthenize her newborn after discovering it has a terminal illness?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, there are very few secularists who will take that stand point, and I left room for them in my post.
In my second post, I clarify that most secularists are going to put a human fetus higher on the moral worth list then, for example, a dog... but lower then themselves or other people.
Almost everyone on the planet places things on a "moral worth" scale. Those who believe in a soul, and believe embryo's have a soul, will obviously place embryo's at the same point on the scale as everything else that has a soul, since the soul transcends our physical state.
Those who don't believe in a soul, are very likely to place "persons" at the highest end of the moral worth spectrum, and by almost every secular usage of the word "person" an embryo isn't one.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"OK, so along this line of reasoning, is a newborn below a person? Is it OK for Jane Doe to euthenize her newborn after discovering it has a terminal illness?"
Depends. Personally, I would argue that a newborn IS a person. Most people do argue that. BUT, if you could craft a convincing argument that a newborn isn't a person, I would say that killing that newborn wouldn't be an act of murder. I don't believe such an argument exists, however, that could convince me that a newborn is not a person.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Henthoff seems to oversimplify the matter as well. However, I am very very far (light-years, even light-eons) from having any interest in debating the personhood of a fetus right now, so I'll leave it at the noting that like any controversial topic, small platforms by their very nature cannot sustain the full debate.
However, you might be interested in the article/chapter "The fetus as a patient: historical perspective" by Harrison MR in The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment.(2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA; WB Saunders Company, 1991, pages 3-7) It is a sympathetic development of Henthoff's point as you note it above.
[ September 12, 2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys (used as a gender neutral phrase to encompass all the above),
We're moving a bit far afield of the original intent of this thread.
Entire pages have been devoted to the subject of abortion and related topics and I don't think derailing Sara's thread is going to accomplish the search for greater insight.
posted
" Not only are there many, many atheists and agnostics, there are a lot of religious people who go to great lengths to use secular reasoning for the pro-life case."
1) Do those athiests and agnostics value the embryo's life the same way they do a humans? I haven't found very many, and I've been involved in this discussion for a long time, as well
2) I have yet to find a religious person who is able to remove their religious beliefs from their argument to make a completely secular argument, on this and many other issues that are deeply influenced by faith.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, what if Jane Doe's newborn was a 6 month old premie? Does medical science have a moral obligation to do everything in their power to keep it alive? What are your feelings on partial-birth abortions?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, I love the letter, particularly because you didn’t mention pregnancy or STDs. All to often it’s impossible to have an actual conversation about the emotional/psychological issues around sex without it getting bogged down by “well what if you got pregnant/caught AIDS.” Kids aren’t stupid, and many of them know that there are sexual activities they can engage in with extremely low (or no) risk of pregnancy or disease, and it’s great to see someone addressing that.
And, with all respect, could those of you who want to discuss abortion please take it to another thread? It’s a hot enough topic that if it stays here it will almost definitely take over the thread, which I think would be a shame.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're moving a bit far afield of the original intent of this thread.
Ahh, well, derail away to your hearts' content, from my perspective. I am mellowed out from a glass of sirrah with my husband, the aroma of herbed roasting chicken (apologies to the vegetarians), and the glow of a hot-stone massage.
[Have I mentioned often enough that a portable massage table at $100 is a great shared couple's Christmas gift? A good marriage is nothing to sneeze at, and it certainly need not be pedestrian.]
quote:Although I am curious - what was the original question for which we are formulating answers?
"Why should I wait to have sex? What's the big deal?" (paraphrased conversation)
As for my upbringing, my mother was quite religious, even to the point of breaking with the local Roman Catholic church because of their liberal practices (guitar playing, masses in English, etc). We were taught that the first person we had sex with would be married to us for life. That is, in God's eyes, even if you "married" someone else in the Church, an unbreakable and eternal holy bond would be in place between you and (in my case) the first person to breach the hymen. That would be my "real husband."
Given that my first experience of the sort was not voluntary, this caused my really unbearable anguish for several years. I've been looking for a better perspective to give young persons ever since.
(And my mother at this time was in florid clinical depression, including psychosis. But that is another story. And, for what it's worth, I always knew she loved me, wanted me as a daughter, and would welcome me at the door. She was a good mother, and she had a hard life.)
quote:Incidentally, or not so incidentally, I love your letter, Sara
Thank you, Paul! Much appreciated.
And thank you, Dana. Two of my favorite people tossing praise my way.
[ September 12, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was asked to write a private letter of advice or whatever, to my young brother-in-law, at about the time he was finishing High School. I'm assuming that's older than your intended audience, dear, but there was one bit of advice I gave him, as well as my own niece at about the same time, that touches on the topic.
And that is, simply, that it is a good idea to guard your heart. By that I mean that, when you experience pleasure and closeness with someone, it can form a sort of bond between you. You'll go back for the feeling, because it's good or because you believe it should be.
In any case, it's really important that when the absolute, bone-deep addiction to another person happens for you, that it happens with someone suitable, someone that you really can make a life with, who is capable and committed to making that life with you.
Some of the saddest shite I've ever seen is when rational people go @ss over teakettle for someone so totally crazy/irresponsible/self-centered <insert descriptor here> that nobody even blinks at them when it all goes kablooie.
Mistakes of that magnitude can be seen coming in satallite photos, but people still make them. *shrug*
My first serious boyfriend in college was one of those. Actually, he was a very nice person, just completely unsuitable for me. We didn't have sex, and I'm soo glad. It probably would have been pretty good sex, and I'd have hung around (partly from the pleasure-bond kind of thing, and partly from the guilt-- we were both very religious). In any case, it could not have done anything but end badly, sooner or later. Once the oo-ah wore off, I'd probably have killed him.
posted
I agree that it was a good letter - especially without all the overtones of moral righteouseness and hellfire, etc. I wish I had heard words like those at a much earlier age - and I really wish that the whole concept of sex, gender, and intimacy was presented in a healthy and safe fashion as a child.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was such a foolish, foolish child. I wonder if any advice given me would have turned me from my destructive course. As beautiful as your letter is, Sara, I fear I would not have heeded it's wisdom at that age. I think my intervention would have needed to come much, much sooner.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I have a feeling that this wouldn't be the main obstacle, if we conquer the artificial womb I'm sure we'll be able to conquer extraction. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
A good marriage is nothing to sneeze at, and it certainly need not be pedestrian.]![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
