Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Yiffox

Sigh

by
no one reads these anyway, so...

sadly decided not to join in on one of the livestreams I have been attending for the last 2-3 months.  The people seemed to be a close knit group of friends, many of whom had met each other irl and so on.

Seemed fun at first.  They played movies, had fun banter.

But as I stayed it got increasing snarky.  They would often make fun of other artists on inkbunny and other places.  I do not agree with that at all.  There are varying skill levels and one should encourage artists who are trying, rather than disparage what they do...so I ignored that for awhile.  

Then they let me into their skype channel...even then some of this small group immediately questioned that decision and I ignored that.  They then questioned my age due to the timber of my voice, which admittedly I do sound 16, but still.  (My voice never cracked).  In any case, I was removed from their voice chat within a day (presumably because I do my own livestream nightly and its annoying to have the BEEP BEEP BEEP sound when people dont immediately join)...but never verified if that was the reason.

But tonight was really the last straw.  They showed a silly movie again, which was fun...then one of them went on a rant about abstinence only sex education.  While I am not to that extreme, I think the facts weigh me out that abstinence would be the best course for teenagers.  And I mentioned why.....20% of americans have HPV and 20% have Herpes, neither of which condoms can prevent since both are spread by skin to skin contact (the old research said these were both life long conditions also, altho newer research says HPV only lasts 2 years, but that may be questionable for various reasons).  Also the largest spread of those two diseases are in the under 25 crowd.

If I were running sex ed, thats what I would tell them....maybe show them a few slides of herpes and genital warts to boot and say you have sex, you have a 20% chance to catch it.  Statistically, thats a 44% chance and them being young really has no meaning anymore in them NOT having one of those diseases, since younger people are the biggest spreaders.

Unfortunately sex ed is entirely based on HIV and condoms and pregnancy.  Which fine sure teach.  But dont friggin ignore the above....geez ive known people who caught both within the last year.  (dont hear much about herpes tho...or hepititis either...geez our sex ed was so lame as to what we were taught, just wear condoms right?)  hepititis u can catch by kissing!

so anyways....then they claim sex is a natural drive and you cant avoid it.  Must be news to the millions of monks.  My personal view is that all sex is a learned addictive behavior, like drinking or cigarettes or coffee or anything else pleasurable.  You can say no easily, but its a lot easier to say no if you never tried it.  Rather unscientific, but ask anyone who hasnt had cigarettes, alcohol, sex, drugs, vs those who have been doing it a year....can you say no easily or no do it ?  yeah....think that would prove it.

so in a knee jerk reaction as I'm used to in that channel...they accused me of holding that the CDC figures and facts about HPV and Herpes and condom usage are um wrong? that I was a christian and/or stupid for holding that abstinence is not the best route for people who do not want to catch lifelong diseases (while HPV may be considered no longer life long, it can alter DNA to cause cancer in females and possibly males at a later date).  Then they question whether I've even had sex before.  Like wow.  Had about seven boyfriends, 3 over 6 months.  Done a few girls too.  So been around the block.  But the idea that because I hold ideas contrary to theirs about sex, I somehow must not have engaged in it....just insulting.

And really....seen far too many people in their early 20s online catching HIV, including people I know in person.  It's just sad.  One wonders if abstinence would not be better in the long run for everyone till they find someone to settle down with.

But I watch politics on the news all the time (its amusing to watch FOX and MSNBC to talk about the same things) and same thing, people who hold views different from you are evil and wrong.  For this, I guess if you dont think its possible to say no to sex, then your christian and ignorant.  Geez, how many times have I turned down sex from older and unattractive people online in the last month alone...guess my sex drive is mitigated by SOMETHING.  (and yes its been about 7 months since I moved to a small town and woah, its scary here, lol)

Really....I have views...most based on science or fact.  Some of these go against the general conservative or liberal points of view, depending on what they are.  But I never disparage or claim someone as ignorant for holding views other than my own.  I do not know why others do so.  It mystifies me.  My quest is for knowledge not to show I am right or to prove a preconceived cause.  I generally preach tolerance for other views.  Especially in art.  I dont agree or even like a lot of the fetishes Ive seen.  Dont understand most to be honest, but I do not condemn anyone for having them.  I do not allow people in my livestream to condemn others either.  Its happened a few times where I had to tell people to back off for varying views, be they homosexuality or cub (the 2 most recent).  Live and let live, if you dont like it, dont look.

But I think this drive to condemn others, to criticize others if only to show our own superiority....really?  it sickens me.  always has,  always will.
Viewed: 104 times
Added: 6 years, 11 months ago
 
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 11 months ago
I would disagree with you, but you seem to have settled on your opinion a long time ago. I think you are going too much into the other extreme, from too careless and too much diddling, to not at all. Education for  Honest and Reasonable sex is the keyword in my opinion. You made some really good points like the bad sex ed though.

and yes, sex is a drive you are born with, but every drive can be neglected. Should it? No in my opinion. Do it if you want, but don't ask others to do it as well. Let everyone decide for themselves.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
nah what I said was educating them fully.  I do not agree with abstinence only, but it should be the main emphasis.  The sex ed I had had one line about abstinence being best, and several hours of how to do sex right, without even saying WHY abstinence was best.

And I would disagree that we have a innate sexual drive, let alone one we're born with.  We have drives to eat, to breathe, and to hang around others.  No five year old is going "I NEED SECKS."  My 10 year old nephew, for example, believed sex was kissing.  So how can you have a drive to do someone when you don't know what it is?  Sex is a learned addictive behavior, as I said, like drinking or smoking.
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 11 months ago
no, even people who never had known sex, start to have it, it's inate.

Also, even children feel sexual joy if they are rubbing or touching their genitals. I played with them all the time ^^
They might just not have figured out HOW to have sex, but did you ever try feeding a baby? They don't know how to eat either. You shove it in their mouth and they will eventually swallow it because of the swallowing reflex.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
to use your food example, shove a vagina or penis in the face of a 10 year old and they will run.  So not so innate huh?

and learning to do something does not make it innate.  Most people learn to ride bicycles...we're not inborn with that knowledge.  And yes touching ANY body part with a lot of nerves feels good....lips, earlobes, nipples, and genitals.  Why we NOTICE babies playing with their is because its closer to the natural position of the hands and we object to it.  It felt really good sliding down the rope in qym class, but I wouldnt classify that as sex, or else I did a awful lot of ropes in my time :-D

The bottom line is for humans, sex is not a physical reaction, but a mental process.  If its innate, explain why you may/should/probably find it difficult to have sex with someone you find disgusting (for any reason)?  Attraction is a major part of sex.  Even people humping pillows imagine it to be sumthing gorgeous and arent just humping it.

DraculJOSHI
6 years, 11 months ago
yeah, a child that you shove your genitals into the face will be afraid and run, but so would every normal adult too. Unless you tell them you want sex with them and they know HOW sex works, something children have to learn or be teached first.

But the sex drive is inherited, prove: isolate a specimen of any race for his whole life from any sexual outside influence, and while it may take a little longer, it will still have sex and/or mastrubate. Why? Because it has the drive to sexually relieve itself. How it knows how it works? It tryed, experimented, tested it out... You really think you need to see people have sex or being told how it works? then I pitty you.

And to the point of attraction.
Objectively, our mind thinks everyone is okay if he didn't hurt you before either mentaly, ethically or physically which would make him a jerk in your opinion or make you disgusted of him... or that you don't see as a sexually developed person, like your parents, your boss or politicians. Prove of this are the frequent one night stands of persons and the pure existence of something like a prostitute.
Subjectively, what we think is beautiful plays into this too, it is more likely for you to agree to sex with someone/something you find beautiful, whether you know him/her well or not.
Sex with someone you like and/or love is more revarding though, since it is more likely for you to stay with that person which makes your brain think that there's a chance for a family, which is the sex drive's primary target. Even if it's a homosexual couple.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
well you just admitted that children have to learn how and what sex is and its not an innate drive therefore.  Horses and dogs dont have to learn it, it *is* innate for them, they smell pheromones, get hard and start humping.  Even the humping thing is innate for dogs and they have to be trained not to hump the nearest warm thing.  Never seen a human randomly hump something.

Do you have a citation for your assumption that people isolated start having sex?  I selfeducated myself when I was ten from 1950s encyclopedias....and knowing the basics of sex assumed that men and women did it anally as the vagina according to illustrations just looked way too narrow to allow it.  (1950s encyclopedias did not tell anything about sex, but did tell loads on sexual dysfunctions, go figure)  And you just said previously that children need to be taught what sex is, then you deny it and again insist its innate.  Hmm.

I do not think there is any drive to sexually relieve yourself, thats rather a myth...there is no pressure building up in males.  Females have the same number of eggs since birth, so no pressure there.  so where is this need to relieve yourself coming from?

You missed the point of attraction, someone we find hideous we are almost assured of not wanting sex with, and even if forced upon a male, they will generally find it hard to get erect.  This is in contrast to animals, which have no restrictions and have an innate drive, which is based on chemicals, that even allow progeny to mate with their parents by the way, given the right chemicals.
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 11 months ago
If I say sex, I mean sex drive, which means, the wish for sexual relieve. Which I am not the only one to observe in people unwary of it like children.

please don't talk about dogs humping everything they see, that's simply not true.
Dogs only hump what they are allowed to if properly handled. (not to confuse with training)
Or if they are forbidden any relieve because their owner finds it disgusting. Ever tried living 7 years without mastrubation?
And most people let them be nulled anywa... I am not supporting this btw.

and there is a sex drive... which is basicly this: we are organic lifeforms, thus we have to reproduce, thus our body supports us doing stuff with our genitals by giving us pleassure, which in return we want to achieve, which creates a need. The sex drive.
This is already innate by children, they feel pleasure if their genitals are rubbed and will start to play regularly with it to get that pleasure. Basicly preteen mastrubation. How sex actually works should be considerably easy to figure out once a male and a female get toghether and make each  other happy. So, sexdrive and thus sex is innate, yet sexual procedure and technics are not.

yes, there is no pressure if we don't build it ourself, but that's curiously against nature. And religions that have sexual abstinence in it like bhudism, always say to let it go. meaning it's innate but they don't see a need for it for themselves.

And ever thought WHY you find someone hideous? Exactly for one of the reasons I listed before. In your example most likely the force that was used which hurts you mentally any physically.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
I would disagree totally.  There is no drive to have sex innate in us, it is an entirely learned behavior.  Hunger is a drive, breathing is a drive, and we experience paigns if we do not fulfill them that can be measured chemically.  Where is the chemical pathway for your innate sex drive in someone who has not have it?  Let's not talk theory, let's talk facts.  It does not exist.  Simply because touching your genitals feels good does not equate to a drive.  Touching almost any part of your body feels good, and as I said, areas with more nerve endings feels better (its why babies feel comforted hugging their mothers)...which means hands, feet, earlobes, lips are equally pleasurable just to touch, that is not sex and its not a sex drive.

so what is the chemical pathway that causes you to WANT sex before you have it?  Now there is a sex drive AFTER you have sex, which is the same for any addictive substance or activity and it has a similar chemical pathway.

In mammals, females release pheromones which enter the mouth of the male, go through the vomeronasal ducts to the vomeronasal organ in the nose which sends signals directly to the hypothalamus which causes an erection and sexual response.  THAT is a direct sexual drive driven by chemicals.  Humans do not have vomeronasal ducts and the nerves between the vomernonasal organ and the hypothalamus are gone (the organ itself is missing in at least 40% of people).
DraculJOSHI
6 years, 11 months ago
this isn't going anywhere, because we approach it from the wrong pathway. You are coming from what little standardized science knows, and I am coming from what little I know about everything in quantum physics and outside standardized science.

We will not come to the truth, unless we combine both. But you didn't even counter my points, you just try to neglect them completely. that's not how we can reach it.

what's the problem, is that you think OR, while in reality it is AND. You come from "science instead religion", I try to come from "science and believe", but I am lacking serious parts to find the answer myself, you would have them, but you simply disagree with the idea of there being something, modern science may have gotten wrong.
I think the anecdote of the elephant in the tent is pretty fitting.

I don't blame you for this, it's something coming with the human arrogance. I know I have it too, but I try to be wary of it, I don't succeed all the time.

for now I would call it quits by agreeing that we completely disagree... your art is still awesome ^^... and you made me think, I liked that ^^

Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
well I dont think quantum mechanics has any part in determining biological drives.  Its just biology and there is no human sexual drive because we lack the biology that animals have who do have sex drives.  Our vomeronasal organ is missing or nonfunctional (lacking the ducts to bring it pheromones and the nerve to enact it.

Its just biology...we do have a pseudosexual drive, which is really just an addiction pathway, but its based on actions and is extremely limited to those actions.  This explains fetishes and masturbation's appeal (when its actually done, not just touching) and it explains sexual roles (and why people prefer them because its the action that addicted them, other sexual acts may have no addictive appeal to them, even though it would feel just as good.)

It also explains why people favor a certain type (which Ive noticed is usually the first people they dated/loved/had sex with)  People its the memory of that look/smells/etc that turns on the addictive trigger.  Its not a random sexual chemical drive, but a very restrictive addictive drive toward specific types/actions.

That's the biology...so no sex drive for humans unless you can show me the chemical pathway in which it occurs, as all biology is chemistry.
EroKord
6 years, 11 months ago
I was in that stream, and I agree with you on some of your points, but sex IS a natural drive(if it wasn't all reproductive organisms would probably have died off pretty quick), but it doesn't mean it can't be controlled, just that plenty of people WON'T or CAN'T control it, which is why abstinence will never work for sex ed. Monks who take their abstinence seriously have iron wills in more than one way. Teaching about what condoms etc. will work on and what they WON'T work on, and to be careful is important, and suggesting abstinence is ok, but most teens won't take it seriously. Teens are NOT Monks.

As for the whole have YOU had sex thing, I think the point of that was holding abstinence in high regard and teaching it when one hasn't been abstinent is the "do as I say, not as I do" way, which is a little hypocritical. I don't think it was "well if those are your opinions you must be a virgin!" And as for the Christian thing, it'd be a fair assumption, as the vast majority of people/groups pushing for it are the "moral majority" of the religious right.

As for being snarky? Yeah, they can be, but I still think the stream in question is my fav, and I watch it when I can.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
I know they teach you that sex is a natural drive.  And It is a drive for animals that are driven by hormones and respond  strongly to pheromones, many animals get erections directly from pheromone exposure.   Similar responses in humans are almost non-existent, perhaps because of our loss vemoronasal ducts (the ducts in animals that go from the mouth into the nose to the organ that detects pheromones).  Sex for humans is a learned behavior and is addictive one also, I would say.   Given that belief, its a lot easier to control if you haven't had it yet.  (unfortunately that would include masturbation as well).  Unfortunately, I do not believe everything taught to me, but actually study and think about these things, which means I'll hold to my belief until evidence appears to contradict it, since it has a basis in fact and it also explains things better.

If sex is such a natural drive, then why can we say no so easily?  Even physical manipulation of your junk may not turn you on if your not attracted to the person doing it.  No horse would go, sorry that's an ugly nag, just can't get it up.  

As for the stream, i specifically did not mention whose it was to avoid drama and not saying it doesn't have fun aspects, but there is a lack of tolerance for beliefs and art other than their own.

Abstinence is the best policy for teenagers.  Statistically, I happen to know that 50% of people make it out of high school without having sex.  (I found that fact not to support abstinence, but to show how stupid laws were saying people under 18 can't have sex --effectively making half the populace criminals if caught -- with the older and usually male generally held responsible too).  This is just a fact tho, teenagers are not emotionally prepared to have sex or deal with its consequences (std's or pregnancy).  I did not say that abstinence only programs should be taught.  I do think much more time should be spent teaching why it is the best policy.  Literally scare the pants off the kids, cuz they need to be scared.  Seen far too many people get HIV, I've seen genital warts in person on someone trying to hook up with me.

The idea though that people are hypocritical for telling teenagers to wait awhile before having sex is kinda silly.  Its just common sense one would think.
Jett
6 years, 11 months ago
Some people's mind are like like a huge plain of grass and some are like a never-ending alleyway. The alleyway people stick to one opinion, influenced by friends, family or self-belief, and are true to it... prime example, Westboro Baptist Church, although they're so extreme that they're pretty much the biggest trolls in the world. A lot of people are influenced to voice certain opinions because they are around friends and because the people who are furries are anonymous pretty much which gives them a certain degree of power. People just abuse this influence from time to time and say absurd crap like 'This view is a one row street, there ARE no other options'. For some things, that's true... if they're fact, but for views on a topic like what they teach in sex education where only opinions can be placed, it's wrong to assume that another person's wrong. Sure, someone's opinion could be completely illogical but the case that you've explained, you're totally in the right, and so were they until they start telling you that you're wrong.

All-in-all, everyone has different views, no-one's EXACTLY the same as anyone else so we just have to respect other peoples' opinions and not say that it's wrong just because their view is different from our own.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
agreed.  I think its fine to attack ideas...when you do so by ad hominem attacks then your own position must be a weak one.
Jett
6 years, 11 months ago
I wouldn't necessarily call it 'attacking' ideas, more reasoning and trying to get an understanding whether the other realises if they think that their own views is less logical than yours or not. But yes, you'd need to apply so much force onto people if the idea is so weak. Otherwise, if there is a strong idea, the strength of it can be shown through subtle movements.
OOOeyGoooey
6 years, 11 months ago
to each thier own, i suppose, i argee and disagree on some things on this,

yes i wanna SLAP them for degrading other artists skill levels, each artist in this world started out at the same low level they degrade, and worked to what they are to today, and continuously work to get better, much like myself over the year/ two years now maybe, IVE been drawing for, and as a now high level artist i always try to help those who feel they suck or etc, get better at what they do, and ive achieved that sometimes. xD and ive seen those ones i helped out/ encouraged go at it and get better, whether by my help, watching others and such.

i partially agree on the abstinence thing, sex can be fun sometimes, and im sure those that do it try thier best to be "clean" before doing such, and HIV and stuff COULD be contracted, but only, from those that have it?
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
ya totally....I never make fun of artists even if their work is horrible.  Everyone is at their own stage of development.  Seriously though, everytime it was done, the only thing I could think of was "I wonder when some art I did was next or maybe even has been when I wasnt around"  It always bothered me when they did that, and they seem to do it on an almost nightly basis.

As far as abstinence, lemme be clear, we were talking about sex ed, so I think (as well as virtually everyone else in the world) that abstinence is the best policy for teenagers, yet all the time was being spent telling the kids HOW to have sex and yes the sex ed I had seemed to encourage it.  "It's natural and fun"  The risks associated with it, were also underplayed.  I wonder how much of this is influenced from the outside (there is a market in kids being sexualized, just look at advertising aimed at them).  Is there anyone saying teenagers SHOULD be having sex?  I think sex ed should actively discourage it, explain the risks clearly and preferably with pictures, and then should explain safe sex and explain what it will and will not protect you against.  HIV and pregnancy, mostly.  Herpes and HPV almost no protection.  Also explain failure rates and how it increases dramatically if not used consistently and correctly 1% --> 20%ish.  
cooncub
6 years, 11 months ago
Hugs, i missed not seeing your stream last nite,still kinda sick.still following the comic,Hope i'm not the one mouthing off if its me i;m sorry.i like meeting new folks in streams and all.Hope u still stream ,would be ashame not seeing you again.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
aww, hugs, no this wasnt in my channel, I was talking of another stream I watch.
tarotwolf
6 years, 11 months ago
I can respect your opinions, and I can even respect your facts, but I disagree with both. To disagree with a fact, one needs factual evidence to the contrary, and I don't know that I can lay may paws on the stats and sources readily, so I'm already one down on that ladder.

I think it's easy to say that sex and sexuality is the source of a huge number of controversies. I can't agree that abstinence is "natural," since if it were, we'd have no overpopulation problem. (Since you mentioned monks, and by extension priests, I'll add that this required chastity is (a) one of the reasons that I think religion is idiotic, and (b) appears to be observed only occasionally as it is.)

I'll respect your choices for yourself. I'll even agree that the fearful diseases that you speak of should be brought up in a frank and open discussion of sex. However, I cannot agree in any way that abstinence is the best solution. The ordinary human sex drive is powerful, particularly in puberty; it's not easily, or even safely, denied. And apart from that it's just plain fun. I disagree utterly that the proper form of education is fear-based browbeating and attempts to control behavior by instilling terror, which appears to be what you're suggesting (e.g., show them pictures, tell them life-threatening statistics). What is wanted is clear information, a discussion of all facts, including the physical, mental, and emotional components of sexuality. What we need is Robert H. Rimmer, but he's no longer with us, and is books are ignored.

I'm very sorry that you were ill-treated, as that's not right under any circumstances. Their "discussion" broke down into name-calling and ridicule, which is essentially a Republican tactic. (Yes, my tongue is in my cheek, although, alas, not very far.) You are very much entitled to your opinions, and to have them respected. A discussion allows for "I disagree", not "you are wrong." Even topics that raise great passions, such as this, should have a respectful, open forum.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
Eh I would disagree.  Abstinence for humans is the natural state until one engages in sex, and then it flips to having sex being natural, as like Ive said, I think sex is an addicting behavior.  You have it, pleasure chemicals are released in the brain and you crave that experience again.  No one craves crack or smoking before they do it and will probably be repulsed by the idea  (smoking tastes HORRIBLE).  You see the same attitude in children...they think sex (even with limited understanding of what it is, as gross)....we've all seen this represented with a boy refusing to kiss a girl or visa versa.  Its funny these attitudes remain in adults.  Gay people think vayjayjay is gross and str8 people think gay sex is gross.

and again, we were talking about sex ed, not adult lifestyle choices.  Teenagers should be taught why abstinence is important (since its pretty universal belief that they should in fact be abstinent).  I do not see why my belief therefore is so held in low regard by liberals.

Its funny that you call it a republican tactic, since they were promoting a typically liberal POV.  I think both liberals and conservative groups resort to name calling when they have no logic behind their positions to defend their views.  And democrats do it just as much as republicans.  Tea party people are teabaggers and racist for example (because their defining issue is lowering government spending?  umm wha?  thats racist?)
Lando
6 years, 11 months ago
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
Hmm.  Well having studied statistics, I know that statistics can easily be misused to support a POV.  One wonders the bias of the people doing the *ONE* study that shows that.  Also is at question is that only four abstinence programs were included in the study and only one of those was actually in a school?  So one wonders what abstinence programs are being taught OUTSIDE of school?  Having glanced over the related study, the word intervention is used a lot.  So those outside school programs were probably for high-risk or girls who had already gotten pregnant once perhaps?

So rather unfair to use that one study which perhaps shows abstinence programs are not as effective among cases where intervention is required, go figure.  Stop having sex with your boyfriend who already got you pregnant once, newspaper to nose, no, no....ya not gonna work well one would think.

Also at question is what is called the small sample problem.  Only four programs studied?  Hmm, seems at best it would be non-conclusive...wheres the state wide studies of the programs?
Lando
6 years, 11 months ago
LOL
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
i am vagina mcliar, phear me =D
Lando
6 years, 11 months ago
what
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
huh
Thanatos
6 years, 11 months ago
Save the fact that education in school is to prepare you for the real world. Not teaching sex preparedness is counter-intuitive to this goal.

If a person chooses to not have sex, that is their right, however,do not force that mentality on everyone.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
This is minors we're talking about.  The government does force that mentality on them.  20% of states its illegal for them to have sex at all before 18.  40% its 17.

And you can't force abstinence, no more than you can force people to use condoms.  All I'm saying is you teach it...give them the information why its important, the risks of engaging in sex, the fact that only 50% will have sex before 18, so blow away the myth everyone is doing it.

Then tell them 40% of those who engage in sex will catch an STD before 18...32% of which cant be stopped by a condom (which is why its so prevelant)  so 1 in 3 chance of getting genital warts, yay, I so want sex right now.  And AFTER you teach the facts...then you teach safe sex, that's what I said above I believe....not abstinence only.

I'd also have all kids vaccinated for HPV too, males and females, and hepatitis while theyre at it.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
I would also say that any program at all doesnt seem to work well....glanced at CDC stats again...they skyrocket for the 20-26 crowd for almost every STD out there.

I think the main problem is there is too high a reliance on condoms to stop everything. the mistaken belief that condoms are a magic thing, which is why HPV has grown to be such a problem.

Also teach teens to fear sex with older people as a precaution, stay away from college menz!
Thanatos
6 years, 11 months ago
Nigh everything you have stated is nothing more that fear mongering postulation.

It is not "illegal" to have sex prior to those ages. It is illegal for those at or above those ages to have sex with those under them.

"Only 50% are doing it" which is why the mean age now is 14 for virginity loss.

Your 40% of those that catch an STD prior to 18 includes those that catch Herpes.  Which, Herpes is carried by more than 1/3rd of this country.   However, most do NOT know that Herpes is simply cold sores in your mouth.  It can cause( if there is an abrasion upon the genitals, if the person performing oral sex has an active case of Herpes in the oral cavity/ Herpes virus swishing around in there, if said virus should land in abrasive cut, if body should not out right reject infection, if if if) genital herpes, however, not all cases are monumental nor visible.

Yes, I know all about HPV.  It will be, this year, the leading cause of throat and oral cancers in the country, ahead of tobacco.

The fact is, nature has decreed these people are ready to procreate, everything else is a moralist agenda.
I trust in Nature, not Hebrew Tribal Gods.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
How can it be fear mongering if true?  Sex is srs bizness.  Historically catching an STD meant death, while medicine has reversed that trend, its entirely possible a new STD could arise causing a new epidemic like HIV appeared out of nowhere and killed millions and continues to kill.  We do not hear much about that, but its entirely possible.  (now thats fear mongering)....but let's stick to the present.

How is telling the actual statistics, the actual chances of catching something for their own age group in way fear mongering?  I would be pissed if I caught something and that information was withheld from me.  The reality is that the condom preventable diseases you have a relatively small chance of encountering in your own age group.  

As far as the state laws go, while some have provisions within certain age limits, a lot have a flat age limit of consent.  I had to research this for a paper a year ago on consensual statutory rape people being listed as sex offenders for the rest of their lives .  Our most unfair case was a 16 year old who had sex with a 14 year old girl who claimed to be 16 at the time.  As I said, its usually the older and male who is convicted in these cases.  (I think these laws are stupid by the way)

And no, the 40% is as said, 40% of people having sex, not the total under 18 populace, since 50% arent having sex, just to be clear.  The majority of those (@20% are chlamydia and @80% being HPV with a 1-5% chance or so of other diseases) are not including herpes at all.  Couldn't find CDC figures for the under 18 group, so didnt include them at all.  If I had, for genital herpes, I am sure the percentages would rise.  Gential herpes btw, is carried by 17% of the country for all ages and is the no 2 STD.

I don't really trust nature.  Its the one that made these diseases.  I trust science.....hell I trust the kids, once they KNOW this stuff, many more will forgo sex till they are ready and mature enough to handle it and its consequences.
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
oh forgot to ad, your figures for the avg age of losing virginity are wrong.  A casual search of the internet reveals it to be 16.3 years old.  Males just claim it to be younger =D  

http://liveeternity.blogspot.com/2007/12/loss-of-virgi...

interestingly tho...the age of losing it keep decreasing each generation, one wonders if earlier and earlier sex ed and sexualization of society is the cause?  
Thanatos
6 years, 11 months ago
Whew, okay. I'll break this down bit by bit.

Sex is srs business: This is an opinion influenced by Puritanical indoctrination over course of time.

No, historically not true. We only could observe those that caused death, the rest went unnoticed.

I can't comment on what you posted on the age of consent laws as if the case in question was from a state with a 16+ AoC then yes, he was in clear violation (though as stated, many have 2~3 year provisions) of the law. Yes, he should be on the sex offender list for life, and so should every male and female in America that has ever urinated outdoors. Once every sees how completely absurd that registry is, it will be gone. But that is an entirely different conversation.

You stated my case for me. That 40% is not pertaining to the less-than 18 crowd, and therefore invalid for teenaged statistics.
A good thing I was not speaking strictly of genital herpes or I might have been Scared.  Furthermore, HPV is, on the large scale, not harmful, and it's passing to others falls below notice; however, it should be dealt with via pre-pubertal vaccinations (hopefully they will figure out the oral one soon) as it can lead to cancer in a small percentage of the populace.
So, that is itself a scare tactic. Simply get the vaccination and realize you have more chance of being killed by a car than HPV induced cancer.

"Ready and Mature enough" which their body is already. Aside from that, what about Mutual Masturbation? Heavy Petting?

No, it isn't. Teens have been having sex for the last 200, 000 years and will continue to do so, regardless of whatever abstinence non-sense you toss their way. You are talking of a creature in severe heat, heightened stress, and emotional plateaus being tossed into a building with hundreds of others in the same boat. All wanting sex and all being told they can't. Years go by, what do you think happens?

And it's not as if i'm saying "Go have sex, everyone is doing it" Half are doing it. That is okay. Don't want to have sex? That is okay! Want to have gangbangs? That is okay!
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
Hmm...well the whole puritanical indoctrination about sex is a historical myth to begin with.  Unfortunately I can't remember from AP history, but the whole puritanical mythology that they were antisex and chaste was just a myth created by one of the early American schools of history.  One of the charming pieces of evidence for this that was of the outstanding puritan fathers had the largest collection of pornography in the americas.  

So yeah, never happened....even Ben Franklin was a he-slut, but is remembered as one of the greatest founding fathers.

Sex is srs business, not due to puritanical or christian codes, but science and history.  Every third or fourth generation in American has had a period of free love....the 1830s...the 1880s....the 1920s...the 1960-70s.  Each period generally ends because large numbers of people caught STDS.  This usually meant eventual death and debilitating diseases.  Syphilis caused madness and death.  Gonorrhea is still the leading cause of blindness in the world.  Then came antibiotics and the 60s free love didnt end.  But then came HIV, again sex could cause death.....and still can.  That is why its srs bizness.  If you dont think an activity that can cause death is srs...well then...you are far more a fanatic than I, sir.

Nice....claim citing actual statistics from the CDC are scare tactics.  Further, claim that the 55,000 women that will die this year alone from it, are a mere blip on your moral compass.  The 40% is entirely based in the under 18 crowd as I stated....I merely said that its 40% of the under 18s engaged in sex.  The 50%  of under 18 yr olds that will not have sex dont really need to worry about  catching an STD right?  so those that are...40% of them catch something, just statistics, based on the CDC.  The fact that the thing they catch the most is something condoms cant prevent, would seem to minimize pro-sex or even safe sex teachings, since it would seem to encourage sex.  I know that the sex I had was very pro-sex as you are for teenagers...minimizing risk and claiming abstinence is a failure and teens cant control themselves even though 50% do not not have sex (we shall call them nerds, geeks, and emos to further insult them..all the cool kids have sex, amiiright?).  

so yeah...you then claim the possibility of having genital warts for 2 years isnt a big deal.  The chance of spreading it to others, no problem, just lie.  As long as you dont DIE from it (immediately).....really?  really????  do you know any person that does not consider warts on their junk a HUGE deal and potential devastating for their relationships?  Especially for the 15-20 year old crowd when thats all important?  Geez, I have to listen to ppl in their 20s still whining about not being able to find someone...yeah would be easy if I didnt have warts on my junk.  so plz....ask any 15-18 yr olds whether they consider warts on their junk a bigger deal than a 2% chance of possibly dying from it 20 yrs down the road.  But hey Im just trying to scare people with the facts right, while u....u...want to hide these facts is that what you want to do?

still dunno,....a totally preventable 1/50 russian roulette of dying...u wanna take those odds?  what do you say to the 2 ppl who die out of a 100 in a horrible way, cancer.

and rlly...comparing car related deaths, which is a necessity in our modern world, with death to a totally preventable thing is just absurd.  If 55,000 people a year riding elevators DIED....how fast do you think elevators would be shut down?  and thats only HPV related cervical cancer.  Doesnt include the anal cancer in men....or the throat cancer that the CDC says will surpass cervical deaths by 2020.  10 years of it = 1/2 million.  Really the more you argue, the more I actually look up facts which shows how scary this is.  It is becoming the leading cause of cancer in THE WORLD with an 80% mortality rate.

DraculJOSHI
6 years, 11 months ago
I checked back some of your facts, and it seems you are only using american statistics that are even generalized to sound like worldwide ones.

The fact is, stds are prone to regional disparity. In german for example, every 11th person has genital warts, but here in switzerland it is about every 50th.

Also, warts can easily be treated by icing and I seriously doubt they can cause cancer. The main reason cancer even exists, is because of the radioactive decay of our own cells. Sure there are things that increase the odds to have cancer, like smoking, but there are just some odds you can't get rid off.

and car accidents are in no way unavoidable, everyone could just walk. I do it. It is possible. It's just you thinking it is unavoidable, since you see a car as a necessity, most likely because you may be american?
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
Well yes, I'm using american stats based on the CDC< said that.  Have no clue what europeans or any other country teaches their kids. and I'm sure they each have their own cultural biases too.  I did notice COLD countries lose their virginity earlier...the only exception is Brazil.  lol.

As far as genital warts, you are misinformed.  Regular warts and genital ones are caused by different viruses....HPV causes genital warts and can persist in the body for up to 2 years (it was thought before they lasted a lifetime just a few years ago) and it does cause anal, cervical and throat cancer.  It will soon be the leading cause of cancer in the world.

and yes, I think cars are unavoidable, being an American.  Most cities do not have good public transportation systems and to get to work you must have a car.  My roomate travels 2 hours an day by car to get to work.  Walking would take him twelve hours one way.  He would not be able to get a job in his field without a car.  This is the case for most people, particularly in this economy here.  There are no busses or rail that can get him anywhere near there also.  Only less than 10% of americans live in areas with good transport systems, usually in big cities, even then transport may be needed to get to the public systems.
DOtter
6 years, 11 months ago
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
sadly broken link.  its a shame, I was expecting something funny
DOtter
6 years, 11 months ago
It should have been okay. I'll PM it to you.
Ribsteak
6 years, 11 months ago
I my opinion a lot of people are either too idiotic or stupid to realize that people have different opinions and that just because it is different dose not mean it is wrong  as well you get people who say stuff just because then can
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
abssolutely agreed....in social channels like livestream...a variety of views should be welcomed.  Anytime someone is being ridiculed or attacked for not holding certain views, its just sad.   I do a livestream and trust me, there are moments when ideologies clash....two of the biggest things have been homosexuality and cub stuff.  I personally take a live and let live policy.  I do not judge others on their fetishes, even if I dont understand them.  I dont condemn people, and people who start saying bad things about any group in my livestream are quickly warned and would be booted.  So far havent had to do that, but my finger has been on the button before.

My point in this was the intolerance of that livestream and the continued attacks I perceived there, not only to me, but other artists.  They seem to like to make fun of beginning artists on a daily basis.....that really rankled me....and I suppose I should have said something...sometimes I did.   the last time, I said your prolly making fun of a 16 yr old...

and yeah me disagreeing on really a thing I dont really care about, such as proper sex ed....and having ppl accuse me of being christian and not having sex....because I had views the didnt jive with theirs...that was simply last straw.

did I mention they called me vagina mcliar.  LOL
rab080193
6 years, 11 months ago
People will easily shun other people who don't share their views, it's just the way the a unified mind works. If they don't like what we like, then they're (insert whatever insult here). The fact that you're going to just completely ignore thme from now on is pretty much the only and best thing you can do that ins't violent. And the facts and studies you found all seem pretty sound, if they don't want to listen, then hey, "ignorance is bliss" right?
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
yeah agreed, it's just sad that it couldnt be a discussion of facts.  The one "fact" they mentioned to support their case as above is one study that I tore about its validity above easily.  Would love to see real facts that support their cause and actually looked for some (in that lazy well its not on the first page of search results, time to move on way :-D)

but yeah, agreed, just better to not associate with that group and live and let live.
DarthRandom
6 years, 11 months ago
'Just wow for some of the debate above ^^ Basically I agreed with you on most of your initial statements but found several flaws/points of consideration. In terms of the Innate/Learned behavior I would say it would have to be a mix of the two, using your analogy of one person in isolation I believe that ultimately they would start humping and discovering sexual desire with time, a learned behavior but a self taught behavior I expect, more or less through the trial and error way in terms of discovering the pleasure and then as a basic animalistic principle, chasing it. From an evolutionary perspective when we evolved past the point of your 'dog humping' innate behaviors, biologically we had to acquire something else in order to continue the population - Pleasure - this was biology's way to keep the populace producing and thus must be an innate behavior...at least in origin.

Also you mentioned hormones etc. that cause arousal in animals and force sexual desire...did you know that testosterone works as one of them? Which is why sweaty guys tend to, despite knowing they stink, get hit on by others. The raising of sexual awareness through this essentially takes an aspect of the 'choice' out of it and warps reality slightly to make people seem more attractive. So, in your 'ugly no sex' point I would say that given time and hormones, one would eventually 'tap that' if other options were taken. But that is one of the unique but most primitive techniques of Biology and Genetics - the choice of attraction - the best organisms pass on their genes (in a particularly wild situation the jeans may be torn) whether this be survivally, or, in humanities situation, looks. Of course, you'd think in theory that by now we'd all be amazing...but you have alcohol and violence to thank for that, alcohol being our ultimate pheromone it would seem...

Anyways...educationally and in terms of abstinence you mention some good points, I believe that it should be encouraged in learning but know that ultimately it will come down to the will of the person/persons involved...all we can do is let 'em know what they're doing and show them freaky pictures...oh, and all these comments should totally get published in a science magazine...

oh, and lastly, so much for no-one reading these =P
Yiffox
6 years, 11 months ago
Well the point was that I was immediately made fun of and insulted by this group for even daring to say that abstinence should be the core of any sex ed program.  They immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was saying "abstinence only" which I've heard of, but do not even know what those programs contain other than the obvious conclusion.  Now, asbtinence is the desired result of pretty much all adults involved who do not want to deal with the consequences.  And the fact is half of kids make it out of high school without having sex.  <--that figure is overlooked by the people who believe abstinence does not work.  

For sex ed, I think as I said, we should work to increase that 50% by education, explaining the risks, explaining how many ppl that age group already have something, about 20% and the majority of those includes dangerous diseases, particularly for women, which can cause cancer and infertility.  Not to mention the bad results of pregnancy at that age, emotionally and physically.  And agreed safe sex practices should be taught also, with the knowledge it does not protect against herpes and HPV.  Too many people come out of sex ed believing condoms are magic pills that prevent everything, which is why HPV and herpes are the most widespread STDS out there, one of which can cause death and the other is a lifelong disease.

Your arguments of what an isolated human would do show nothing but the prejudices of the people saying such things.  We do not know what an isolated person would do.  The first such actual experiment (which may be a myth) is a king of England proposing that isolated children would speak Hebrew.  They just died.  Even feral children suffer from extreme mental problems, as humans are incapable of raising themselves and are communal animals.  We learn to be human from being around humans, from language to social involvement.  Sex is also a learned activity from watching others.

So yes, sex would be "discovered" even if not taught, usually by experimentation.  This does not make it an innate drive.  Humans tend to experiment with a lot of things, so their own bodies would not be any different.  I can remember some of the crazy things I did as a teen (even though these were after knowledge of sex).  

Humans do have pheromones, but our reaction to them is very limited since they have no access to the organ which responds to them (which is missing entirely from 40% of people).  It may have some limited response, but as you said, its not toward sex, but toward attractiveness.  I think the mere smell of sweat can have a better reaction than the pheromones contained simply by memory function.   Just as people develop a "type" which I believe from observation corresponds to the first few people they loved/had sex with/crushes on.....smells also play a role....I think many can attest to that or have heard that from people.  As an example, a girl I knew who liked the small of a certain cologne her ex used.  The smell of sweat can be the same thing...we remember and associate smells.

Let me add another twist to this that emphasizes the social/learned behavior of sex, rather than it being a drive.  My idea also explains the many people who engage in sex for money, position, or that next acting job.  None of these people are doing it for a drive or even attraction.  They are performing an act they learned in order to get something from the other person.
DarthRandom
6 years, 11 months ago
Fair Enough then, a shame there isn't any validation yet from science...I suppose all we can do is wait. I'm not going to bother attempting to argue about something that is not yet fully understood but for now I suppose I'll just keep your ideas in mind, I suppose the current human condition is somewhat interesting and in a way links back to those ancient ideas of what is 'fated' and what isn't. Perhaps you are correct and isolation from the current presure of society will result in a lack of sexual desire, perhaps sex is completly unavoidable in a life as long as hormonal glands activate correctly and there is 'stimulus' that triggers that 'unexpected' response in guys...but I have a feeling it'll be a long time, maybe never, before we understand such complex mental drives...the other one I'd like to know is what goes on with homosexuality (nature/nurture ratios etc.) and also the psychology of some of the biggest criminals/psychopaths we've seen...a bizarre world we live in...

On the other hand your points about education are completly agreed upon by me, and while, sure, there'll be slightly more schoolyard awkwardness only a lessening of damage could come from knowledge of the dangers of life.

Anyway, this has been one of the more intellectual internet conversations ^^ and it's always good to debate things like this as there's almost always new and suprising ideas that could very well be the next discovery of research...
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.