Wonderful Ben, wonderful.
Doesn’t look like we’re getting a response from our local cowboy. Ah, well - best Ben get the last eloquent word in anyway. No doubt all this will come up again soon enough…
Esprix
First, to all of you that make comments that I do not have any common sense. The Grease movie comment(that I made) was being silly that is the what the little wink thing means. Just to get that out of the way first. :rolleyes:
Now on to the most applauded words of the illustrious and intellectial Ben.( Just curious does he send y’all money?)
*Originally posted by Ben *
In regards to this statement it seems kinda pointless doesn’t it? But I will try harder.
Considering I just celebrated our 16th anniversary this last weekend and we have had no unwanted pregnacy in the whole time I think it is effective method(for us). Don’t you? Besides my wife wants another baby anyway and I really don’t. So we’ll leave it God’s hands if he wants us to have another one or not. In the meantime we will have good sex with out the latex thank you.
You know Ben you are full of ahhh. Anyway I never voiced an opinion about opposition to anal sex other that I don’t want the govt teaching my kids about it. If you want your kids to learn anal sex so bad, please use your money and send them to a private school named Anal Jr. High. But I don’t want it taught to my kids by the gov’t in a school that I pay taxes to support.
The Bible does speak out against sodomy but then it also says the marriage bed is sanctified. So I am not sure that it is forbiding sodomy in the form of homosexual sex or is forbidding anal sex in general(even in marriage). So that is the reason why I am not sure. And to tell you the truth I haven’t given in that much study or thought because I not that interested in it.
Well, what is the point? Since the Devil is supernatural, don’t you think he could decieve even the smartest human even you? So I don’t see the point to wasting my time in something that I feel is useless to know.
I don’t see how it could be a friend at all? If you prove it true than you die forever. I do find it odd though that you look at it as the important war of all time. Maybe you are on to something there.
I never said I was qualified to prove it wrong. There are lots of other Christians that are lot more scientifically inclined to do so than me. So I will leave to them.
With the way I read books what are you trying to do put a ruin my sex life? 
WB: *Considering I just celebrated our 16th anniversary this last weekend and we have had no unwanted pregnacy in the whole time I think it is effective method(for us). Don’t you? *
No, probably not. It’s true that the efficacy of coitus interruptus can vary somewhat from couple to couple (some guys are just, ahem, how do I put this delicately, less “leaky” than others, ya know what I mean?). But as previous posters have pointed out, the odds are small but not minuscule—about 1 in 10—that chance alone would prevent conception for a couple that uses this method for 14 years (the 16 you’ve been married minus about a year of conception attempts/pregnancy with each of your two children). So most likely, it’s not that you’re using an effective method, it’s just that you’ve been lucky with an ineffective one. (And congrats on your anniversary, by the way!)
*Besides my wife wants another baby anyway and I really don’t. So we’ll leave it [in] God’s hands if he wants us to have another one or not. In the meantime we will have good sex with out the latex thank you. *
Well, if you are comfortable with accepting a not-entirely-planned pregnancy, then of course you don’t need to worry so much about minimizing your risk. But I do earnestly advise you, if you and your wife reach a point (before she hits menopause) where you are both agreed about definitely not wanting another child, to find a supplementary birth control method in addition to the coitus interruptus that you’ll both be happy with. (Diaphragms, for example, though not entirely trustworthy as a standalone form of contraception, do provide a good deal of added protection and are not really a hassle to deal with once you’re used to them, and most men aren’t aware of them at all when installed, as it were.) Getting lucky for one year, or fourteen for that matter, is no guarantee of staying lucky for the rest of your sexually active life.
(By the way, I can’t help thinking it a little odd that you think sex with a condom is unacceptably unsatisfying but coitus interruptus is not! Heaven knows you have every right to your own sexual preferences and you know best what you like best; but be forewarned (in case you get asked for contraception advice when your daughters marry, say) that most males might not agree with you on this one.)
Um, what??? How many times do you have to be told that evolution being true does not mean God does not exist! Ask about 99% of the Christians on this MB, they believe in both evolution AND God! I find it hard to beleive that you have not yet accepted this. If you wish to believe that evolution is wrong, that’s your business, but stop insisting that evolution says God does not exist.
BTW, I would like to hear what you have thought about our last exchange.
Gaudere,Ben, et alia, there is a proverb that says, “Never try to teach a pig to sing: you’ll only waste your time and annoy the pig.” It is patently clear from WB’s posts that he is either unwilling, or what is more likely, incapable, of being persuaded to change his mind by the power of sweet reason. You have paid him the compliment of taking his comments seriously, instead of dismissing them and him completely. At what point will you stop banging your heads against this particular brick wall?
Hmm. Let’s see here. Schools teach what anal sex is, and what dangers/consequences of its practice is. They don’t level any moral judgements for or against the practice. There certainly are dangers, but Bill doesn’t want to waste any tax dollars letting kids know about them.
**
Allow me to translate: “Facts mean nothing. Evidence means nothing. No matter what you come up with, I will stubbornly cling to ideas that are not central to my theology because they are comforting and I can understand them without effort.” It’s quite parallel to your attitude about sex education. “Facts mean nothing. Evidence means nothing. I will stubbornly advocate positions that real life has shown to be ineffective because the subject is distasteful to me personally.”
**
Once again, with feeling. There is NOTHING incompatible between evolution and Christianity!
Well, I think that the most important war of all time he may be referring to is the battle against ignorance. Ostensibly, that is what this message board is for, your own posts in this thread notwithstanding.
I find it difficult to comprehend why you are even here at the SDMB Bill. You have stated that you are neither well versed in evolution, nor willing to learn the rudiments of it. You make false pronouncements concerning it and then say it doesn’t really matter anyway because you are happy believing what you believe. If you are actually proud of your ignorance, why are you participating in a board dedicated to fighting ignorance?
Just a question relating to the original post…do you really need to teach abstinence? I knew how not to have sex a long time before I ever figured out how to have sex.
Thinking back, it seems my sex ed. was handled quite appropriately (by a Catholic school, no less). It seems odd that we wouldn’t want to teach kids about sex. We teach kids what lungs are and what they do; we teach kids about the heart and its function; there’s very little objective difference between this and teaching kids what a clitoris is and what it does (fortunately for my sex life, I took that particular lesson to heart). Why should we let Bill’s Sky God and his taboos stop us from giving our children an honest and complete education?
In Bill’s defense: He’s taken some not-so-gentle ribbings from the people here and has endured it all with courtesy and a smile. Whatever problems we may have with WB’s logic or beliefs, we’re probably not justified in any personal attacks.
I believe so. After all, what’s wrong with stressing that NOT having sex is the safest way to avoid the consequences?
That doesn’t mean that one should teach ONLY abstinence, nor none at all.
Well, but then you’re not really teaching abstinence. You’re making a statement that, if you abstain from sex, you won’t get a woman pregnant (or become pregnant) and you won’t catch a sexually transmitted disease. Again, isn’t that obvious? I mean, I’m assuming you teach the kids how someone becomes pregnant…so wouldn’t the kid know that, if he or she doesn’t do that thing, they won’t impregnate or become pregnant? Or, am I giving our nation’s youth too much credit?
Man, I go away for one week of finals and you guys generate five pages of interesting discussion on this topic alone? How am I ever going to catch up?
Anyway, here is an interesting article on the efficacy of various types of sex education. The author’s main thesis seems to be that we could spend the public money much more effectively by teaching parents how to talk to their kids about sex, rather than by working on the kids directly. I personally found it thought-provoking, and I’d be interested in other Dopers’ reactions to it.
On a few of the items that have been brought up in this thread:
WB, your posts are much more readable than they were a few months ago, and I truly appreciate your making the effort to work on them, even though they are still far from perfect. I generally can figure out what you are trying to say now, which is a vast improvement. I also will agree that I admire your ability to stay good-spirited in the face of people telling you that your ideas are ridiculous.
That said, I also agree with other posters that you are setting your daughters up for a great deal of pain. How can you simultaneously tell them that all the boys they meet are selfishly trying to get into their pants, and that you hope they marry good men who will cherish them? If they believe the first part, how will they ever be able to trust that they actually have found a man that it would be OK to marry?
I understand that you were joking when you said you would like to lock them up until they are married. But how exactly will they get married if you are determined to protect them from interaction with potential spouses?
Since this ain’t the Pit, please see my response to this statement in the above-linked thread that you already inspired once. Thank you.
Esprix
Captain Amazing, it’s not really that obvious. For one thing, some parents are too squeamish to teach kids even the mechanics of pregnancy. For another thing, a lot of kids are pretty murky on STDs–they think AIDS is a disease that happens only to gays or drug addicts or some such, and won’t happen to them. For that matter, the same thing applies to pregnancy–they hear weird rumors about how you can avoid pregnancy with Coke douches or some such. The important thing to teach about abstinence, I think, is that it’s the most certain way of avoiding these problems. After all, people are always trying to convince themselves they can have their fun while avoiding the consequences.
Gaudere,
First I wanted to say that I am sorry I took so long to respond to your post but I will do so now.
I can appreciate that. But see there is a factor here that maybe nobody else has considered is the “spin” the teacher can put on the teaching of sex ed. I mean you could get someone that has a loose morals and they they could teach it that way. Could they not?
:
: I am sorry after reading this I just had this mental picture in my head of some kid that is not to bright putting a condom on his lips and talking dirty to a girl and every word he says the rubber gets bigger. Sorry back to topic.
To Enugent and VarlosZ,
Thanks for your kind words I was beginning to think no one liked me here anymore.
And Enugent a big thanks for the link and the info and guess what I liked it. I have new idea (oh boy huh) that I think will make everybody happy. Hear me out here.
How about implementing what the guy said in the article. In otherwords having the parents teach sex ed at home with infomation and materials the schools provide. Then the school can test the kids on the material to see if in fact that the parents did teach them. If the kids make below a 70, then the parents get one more chance to teach the kids and then they(kids) are tested again. If they flunk this time, then the school gets to teach the material.
See this way everybodies happy the material gets taught and learned. The parents get to have their input on the “way” the material is taught. And if the parents aren’t responsible then the govt get to teach them.
Well does this sound reasonable?
Oh and btw how about we not talk about evolution on this thread more.
don’t teach evolution “any” more.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to either condone or condemn in the classroom a specific sexual behavior, though of course he or she can inform the students of which acts are high-risk and which are safe. You are arguing against misuse of the the material, which is something you always have to guard against in any subject. A history teacher may be a KKK member and decry the civil rights laws in class; however, this does not mean you shouldn’t teach history at all. Sex ed is even more important to teach well than history, IMHO; you don’t get deadly diseases becuase you don’t know who the 36th president is.
It sounds like a workable idea to me. I think we should do a study on it, though, make sure that it actually works as well at preventing STDs and pregnancies and such as teaching in school. Besides, I must admit I’m amused at the thought of WB trying to explain “rimming” to his daughters.
Gaudere LOL. and still LOL. I could just see the look on their faces now. When they say, “they DO WHAT DADDY??? EEEEWWWWWHHH.”
Actually, while your idea might be workable, in an urban school setting it would be difficult - kids in urban schools often change schools quite often, and it’s difficult enough, for the various schools/districts to be on the same page with Math.
How about this for a compromise:
Sex ed handled at school unless parent requests to deal with it in the manner described. The option for parental involvement would be mailed home to each parent (can’t trust those kids to bring home anything).
BTB - My son, when he was about 8, asked for ‘the talk’. I asked him if he was sure he wanted to hear about it. He assured me that he was.
So I told him. about 2/3 of the way through he started 'ewwwwwwwwwwwwing". yuck, yuck. then he paused and asked “do you think my dad does that?”
Don’t knock what you haven’t tried. If you like, I can hire myself out as a consultant to teach the icky stuff you don’t like.
Esprix