Strange, I took the fact that they have a little pouch to catch the semen and the large amounts of spermicide to mean that they do prevent pregnancy.

what would happen if there was an age law on having sex?

Dear Black Knight:
There are. They're called Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. Of course, those only deal with age differences. When dealing with two minors, laws against would really only cause more problems. Most adults are ignorant of the numerous state and federal laws in place, so what can we expect from children? What would be the punishment? Would parents be held responsible? No, involving the government and criminalizing the actions of consenting individuals is a bad idea. I think there are actually some states with age laws on the books, but how can they really be enforced? And to what end? Who would really receive protection or justice under such a law? It would only be a law of control, and those are dangerous.


Dear Falkoner:
Your point?

Why should they? Because studies show that underage sexual action releases "eroto-toxins" into the mind, effecting it negatively. Although this is a free country, if you know someone is going to commit suicide and you tell the police, they are required by law to detain you and give you psychiatric aid.

People keep saying that we do what we want, you do what you want because at the end of the day I can't effect you. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot do virtually anything without having some effect on another. To think be ignorant of that is a new kind of stupidity.

Bit off-topic, but could you provide links to any information on this? I tried a quick search in a couple places and couldn't find much.

I often quote vague studies as the need arises.

Lol, "eroto-toxins." Sorry, unless you back that up with a source, Jello, I can't take your post very seriously. =oP

An empty relationship based solely on sexual/physical pleasure or social-political gain (i.e. the average high school relationship). Such relationships are, in my opinion, meaningless and degrading to society.

You acted completely like you were talking about sex, you think I don't plan on dating girls? You don't need to have sex to have a healthy relationship.


That your views are not relevent or applicable to all no matter how strongly you believe in them.


That is completely what this topic comes down to, and it often does hurt people, I'd say it's worth it to make laws against premarital sex simply for the small cases where it ruins lives, seeing as in the other cases it doesn't help that much.

Dear Falkoner:
Acted? No, you assumed. I used specific wording.

I did not go into detail about sex given the age demographic of this site, but I let you make the mental connections with "etc, etc".

Also, I never claimed that you needed to have sex to have a healthy relationship. Don't put words in my mouth. The only claim I've made is that experience helps, as it does with anything.


That's funny, because I'm not the one who has stated that he would enforce his beliefs on everyone else if given the power. Let's put things back in context:

So, if your point was to try making me eat my own words, you have failed miserably.


Finally, in case you overlooked it, I expanded on why your view that everyone should wait until marriage before sex is not applicable nor relevent to everyone:

I am assuming one of the principle reasons you are adamant about abstinence and waiting until marriage is due to your religious views. Is that an fair assumption? That is another reason why I said your views are not applicable or relevent to everyone, because not everyone is Mormon. There are a variety of faiths, atheism, etc. You believe your religion is correct, and that's fine, which is why you believe in it. To that idea, I originally countered with this:

Exactly. Practice on the fat chicks they're easy.

Exactly. It appalls me that people would be so blind in the belief that their values are a universal truth that everyone should accept.

Exactly. It appalls me that people would be so blind in the belief that their values are a universal truth that everyone should accept.





EL OH EL.

Irrelevant. Anyone in power would enforce their beliefs on people. Your sub-arguement here is thus rendered useless and the CONTINOUS quote of this statement is deemed unnescesary.

And yet:


You posted that because of the topic of sex, your "specific wording" still enclosed sex, which was what the topic we were currently talking about, so it sounded like you were talking about sex, and I'm fairly certain you were, and simply changed your story when DTBK posted.


How does experience in sex help a marriage? Do you think your spouse is going to be happy to hear you've had sex with someone else? If anything I'd say it hurts it.


I never said that everyone should follow the same choice, in a perfect world, I'd say they would, of their own accord, but this world isn't perfect, and as I'm not going to be in power, it doesn't really matter what I would do. This discussion isn't about me.


Once again, in a perfect world, you wouldn't have to worry about people being unfaithful, not to mention, whether or not there is still a chance that things could still go wrong, it's less of a chance than it is otherwise.


I am not simply spewing my religion on you, many logical points have been made regarding why premarital sex is bad, and yet you continue to focus on the fact that I have a religion, even though it doesn't affect how my view would be, premarital sex is logically bad.


That's not hypocritical, that picture does not apply, I simply repeated his own words.

False.

I don't believe pre-marital sex is bad. What if you marry someone who's a bad lay? Prior sexual experience is, in my opinion, a plus. The girls that I've slept with who have had more sexual experience are always more fun than the ones who haven't. I think a good number of the religious stances on sex trace their origins to the simple feeling of being sexually threatened by more promiscuous people. When I was younger, I had trouble with the idea of girls that I cared about sleeping with other men. It's quite natural. But it's life. Nowadays, I have no problems with girls that have had sex before.

As I said, I think that the stances of many religions on sex stems from primitive humans feeling sexually threatened and wishing to control the other gender just to make themselves feel better.

And you've also been divorced, I don't mean to target you personally, but that definitely changes your view on this subject.

Well, for the record, I was never married. But regardless, does my experience make my perspective invalid?

His experience might only bias slightly more towards a view he had before, but the same goes for you. You still have no grounds for why your view is "right" other than your belief that divorce is wrong blah blah blah.

Exactly.

Falkoner's argument is just "I'm right and you're wrong just because I believe God said so."

He has been slowly influenced to believe otherwise, so his original views were basically the same as mine.

When and where the hell did you ever got that piece of information from Doodan?