Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Abstinence's Actual Experiance vs. the Hype

SERPENT7 · 11-08-2005, 04:45 PM

The thing w/ the ring is, well there are several things going on here.
1) Modern Western religions like to control as much of thier followers lives as possible.
2) Sexual guilt is one of the most effective ways to go about #1 there is.
3) The companies that sell the rings (they do 'morality presentations' in HS and then sell these distinct no-sex symbols.) are all owned by conservatives, church groups and closet repliclowns. (They are essentially capitolizing off of a movement they started.)
4) The fact that the rings are so visually distinct and therefore easily recognizable means that peer-pressure can be brought to bare on anyone that is not wearing one. ('look at her, no ring = slut.')
5) It encourages hypocracy.
6) It has been statisticly shown that 'abstinence' programs delay loss of virginity by 18 months. That doesn't seem like much, but it is when you consider that it is the difference between 17 and 19!
7) Acording to the same study 'abstinence only' programs have an identicle teen pregnancy rate as compared to sex educated populations, and a slightly higher incidence of VD. (The thinking is that while there might be less sex, there is NO birth control, so the few that are sexxxxing are getting preggo/VD at a disproportionate rate.)
also, i agree that it is skazzy and wierd for a dad to be (symbolicly) giving control of his daughters sexuality to her husband. But, this ring thing came out of the promise-keepers movement, which imo is nothing more than a way to rationalize god sponsored patriarchy. (Don't even get me started about 'Dynamic Marriage'!)

11-08-2005, 04:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
SERPENT7 Crazy Location: Gold country!	The thing w/ the ring is, well there are several things going on here. 1) Modern Western religions like to control as much of thier followers lives as possible. 2) Sexual guilt is one of the most effective ways to go about #1 there is. 3) The companies that sell the rings (they do 'morality presentations' in HS and then sell these distinct no-sex symbols.) are all owned by conservatives, church groups and closet repliclowns. (They are essentially capitolizing off of a movement they started.) 4) The fact that the rings are so visually distinct and therefore easily recognizable means that peer-pressure can be brought to bare on anyone that is not wearing one. ('look at her, no ring = slut.') 5) It encourages hypocracy. 6) It has been statisticly shown that 'abstinence' programs delay loss of virginity by 18 months. That doesn't seem like much, but it is when you consider that it is the difference between 17 and 19! 7) Acording to the same study 'abstinence only' programs have an identicle teen pregnancy rate as compared to sex educated populations, and a slightly higher incidence of VD. (The thinking is that while there might be less sex, there is NO birth control, so the few that are sexxxxing are getting preggo/VD at a disproportionate rate.) also, i agree that it is skazzy and wierd for a dad to be (symbolicly) giving control of his daughters sexuality to her husband. But, this ring thing came out of the promise-keepers movement, which imo is nothing more than a way to rationalize god sponsored patriarchy. (Don't even get me started about 'Dynamic Marriage'!)