Re: Going without sex is unhealthy
From: Jim Justjim (justjim67_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: BELANGER: "Re: forecast"
- Previous message: Email Invalid: "Re: What is a share or stock of a company really mean?"
- Maybe in reply to: Lefty: "Re: Going without sex is unhealthy"
- Next in thread: answers_here: "Re: Going without sex is unhealthy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jul 2004 22:38:22 GMT
answers1007@lycos.com (answers_here) wrote:
> Going without sex is unhealthy. Adolescents become sexual beings by
> age 14,
We are all born sexual beings!
> and should be taught that having sex is good and fine if they
> want it. They should be given condoms and birth control and easy
> access to early term abortions and std testing. They should be taught
> that the younger they are, the greater an imposition an unwanted baby
> will be, so the younger they are, the more important it is they use
> two forms of birth control (such as condoms and the pill). Also, we
> need to develop at home std tests, like at home pregnancy tests.
>
> Also, it is everyone's unalienable right to have sex and there is
> nothing shameful about the human body. No one owes anyone this right
> though, thus no one should automatically expect sex from anyone, but
> the point is, this right should not be violated nor abridged by
> anyone, including parents. That is, if the parents want their kids to
> grow up healthier, tending towards truth, health, happiness and
> normalcy they should recognize and support their adolescent's sexual
> decisions (so long as those decisions are sexually normal).
Sorry, but you are really going to have to be more specific, here! What is
sexually normal? Who decides what is "normal" and what is not???
> Let me
> stress that it should be the adolescent's decision when they feel it
> is best for them to engage in sexual activities - just as it is a 30
> year old woman's decision when it is best for _her_ to engage in
> sexual activities! In Europe it is quite natural to have your
> boyfriend or girlfriend sleep over and have sex in the teen years.
>
> If you ever want to have healthy relationships in life, you should
> start now. Sex is a normal, positive, and healthy thing, when engaged
> in safely, and our children should be taught this. It is entirely
> unrealistic to expect teens to go without sex from ages 14-18. It is
> also entirely unrealistic to expect anyone to go without sex ever and
> experience a happy, joyful life.
>
> Going through life without positive, happy, sexual, loving
> relationships is a lesser experience of what life could be.
>
> Also, since it's obviously possible to love more than one person in
> your life, it is possible to love more than one person at once, thus,
> I suggest everyone play the field in their 20s and 30s, and not get
> married until age 40, and not have kids until 45,
Many women CAN'T have children at that age and for those who can there are
many genetic risks for the child.
> when they are older,
> richer, wiser and hopefully self-actualized and established.
If you know anything about "self-actualization" you would know that
"self-actualised" is not a destination.
> The kids should be out of the house around the time you retire.
So you think that 50 year olds can keep up with 5 year olds?
- Next message: BELANGER: "Re: forecast"
- Previous message: Email Invalid: "Re: What is a share or stock of a company really mean?"
- Maybe in reply to: Lefty: "Re: Going without sex is unhealthy"
- Next in thread: answers_here: "Re: Going without sex is unhealthy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
