How devastating is it to find out your high school teenage daughter is having sex?

I dont know many girls that were virgins when they graduated HS. Only the ugly or over weight.

The only thing needed to have sex is genuine love. That is all. Declarations of this love is nice, but it is not needed for love to exist.

and candela is a troll,when you re responsible for 50% of the replies to your own thread... you live under a bridge

candela wrote:

If you want more evidence, no one in my family (we'll say all the way up to my great-grandparents, including cousins, etc.) has ever:

-had an unwanted pregnancy

-had an STD

-been arrested

-been homeless

-committed suicide

-failed a class

Sorry, but most of these things are way too personal for you to possibly know. What, you think if your great-uncle got an STD in 1901 that he'd share it with the family and it would be passed down generation to generation until it reached your ears? Get real. In fact, you can't even be certain about this information for your parents and siblings.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

candela wrote:

I said I would accept that last paragraph if someone could provide me with a primary source for data, which no one has done as of yet.

The Journal of Sex Research

The role of religion in shaping sexual frequency and satisfaction: evidence from married and unmarried older adults

SECTION: Pg. 297 Vol. 48 No. 2-3 ISSN: 0022-4499

LENGTH: 11142 words

A cross-sectional analysis of the religion--sex relationship among married American adults revealed that just under 30% of "very religious" respondents refrained from premarital sex, whereas only about 7% of nonreligious respondents abstained (Janus & Janus, 1993).

Not the data I asked for, but interesting nevertheless.

I have not changed nor manipulated any argument. (And that wouldn't be "fair enough" anyway).

That first quote, "Inherently wrong - Victimless Crime - Guilt", I stand by it. How does this contradict anything I said later?

And to everyone who I replied that they couldn't read, well, they couldn't. It was specifically because if they had read what I had written, they would not have written what they did. If you can cite something I've written that isn't true, feel free.

Calling me a hypocrite? In what way? Please, show me something I've written about my values, and then show me something else that demonstrates I contradict that. Since you claim you can read, I assume you know what the word "hypocrite" means.

Sources that show an overwhelming majority has premarital sex?

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237611,00.html

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20061219_95_of_americans_have_had_premarital_sex/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-19-premarital-sex_x.htm

http://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Sex.SamplePgs.pdf

It is indeed a social norm to have premarital sex, and we've been doing it for decades. You're in a small minority that think this way.

mapshap wrote:

Sorry, but most of these things are way too personal for you to possibly know. What, you think if your great-uncle got an STD in 1901 that he'd share it with the family and it would be passed down generation to generation until it reached your ears? Get real. In fact, you can't even be certain about this information for your parents and siblings.

Great-uncle isn't within the subset of relatives I listed. Your point fails.

On a side note, if a girl is really into her religion and thinks premarital sex is wrong, don't stick with her out of the hope that she'll change. The girl cried my first time; it was weird. She then had a heart to heart conversation with her parents about it, which I also found weird. There's nothing like a good messed up high school relationship.

t94bell wrote:

Sources that show an overwhelming majority has premarital sex?

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237611,00.htmlhttp://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20061219_95_of_americans_have_had_premarital_sex/http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-19-premarital-sex_x.htmhttp://www.newstrategist.com/productdetails/Sex.SamplePgs.pdf

It is indeed a social norm to have premarital sex, and we've been doing it for decades. You're in a small minority that think this way.

Thank you. As I said I would, I revise my earlier position that most people do not have premarital sex.

Would you happen to have data on the percentage of people that *support* premarital sex though? People can perform acts that they regret.

Azaleas wrote:

On a side note, if a girl is really into her religion and thinks premarital sex is wrong, don't stick with her out of the hope that she'll change. The girl cried my first time; it was weird. She then had a heart to heart conversation with her parents about it, which I also found weird. There's nothing like a good messed up high school relationship.

One thing I can agree with.

candela wrote:

Your argument (and it's a commonly used one) fails because transportation is a necessity in a modern world -- premarital sex is not.

Going back to this, you do not need to drive. It's a choice you make that puts your life at risk.

To be honest, I've never really thought of marriage as a necessity to declare love, let alone sex.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Going back to this, you do not need to drive. It's a choice you make that puts your life at risk.

Seems like a VERY stretched analogy.

On the one hand, we have an act that can very easily be refrained from for maybe 5-8 years, and that by not doing it vastly decreases your chances of running into a problem.

On the other hand, we have an act that can be refrained from only with very great difficulty in a modern society, must be refrained from for one's whole life, and that by not doing it insignificantly decreases your chances of running into a problem.

if harm is your criterion now, there are many other activities that cause more harm. focus on smoking or eating a high sugar or high fat diet.

candela wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Going back to this, you do not need to drive. It's a choice you make that puts your life at risk.

Seems like a VERY stretched analogy.

On the one hand, we have an act that can very easily be refrained from for maybe 5-8 years, and that by not doing it vastly decreases your chances of running into a problem.

On the other hand, we have an act that can be refrained from only with very great difficulty in a modern society, must be refrained from for one's whole life, and that by not doing it insignificantly decreases your chances of running into a problem.

More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. That same year, there were 301,174 cases of Gonorrhea, 1,244,180 cases of Chlamydia, 44,828 cases of syphilis, and 48,100 new cases of HIV, so while 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers (so children aren't in this number) were injured and 33,808 killed in motor vehicle accidents, there were 1,638,282 new cases of life threatening infections of sexually transmitted diseases, which would suggest that being in a car or in the vicinity of car traffic is statistically more likely to cause harm than sex.

You make the choice to leave your home and put yourself at risk for an automobile accident or being struck by an automobile as a pedestrian. You accept the risk and use your education to minimize that risk, understanding that, despite your best efforts and all your precaution, you could still end up hospitalized or dead.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I like the data.

I'll concede that my statement "by not doing it insignificantly decreases your chances of running into a problem" was incorrect. Now can you address my other two points of that sentence? :)

Once again, you try to steer clear of certain points that threaten the validity of your beliefs. You say that you believe it to be impractical? Why? Going off of what you said in this thread: "Unwanted Pregnancies, STD's etc. etc." Here's the problem, that doesn't make it impractical, those are what's known as NATURAL CONSEQUENCES. For instance, a 5 yr old touches a hot stove, he gets his hand burned, a natural consequence. Of course, your response will simply be that my analogy is somehow not connected, or doesn't bare and resemblence to the issue at hand, yadda yadda yadda. Life is about learning, not only about oneself, but about the world (that's sorta our purpose, not to mention reproduce), and you can only learn through doing. To be honest with you, nobody cares about your views, that isn't the issue though. You've continually manipulated every argument to make it seem as though, anybody who believes premarital sex to be 'ok', is deemed irresponible and negligent of some mythical moral standard you claim to have. You say it's not about religion, and say it's not about morals, then what is it about? Truthfully, you are a hypocrite, and for the mere reason that I pointed out before. You jerk off, you fantasize about sex and have either chosen not to engage in any sexual activity out of your own choosing, or are just to swollen headed to find a girl that will put up with you. Either way, your no different then me, nobody is wrong, and premarital sex is a good thing, of course like any act that has it's potential harmful side effects, must be practiced with caution.

Anbessa

candela wrote:

Great-uncle isn't within the subset of relatives I listed. Your point fails.

Lol, of course my point does not fail, and you know it. Replace great-uncle with any family member you want, you cannot possible know enough about all of their sex lives, academic history, and things that happened before you were born to make the claim you made with any kind of certainty.