garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (08/22/84)
Brian Peterson makes the following comment: > If you say that abstinence is > a perfectly good way to be ignorant and "responsible" at the same time, > let me respond by saying that Mama Nature has cleverly designed people so > that abstinence is unthinkable for normal people) First, abstinence does not imply or require ignorance; you could be informed, responsible, and abstinent (<-- one of those words which never looks right, but I looked it up). Second, I guess you are a creationist who believes in a female deity. :-) Third, and most important, I contest the statement that "abstinence is unthinkable for normal people." No doubt it depends on your definition of "normal," but I reject the notion that someone who abstains from sexual intercourse is necessarily not "normal." Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (08/24/84)
^M Brian Peterson makes the following comment:
^M
^M > If you say that abstinence is
^M > a perfectly good way to be ignorant and "responsible" at the same time,
^M > let me respond by saying that Mama Nature has cleverly designed people so
^M > that abstinence is unthinkable for normal people)
^M
^M First, abstinence does not imply or require ignorance; you
^M could be informed, responsible, and abstinent (<-- one of those
^M words which never looks right, but I looked it up).
Isn't that what I was saying?
^M Second, I guess you are a creationist who believes in a female deity. :-)
(:-)
^M Third, and most important, I contest the statement that "abstinence
^M is unthinkable for normal people." No doubt it depends on your
^M definition of "normal," but I reject the notion that someone who
^M abstains from sexual intercourse is necessarily not "normal."
^M Gary Samuelson
^M ittvax!bunker!garys
I was not saying that people who abstain are defective wierdos.
Neither are people who can lift 400 lbs, or people who are rather
intelligent. I was talking numbers, not health. Abstainers are just
not average or common. I suggest that you dig
up some statistics on who has sex how early (in their life :-) and how
often. The last time I saw something along those lines in the newspapers,
the abstainers were definitely in the minority. (I have no recollection
of their frequency of sex, though.)
Peer and hormonal pressures which are countered by little
personal morals push people to sex.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianpgarys@bunker.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (08/28/84)
^M > If you say that abstinence is ^M > a perfectly good way to be ignorant and "responsible" at the same time, ^M First, abstinence does not imply or require ignorance; you ^M could be informed, responsible, and abstinent. > Isn't that what I was saying? It didn't appear so. Your statement seemed (to me) to make an unnecessary connection between abstinence and ignorance; I am glad that you did not intend it so. ^M > let me respond by saying that Mama Nature has cleverly designed people so ^M > that abstinence is unthinkable for normal people) ^M I contest the statement that "abstinence ^M is unthinkable for normal people." > I was not saying that people who abstain are defective wierdos. > Neither are people who can lift 400 lbs, or people who are rather > intelligent. I was talking numbers, not health. Abstainers are just > not average or common. OK, you were not using the meaning of "normal" that I thought you were; I have known people who did think that people who abstain were defective. > I suggest that you dig up some statistics on who has sex how > early (in their life :-) and how often. The last time I saw > something along those lines in the newspapers, the abstainers > were definitely in the minority. (I have no recollection > of their frequency of sex, though.) (Sometimes I wonder how many people really keep copies of all the statistics they read.) I recall reading such statistics, and, yes, the abstainers were in the minority. I also recall, however, that abstinence had grown in popularity in the last 10-15 years (i.e., it was a larger minority). However, isn't the reasoning getting circular here? Abstinence shouldn't be recommended because it isn't popular? > Peer and hormonal pressures which are countered by little > personal morals push people to sex. I certainly agree with that. Your original statement was that "nature" made abstinence unthinkable for "normal" (meaning most) people. Of the three factors in the above statement, however, I would only attribute one (hormones) to "nature" (i.e., inherent, and beyond the control, and hence the responsibility, of the individual). Peer pressure and personal morals *are* within the realm of personal control, even for normal people. I think we could conclude, from your statement, that better personal morals would lead to fewer (not necessarily zero) unwanted pregnancies and hence fewer abortions. Which, if I remember right, was the contention which started this discussion. No doubt there will now be another round of "whose morality?" and "there are no absolute moral standards" and "you can't impose morals" and so forth. Oh well. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys