If there existed no type of contraception would people still have sex like they do

[Mystophilus]

Shlemele:

Ok quick lesson in biology/science here… Now you have the facts, giving kids condoms is like giving them loaded guns, in the end playing with them might cost them their lives.

Facts are a tricky thing. The CDC disagrees with you:
“Such studies have demonstrated that when condom use increases within population groups, rates of STDs decline in these groups.”

My apologies, but I am going to have to trust their expertise over yours.

They also promote abstinence:
“The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”(ibid.)

Another thing that I ought to point out is the fact that I have not argued against abstinence. I think that abstinence is a great idea, but I also know that it is not going to happen merely by telling people that it should. Neither, unfortunately, will increased condom usage. However, both are life-saving measures and so, in my heretical opinion, both should be promoted.

 

[bluezone7]

The simple answer is Yes! Look at the history books, old historical birth records, and marriages (shot-gun weddings) through out history. You will see some interesting facts start to appear. People are no different now than then … don’t romantacize the past. I think the only real change is the steady availability of Abortions. Plus, there is evidence to suggest that people are even have less sex now than they were a couple generations ago. People used to get married in their teens and early 20’s, 50 plus years ago that doesn’t happen anymore.

 

[cheddarsox]

I went to high school in the eighties, when both ABC and abortion were readily available. Personally, the possibility of STD and pregnancy were as much responsible for my decision to not have sex as were the teachings of the church.

Any chance of STD or pregnancy out of wedlock was too much of a chance for me to take.

I did marry young (19) and start my family young (21).

I think that one of the reasons people marry later is the availability of more reliable contraception. They don’t have to wait for marriage to have sex without babies, so they don’t.

I think the desire for sexual union (not just the physical, but the whole package of feeling united and close with another) is a huge motivator in people’s lives.

I know that some people seem they are only doing it for the physical pleasure, but I think deep down they are also trying to find connection and fill a space of loneliness inside themselves.

People were not meant to be alone, or to refrain from physical and emotional intimacy until they are 28 or 30 yrs old. Sex is so much more than a physical act, that abstinence requires more than physical control of the body.

Extending adolescence through the 20’s as is now the case in the USA brings with it serious sexual/emotional issues. I have no idea how we will ultimately sort them out.

cheddar

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Mystophilus:

You have apparently leapt to the conclusion that I am arguing against abstinence. I’m not.

Please go back and read my post again. I made no personal references to you at all. What I did was point out that the belief that condoms save lives is dangerously flawed.

 

[Mystophilus]

Joseph Bilodeau:

Please go back and read my post again. I made no personal references to you at all. What I did was point out that the belief that condoms save lives is dangerously flawed.

Please accept my apologies; I confused your post with someone else’s, and posted to the wrong location. I hope that you will forgive me, because I am about to disagree with you.

Regarding condoms, it seems that a number of rather well-qualified people hold the dangerously flawed view that they help to save lives. Like the CDC, UNAIDS recommends “promotion of male and female condoms, along with abstinence”. The fact that abstinence has been relegated to an attributive phrase is indicative of the problem: while abstinence is acknowledged as the most effective transmission reduction method, it is also the hardest to implement, which seriously damages its effectiveness as a policy.

(See also AIDS.Org on condoms, and Dr Mannasseh Phiri on the reasons for Africa’s epidemic, particularly his comment, regarding Brazil, that “Condom use has gone up thirteen times and new infections have gone down.”)

 

[Petergee]

Mt19:26:

You mean people back then would look at legs of tables and start having lustful thoughts!?!? Wow, I didn’t know it was that bad back then.

It wasn’t. This is an urban legend. I can’t find a ref to it, but IIRC it is based on a satirical comment by a 19th century English writer about the efforts of housewives in the US Midwest to try to appear sophisticated and refined, he alleged that among other things they made frilly cotton covers for table legs.

 

[OriginalJS]

Mt19:26:

You mean people back then would look at legs of tables and start having lustful thoughts!?!? Wow, I didn’t know it was that bad back then.

In the 19th century there was a great divide between word and deed. My grandparents were 19th century people. To them the word “leg” was unacceptable in civilized society. A person’s leg was referred to as a ‘limb" as in “he broke a lower limb.” People didn’t ask for a chick leg, they asked for “dark meat.” If you look at some old photos, you will see in many that womens’ and girls’ feet and ankles are not shown. And, look at those old swimming costumes with yards and yards of material!

But, people also had very large families back then so the lack of contraception didn’t quell sexual desire.

Finally, one other point. In the 19th century people could marry young. In Kansas a 12 year old girl can still get married with parental permission. But the Church, here at least, wants people to be 21 because of the divorce rate that didn’t exist like it does today a hundred years ago. Sex hasn’t changed, but society has made some adjustment.

 

[lovethetruth]

I liked to hear of the older members who did see life before contraception so easily accessible. I mean nowadays the teacher or nurse can help a kid out and get them the pill for free of pass out condoms or even get them an abortion and the parents do not need to be told.

So, if you’re going to have one kind of contraception then you might as well have them all. Which by the way they were trying to make the morning after pill be an over the counter thing. Abortion is used by some women as a type of contraception. I’ve heard of one person having say 5 abortions and some having say 9 or more abortions.

I do not believe that not having contraception will just end all of our problems with promiscuity, but I do know that passing it around like nothing is dangerous as we live in a time when diseases are widespread, marriages are even worse off then before with some much infidelity on both sides, man and wife, and children are having children and the babies born are either abused or killed or basically somehow “not wanted” The “fruits” of contraception shown are not good at all, they are not by any stretch of the imagination, any better than before contraception. I think we live in a world where human life is even less important than in the past. So much self-hate and hatred of a child. I doubt things will change in contraception is here to stay. But anyone who says it’s a great good is lying through their teeth and can’t see how our world is not a good place to live anymore. Who wants to deal with any children when you don’t have to, just have the sex, enjoy it, and if a child does happen to be born, have an abortion. Why not?

 

[JimG]

lovethetruth:

I liked to hear of the older members who did see life before contraception so easily accessible.

Older members? Who, me? Well, OK, I’ll accept that designation. But yes, it does seem in my experience that the radical change from widespread non-availability to widespread availability of contraceptives (and it was a radical change), has led in fact to dramatic increases in all the things that contraceptives were supposed to prevent: unwed pregnancies, STD’s, divorce, abortion, not to mention increased promiscuity and the ravaging effects of broken families.

 

[fix]

lovethetruth:

If there existed no condoms and you were not married do you think people would still have sex before marriage like they do? I know I wouldn’t. If I knew you could get pregnant or even get diseases so easily say the man had a vasectomy or the woman had her tubes tied even for medical reasos, you risk even more withouth condoms in “not thinking” about this and just act out whatever you want. I really really think that our “power” of using contraception in forms of condomes, and the pill actually takes away our power to behave right. It is just one more little push to giving in. And then we do. Easily. Again and again. What do you think?

Yes, things would be different. The embrace of contraception on such a large scale has had the effect of separating love from sex in people’s minda. This break has caused many problems in our culture.

 

[felra]

lovethetruth:

If I knew you could get pregnant or even get diseases so easily say the man had a vasectomy or the woman had her tubes tied even for medical reasos,

What “medical reasons” are there for a woman having her tubes tied (or man having a vasectomy)?

 

[puzzleannie]

well, they have been doing it since mankind was created so my guess is, yes