they could slip a condom on their partner

by Anonymous 11 years ago

.....?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They can use condoms (or use any other bc) if they're not ready to have a child but still want to have sex. I'm not going to be ready for a child until I'm 25 to 35 years old (same with most people) it's ridiculous to expect people to remain a virgin until they want/are ready for kids. If people really didn't have sex until they wanted a kid, would they also not have sex except only to procreate? No, of course not. Having kids isn't the only reason people have sex, and people can be ready to take the next step in their relationship without being ready to start a family. So why would you wait to have sex until you were ready for a kid? There is birth control for a reason, and just because you're not ready for a kid doesn't mean you're not ready for sex/shouldn't have sex until you're ready for a consequence that has a teeny tiny change of happening unless you're a complete fuckwad that was never taught proper birth control.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but "they could slip a condom on their partner" makes it sound like they are tricking their partner into it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I wasn't saying you should have sex only to procreate, I did say consequences, meaning all. I just highlighted pregnancy and children because it is one harder to deal with. Ignoring abortion because everyone has different views, do what you want but if that's your solution to being irresponsible it isn't right. But, condoms and birth control aren't 100% effective. There is a slim chance, but still a chance of pregnancy or even an STI. I don't think you should only have sex to have children. What I was saying was that you shouldn't have it without being able to deal with the consequences. If you are 12 and decided to and get pregnant, what are the chances of being able to deal with it (it's possible they could but slim). Also at that age would they be open to telling a parent or someone to get treatment for an STI? You shouldn't be just mature enough to have sex but able to, in the off chance it happens, deal with the consequence, whatever it maybe.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

She can deal with the consequences of getting pregnant by having an abortion and not having a child.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh my fucking god I hate how all the responsibility is placed on women. We're not fucking ourselves you know. Maybe you should also be telling guys how they shouldn't be having sex in case they impregnate some girl? If I get pregnant it's none of your fucking business, same with any other girl.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Last time I checked, heterosexual sex involved two people... How about putting the blame on BOTH of them?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Homosexual sex generally involves two people as well.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But only heterosexual sex produces babies. Or so I've been told.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, that is a true statement. But that is not what you said in the first comment. Homosexual sex still involves consequences, such as stds. OP said "...consequences, mainly pregnancy and a child..." Not only pregnancy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I didn't write the first comment, some Anon named Manyana did.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I apologize, I did not look at that well enough.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's fine. :P

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ooooorr.... They could use condoms/birth control.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

None of which are 100% effective. Both partners should be prepared for the birth control they use to fail, i.e., have a backup plan. Know what they'll do if pregnancy or STD's do occur.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

With just one or the other, it's like a 1% chance of failure, at most. And if you're really worried, you could use both. At that point it's what, .001% chance? The backup plan can just be an abortion. That's usually the answer if there's a mistake. Most STDs are curable. And then you've got to take into account the fact that most people don't have STDs, while 99.9% of guys are able to ejaculate. And most people that have STDs wouldn't have sex with someone else because most people aren't evil. Not to mention the fact that OP wasn't even referring to STDs, as they can come no matter how ready you are. But either way, the chance of getting an actual problem in this situation is infinitesimally low, and being willing to take a risk of that minimal magnitude really isn't that hard. Hope that wasn't too unclear. My thoughts are kind of boggled (is that word applicable?) right now.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Check this chart. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm Both pills and condoms have more than a 1% failure rate. Now maybe check the rest of your facts. And being prepared for consequences doesn't mean preventing them - it means having a contingency plan if something goes wrong. Consider the worst case scenario before it becomes reality, not after.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Alright, so my percentages were off. But still, the combination of a pill and a condom would result in minimal chances. And saying you //have// to be prepared for the worst case scenario when it's very unlikely is ridiculous. Should you never fly in planes because you know it has a chance to crash? No!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'll ignore that "should" does not mean "have to." Would you fly in a plane that didn't have emergency exits, oxygen, and other emergency preparations? While I may not be able to prepare for a crash, the airline can, and if they didn't I wouldn't fly.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree with you there, but the thing is, there are still many instances when a plane crash //could// kill you. Just as with sex, there are possibilities that you will get into an unfixable situation, but they are very low due to precautions and certain fixes such as emergency exits and oxygen in planes, and condoms and abortions for sex.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay... I will concede to your argument if you can explain to me how it is better to assume your birth control will work and be taken by surprise when it doesn't, than to be prepared for the slim chance that it won't work. Don't keep quoting numbers at me, or making comparisons. I want to know how your life, sex, etc. will be improved by NOT being prepared for the possible outcome, no matter how improbable it is.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well how can you be prepared for an incurable STD? There's no way to 100% do so - only minimize the chances. If risks were never taken, nothing would be accomplished. My main point is that it's not possible "to be prepared for the slim chance that it won't work," at least in the sex situation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How would I prepare? Emotionally and mentally. Since there's nothing I can do physically, I want to be prepared to accept what's happened.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well here's the stop in argument I suppose, then, because I wouldn't consider that preparation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry if I'm butting in here, I just want to say that emotionally and mentally preparing is still preparation. It helps you able to deal with the outcomes instead of being shocked and confused as to how and what happened. It's being not surprised. When someone scares someone or surprises them, the person can scream, faint, cry, a number of reactions before they have a clear head and are able to deal with the situation. Preparing mentally and emotionally for something means you don't get that shock or surprise. You skip the crazy reactions and can go straight into intelligently dealing with the situation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But no matter how much you 'prepare' for the incurable STD, it will //still// surprise anyone, because of the minimal chance. And also, OP is mainly referring to pregnancy, not unsolvable issues, so it's not really necessary to be emotionally and mentally 'prepared.'

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You would be less surprised by preparing for the chance. It could help you have a game plan on what to know. Just so you know, I am the OP, and while I was mainly referring to pregnancy, I was also talking about anything that can come of sex. That includes, pregnancy, children, STI's, etc. Any of that, including the unsolvable issues can be dealt with easier if you are emotionally and mentally prepared to take on the challenge of it and know ahead of time what you would do in that situation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well in any case, I still hold firm that you cannot prepare for an incurable STD, and all other negative results aren't a massive issue.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm sure there is no way to prepare to deal with living with aids or something like that. Yet preparing also means taking means to prevent it. The other negative results aren't massive issues but they shouldn't be something shrugged off. If a young girl and guy get pregnant or get an STI, it shouldn't be 'oh, it's fixable.' Abortion or medication. The consequences should be thought over first before the act is committed, so they can prepare to deal with, or prevent them.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"Yet preparing also means taking means to prevent it. " And that's what I was talking about in almost all my comments. And considering the chances to get the negative results are so low, non-massive problems aren't really an issue at all. If the incredibly low chance does occur, then getting an abortion/treatment for an STD really isn't that difficult.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There are way more responsible people (including teenagers) having safe sex and taking care of themselves than the stupid people who don't. Why would we take away their right to free choice just to reduce teen pregnancies? People make their own decisions. People have their own morals. I don't think I'll give up my liberty to make my own safe, personal choices just to compensate for some fools getting pregnant. Nor will I do it to make you feel more satisfied with the world.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Their free choice was never going to be taken away. I never said nobody could have sex unless they want a child. Just that they need to be responsible like your first sentence states. I never questioned morals. You agree with the point I was making. You can make your own safe, personal choices. I was trying to say everyone should make safe personal choices, which often involves knowing and being ready, or preparing against, the consequences. It isn't just pregnancies. "Fully capable of dealing with the consequences, mainly pregnancy and a child" implies that there are more consequences those are just the most common. By being able to deal with consequences means they are aware they exist and will prevent against them if they don't want them. It could mean people are safer, it would stop the spread of Aids from being as great. I think you need to re-read and actual think about what I was trying to say before you argue and accuse me of trying to take away free will to be satisfied with the world.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I was disagreeing with how you said people should only have sex when they're ready for a child. I'm just saying people have the free right to have sex whenever they want. Therefore, I dont think sex should be categorized as "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". My statement was that sex before marriage/readiness for a child is not immoral in any way. If a teen is not ready for a child but still wants to have sex, its not my position to say she shouldn't be doing it or that she's wrong, because in my eyes she isn't.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They don't have to want a child or be ready for one, just being ready and capable to deal with how to avoid that. But also know that it can happen so they should think before getting into bed with every guy they meet.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But didn't you just post that people should only have sex if they're ready for a child? You said would prefer that //only// people who are ready for children should have sex. What you're saying now is that people have to be knowledgeable about the consequences, which is completely different than being legitimately ready to have a baby.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well if you aren't ready or fully capable of dealing with the consequences, which could mean avoiding them, then you shouldn't be having sex.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Willingly is the best way to be having sex. If there's anything that they shouldn't be doing it's getting absolutely wasted in a scenario where there is a chance they'l have drunken sex.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

While my post said mainly pregnancy and children, I also was talking about other consequences, like STIs.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

READ THIS BEFORE YOU FREAK OUT if you didn't read all the comments. I know it was a poor choice to direct this to only females. Males need to do the same. I just think it's more obvious when a female made a bad choice and ended up pregnant. But both are equal in blame and responsibility.

by Anonymous 11 years ago