(Untitled)

[lightrocket]

"Contraception: conservatives say that abstinence is best. But studies show that pledges of abstinence have very little positive impact, and some negative: pledges are less likely to use contraceptives when they do have sex. I have a question for the abstinence-only birth control folk: how does abstinence work on weight control? On alcoholism?

Comments

[ctgskylighter]

You didn't jump the gun, the announcement says you should all start posting stuff. Let LR's entry be an example to you all! >=( Also, I think anyone can view your posts, not just members. To be honest, I don't know a lot about communities. As long as it's up, though we should look more into the options.

Now, onto your subject: The way I see it, both ways have negative and positive effects, just like most things in life. To repress something entirely is not very healthy. It can lead to intense mental trauma or bottled-up feelings. Then again, to just acknowledge it and say "take the pill, then go wild" isn't any good.

I believe the key is finding a good balance between the two choices. Simply barring something is ignorant. I severely hate ignorance of all sorts. You must accept that the problem exists and work with it. Parents need to be more involved too. You can't just tell your kid "don't have sex", do nothing then act TOTALLY surprised when your daughter's belly starts to buldge (or if you find out she had an abortion).

Our society is a huge problem. Sex is THE most influential thing in media nowadays. Rap stars, celebrities, role models, etc. all push sex into the minds of our youth. It started in the 70s (or 60s, whatever) and now those generations are sprinkling it over ours. There's nothing you can do, but be wary.

Bleh, I'm spent.

[ganonguy]

I disagree; violence is the most influential thing. Sure, sex may sell, but violence has always been the easiest thing to get on the market. But moving onto the actual topic...

Repression has been part of American society since colonial days. Hell, it's how our country was able to rise to the top. But it came with the fact that sex and violence, two very primal instincts, have been repressed for years. So of course sooner or later, they were going to be released in a violent orgy of emotions. And when better than smack in the middle of the Cold War, one of the most troubled times of our present world?

My point is, repressing something is like bending a hose in half. It's a nice temporary solution, but the second you let go, it's going to all come bursting out harder than ever.

... And pot should be legalized. >_>

[ctgskylighter]

For medical reasons only. =P

[ganonguy]

Explain to me how alcohol and cigarettes do essentially the same things that pot does (albeit, it takes more to do it, but you never just have one beer anyway : P), yet pot's the one that's illegal. Besides, by taking out the taboo factor and by allowing to be taxed, you're going to lower its usage significantly anyway.

[ctgskylighter]

The difference is that the cigarette corporations don't want competition, so they pull the strings of the senators they have in their pockets to makes sure pot stays illegal.

We don't need another unhealthy habit running around in this country. Granted, it would help reduce the population (a very good thing), but it isn't the moral thing to do.

[ctgskylighter]

What the hell am I doing? Make this another entry, ya monkey boy!

[lightrocket]

I have to take up that, since I'm liberal. It's in my blood. *points at the exact gene strings that make him react in a liberal manner*

I know nothing about pot exactly, so I won't debate much except...

You don't make things illegal because they're unhealthy. If we did, soda could very well be illegal. So could cars. Factories? Screw them, the smog hurts us! Granted, it's not good logic. But, it sets legal precidence. We don't outlaw things just because they're unhealthy. We outlaw them because they immediately kill us, yes. But slow deterioration? The law's fine with that, in almost every case.