snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > NFBSK Gone Wild!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06 May 2013, 12:08 AM
nonnieyrissa's Avatar
nonnieyrissa nonnieyrissa is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Brooklyn/Hudson, NY/Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 2,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
In modern Western society, for the most part, yes. Other societies, and some people within this one, see significant differences between a shoe and an area of the planet.
I think that most people see land ownership along the lines of maybe(warning not a great analogy, I tried to think of a better one) a restaurant franchise. It belongs to the owner, in that(after paying a franchise fee) it is his/her's to utilize, and the money he makes off of it, his to spend, but in a way it also belongs to the entire company. He can't just stop selling tacos, and make only ice cream cakes and still keep calling it Taco-Bell. As it's entirely impossible to take your land and detach it from the rest of the Earth, it can never completely belong to any one person, and you have a responsibility to not do things on your land that will affect the land it is attached to, and the people/animals that exist on your land AND the rest of the Earth.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06 May 2013, 01:09 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,905
Default

Spam & Cookies, thanks. That does have a Niven-ish ring to it, come to think of it. He does neat aliens. Terrible humans, often, but interesting aliens.

nonnieyrissa, good points. Maybe along the lines of an apartment lease? You get to live there, rearrange the furniture, maybe even paint the walls. But you're not supposed to make life unbearable for the neighbors; and, when your lease runs out, the place is still supposed to be fit for somebody else to live there.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06 May 2013, 04:07 PM
Silkenray's Avatar
Silkenray Silkenray is offline
 
Join Date: 04 September 2005
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 3,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quink View Post
If you're not emotionally mature enough (or with the right partner) to have sex, how on earth are you in the right place to tie yourself to that person for all of eternity?
A-nfbsking-men! I got married young (20), in no small part because my husband wanted to wait until we were married. Although I don't regret who I married, I regret marrying him when we were both young and stupid and didn't know how to live as independent adults. It made the first several years of our marriage rocky. And it also means that we didn't have much freedom to explore the world or grow as individuals.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07 May 2013, 06:49 AM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimi View Post
If the preacher's in this show had/have sons, would they put the same emphasis on virginity for the sons? Are boys as pressured to be virgins or to wear purity rings as the girls are? I thought one of the ideals of Christianity was that judging was God's job and not the job of mortals? This pressure to remain a virgin until marriage sounds awfully judgemental to me.
My experience has been that it's mostly daughters who get this virginity until marriage obsession forced upon them. Among pretty much all of the couples who I've known to live together unmarried it was almost always the girl who had a bunch of drama with her family if she moved in with her BF. The BF's generally just told their family "I'm moving in with a GF" and that was the end of it.

I talk about cohabitation because it's probably only second to pregnancy in breaking a parent's denial that their child is still a virgin when they are clearly not. I know two girls who had to run an elaborate rouse to fool their parents into thinking that they were just moving in with each other as roommates. In reality it was going to be both of them and their BFs all living together. One weekend the girls got their stuff moved in with help from their parents. The next week the boys moved their stuff in without any deception to their folks that they would be "living in sin" with their GFs.

When my sister went to college she knew a girl who's parents paid dorm fees for a year because she didn't have the heart to tell them that she was really going to be living in an off campus apt with her BF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimi View Post
I also think it's a little odd for a girl to promise her father to stay a virgin until she is married. The father doesn't own his daughter's body or her virginity. I understand a parent wanting their child to wait to have sex until they are emotionally ready and to want their child to remain free of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but some parents seem to think that their child having sex is somewhat a betrayal of the parents. Maybe betrayal isn't the right word. I dunno. I just don't think abstinence only sex education works.
I believe that states with abstinence only sex-ed do statistically have higher rates of teen pregnancy.

I don't have any kids, but I know that if I did I'd rather them be able to get good access to contraception (and knowledge about it) than end up with an STD or unplanned pregnancy.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07 May 2013, 07:04 AM
nonnieyrissa's Avatar
nonnieyrissa nonnieyrissa is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2007
Location: Brooklyn/Hudson, NY/Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 2,554
Default

Much better analogy Thorny Locust!

Fitz, I was reading the the article from the thread where the girl's yearbook photo was pulled because her baby was in the photo, and they were afraid it would, I guess romanticize teen pregnancy. I badly hope they were WAY off, but it said that one in ten girls between the ages of 14-18 in North Carolina are CURRENTLY pregnant. No figure on how many already have babies.

For perspective, New York schools have pretty extensive sex-ed, even my daughter's parochial school had gotten much better than it was when I went there, in addition they offer an after-school program to do chores on a farm, but each child also has the option of attending a program called Girl Talk that isn't run by the church twice a week for half of the after-school session. Angelina goes, and I am an atheist, but a large number of even the Roman Catholic girls go as well. It is taught by an outside(non-religious) group, and they get extremely detailed about sex, how it works, and that it's normal(not bad) to have sexual feelings.

In the last 3 years the Upper School has had 2 pregnant seniors(one given up for adoption), and a junior that miscarried. Out of almost 700 kids. If that has been North Carolina supposedly 70 students would CURRENTLY be pregnant!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07 May 2013, 07:11 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,150
Default

When I was between 14 and 18, I was in an abstinence only sex ed area, and out of a class of 18, three girls that I knew of got pregnant, and at least one of them was pregnant more than once. And I was the person who was the least tuned in to that stuff in my class.

As far as I know, all abstinence only education accomplished in the area was decrease the amount of people who used condoms and birth control pills, and increased the amount of people with chlamydia.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07 May 2013, 01:17 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

I had a friend whose mother once insisted my friend drive across town to her parents' house, in a blizzard, rather than stay the night at her boyfriend's place. They'd been dating for 10 years and were in their 20s. I wish I could say my friend told her to stuff it.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07 May 2013, 08:07 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default Elizabeth Smart Says Pro-Abstinence Sex Ed Harms Victims of Rape

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor..._rape_and.html

Quote:
In 2002, 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her Salt Lake City home, held captive in the mountains, and raped repeatedly for nine months.* Since her escape, she has emerged as an advocate for human trafficking victims—and recently, a critic of abstinence-only sex education. When Smart spoke at a Johns Hopkins University panel last week, she explained one of the factors deterring her from escaping her attacker: She felt so worthless after being raped that she felt unfit to return to her society, which had communicated some hard and fast rules about premarital sexual contact.

“I remember in school one time, I had a teacher who was talking about abstinence,” Smart told the panel. “And she said, ‘Imagine you’re a stick of gum. When you engage in sex, that’s like getting chewed. And if you do that lots of times, you’re going to become an old piece of gum, and who is going to want you after that?’ Well, that’s terrible. No one should ever say that. But for me, I thought, ‘I’m that chewed-up piece of gum.’ Nobody re-chews a piece of gum. You throw it away. And that’s how easy it is to feel you no longer have worth. Your life no longer has value.”
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09 May 2013, 03:38 AM
moonfall moonfall is offline
 
Join Date: 17 May 2004
Location: Central FL
Posts: 3,139
Default

In some cases, there is emphasis on abstinence for boys as well. It depends on the church/school/program. I think there are purity rings for boys. Totally agree on the father thing being creepy as heck. I think my dad would have probably found it disturbing if I had wanted to pledge my virginity to him...ick, even typing that sentence feels wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09 May 2013, 06:05 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,150
Default

There is some emphasis on abstinence for boys, but it's rarely, to my knowledge, laid on nearly as thick and there also doesn't seem to be nearly the same level of slut shaming against boys who don't wait.

Quite the opposite in some cases: it's seen as "manly" to sleep around and get girls pregnant even in a lot of conservative areas.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09 May 2013, 03:24 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
There is some emphasis on abstinence for boys, but it's rarely, to my knowledge, laid on nearly as thick and there also doesn't seem to be nearly the same level of slut shaming against boys who don't wait.
Women in these cultures are seen as the gatekeepers and the "civilizing force." The particular brand of gender essentialism to which these types subscribe views women as inherently more gentle, pure, nurturing, and far less sexual. It is the woman's job to take her husband (and male children) and keep them from exercising their baser impulses, as they are seen to have less self-control in matters of the flesh.

So, abstinence to boys is taught as a way to suppress their natural instincts, which we all know is harder than what it expects of girls, which is to express their natural instincts and keep boys in line.

So women/girls who fall into the impure category are actually acting against their true natures or they were "born wrong." The men who fall into the impure category are simply giving into their true natures.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09 May 2013, 03:36 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

Which, IMS, is a reversal of the way it used to be. Women were thought to have the "lower" base instincts and were thought to be less able to control themselves. It was only recently that this trend switched. I'd be curious as to what societal forces were part of that change.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09 May 2013, 04:02 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Which, IMS, is a reversal of the way it used to be. Women were thought to have the "lower" base instincts and were thought to be less able to control themselves. It was only recently that this trend switched. I'd be curious as to what societal forces were part of that change.
Honestly, when you look back at the history of Western society and its attitudes towards women, it sort of goes back and forth several times.

Although, you are correct that women being associated with the animal does tend to be more common in history. The most recent switch was, IMO, closely associated with the victorian era, the "angel of the house," and the extreme separation of the public and private spheres.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09 May 2013, 10:59 PM
moonfall moonfall is offline
 
Join Date: 17 May 2004
Location: Central FL
Posts: 3,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Which, IMS, is a reversal of the way it used to be. Women were thought to have the "lower" base instincts and were thought to be less able to control themselves. It was only recently that this trend switched. I'd be curious as to what societal forces were part of that change.
I once pointed this out to someone, and they didn't believe me.

My dad has said that men are "animals" when left to their own devices, and need women to "civilize" them. You'd think he would have more confidence in his own gender (unless he's using it as an excuse for stupid or obnoxious behavior.; I don't remember the context of the conversation).
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09 May 2013, 11:16 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

The odd thing is is that if the man is the animal and the woman the civilizing influence, it would seem to follow that women should be put in charge of governement such, to let them civilize the men. But that never seems to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09 May 2013, 11:41 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,150
Default

Of course not. Then they couldn't stay at home and civilize the men.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teen girls beat woman for fun at school bus stop A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 1 16 January 2013 03:27 PM
An urban myth and its real-life understanding snopes Urban Legends 34 28 August 2012 01:32 AM
Local underground bestseller ‘Smidgens’ a window into Southern life snopes Snopes Spotting 0 04 October 2009 12:06 AM
Real-life urban legend: Woman says assailant hid in her SUV snopes Crime 0 14 September 2007 04:11 PM
A real-life mystery: The hunt for the lost Leonardo snopes History 1 15 February 2007 10:51 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.