He can believe what he wants, but his policy recommendation for stopping sexual assault - that people save essentially all forms of sexual contact for marriage - is not at all functional. I don't think it's out of bounds to argue as much in this thread.

Well, I think it's pretty functional, actually. He has a point, that the health risks, injury (rape) risks, and pregnancy risks of premarital sex absolutely do outweigh whatever benefits it might have.

However, abstinence as a rule is just not practical. It's great as a personal choice.

@YJ No... Just no...
All the somewhat nice things you about me were just cancelled out in that post. No one talks about my future wife that way...

@PE I'll go write a really long winded essay in response to you as soon as I finish all the face-palming that YJ has inflicted on me...

Oh wait, you somewhat agree with me??? Phfft, never mind, we're cool. ;)

"However, abstinence as a rule is just not practical."

That's what I mean to say. As a policy recommendation for an entire populace, "just don't be sexual" is not a practical answer to "the definition of sexual assault is too broad."

It would never be practical to enforce abstinence as a legal rule. However, I think we can do a MUCH better job at encouraging our youth to pursue sexual abstinence. We've made pre-marital sex look soooo normal, through our media and our over-sexualized culture in general, that when someone dares suggest abstinence we scoff at the very idea. Surely those impulses can't be resisted or reigned in; it would be absurd to expect teenagers and young-adults to exhibit some self-control! We've just accepted the idea that pre-marital intercourse is bound to happen, so we don't even fight it anymore. We barely even bother talking about abstinence in sex ed anymore; instead choosing to focus solely on the proper use of contraceptives. Now there's nothing wrong with contraceptives, but the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is by not having sex in the first place! If only our society taught that sex was meant for marriage, think of how many problems it would help solve! The number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, ill-cared-for children, adulterers, divorces, and sexual crimes would all arguably drop significantly. Just take your average murder drama on T.V. for example. How many of those crimes are caused by uncontrolled sexual urges? The vast majority of the I believe. But most of our society will NEVER practice abstinence because, darn it, sex is fun. And if it feels good, why should we have to wait??? We can always just ignore the logic and pretend we know what we're doing, right?

(Yes, yes, I know some people are going to yell at me for drawing some of these conclusions. I'll explain my reasoning on whichever ones you'd like me to. I just didn't feel like making this any more long-winded then it had to be...)

You're using drama on TV as an argument? Seriously?

I was using crime shows to portray the problems that an uncontrolled sex drive can cause. There's nothing wrong with that.

I have no problem with abstinence being taught as the safest option in sex ed. I believe that if you inform kids accurately of what the real risks and options are, they will be most likely to make the right choices. Still, I definitely think that teaching "sex is meant for marriage" isn't going to do much. Nobody really listened to that stuff, even when it WAS the only thing being taught.

Abstinence is the safest option, but it's quite unrealistic to say that the best prevention of sexual assault is to teach abstinence, because it is entirely against biological nature to tell a person not to have sex when given the chance. Of course, many Bible preachers completely ignore science, so I guess you all can keep on rambling, but no, never gonna happen.

Right. The best prevention of the negative consequences of premarital sex is to *practice* abstinence. It's been shown time and again that *teaching* abstinence only is pretty useless.

Slyguy - you have some basis for an argument and I have no problem with people choosing to wait until they are married before they engage in sex. However, historically some people who supported this concept then thought that sex ed should be taught in schools and young people weren't taught about contraception because they considered such teaching would encourage promiscuity. This could lead to more unwanted pregnancies, STDs etc.

Also one should focus on the 'sexual' part of the 'sexual assault' definition. Often sexual assault has more to do with the assault than it does a sexual gratification. It is as much about control and dominance as it is sexual. Trying to control one's own sexual urges, therefore, may not do anything to control one's urges to control and dominate others. I realise that sometimes sexual gratification and assault can combine in a sexual assault, but it isn't always the case. The argument is often advanced that castrating offenders 'cures' them of their behaviour, whereas evidence suggests that castrated offenders will still offend, but often use other items instead of their penises.

@ Maniac

Not if you cut their arms off.

hahaha I love when people get all old-testament on sex crimes and animal abusers.

That's unfair, YJ, I get all old testament on a much wider variety of criminality than that :).

All I am trying to say is, we should do a better job at teaching self-control via promoting abstinence. If we teach our young people to exhibit some self control over their sexual impulses, we will also be helping them exhibit self-contol over other areas of their lives. I would definitely still promote contraceptives, (excluding those which terminate a pregnancy), as there will always be those who don't listen; but I would focus more on teaching why it makes sense to wait until marriage.

Bodily autonomy is a cornerstone of human rights, and that is all I have to comment on this clusterfuck of a thread.

So long as it goes both ways and a drunk slut who grabs a guy's crotch is just as guilty as the frat boy coping a feel of boob.

How was anything suggested here a violation of human rights Thucy?

Is not sexual assault a violation of human rights and bodily autonomy? I don't see how you missed that connection. Anyway, I'm choosing my battles and sitting this one out. Too tiresome.

Yeah uhh thucy, nobody here is arguing that sexual assault is cool or hip. We're more voicing our displeasure over the current legal definition.

Perhaps you should get in the habit of reading the thread before posting your opinion in it...

I know that, everyone. Thank you though

"Bodily autonomy " Do you actually think we are impressed when you come up with stupid shit phrases like this? I know, I know...you heard in some libtard class you took and thought it sounded really **smart**, so you like to throw it around when you can. I get it. We're still not impressed.

And no, I'm not even saying I disagree with you. I'm just saying you sound like an arrogant asshole when you come up with your obscure libtard labels for otherwise common concept. But....actually...you're concept that "HUMAN RIGHTS" have been violated because some dude does a tit grab or some chick does a crotch grab while they are making out is **totally** ridiculously libtarily wrong. If fucking extremist bullshit like that that actually *destroys* what it is to be human.

Here's a hint...humans a sexual beings, and as they are going through puberty and beyond, it is fully natural and fully human to *explore* those sexual feelings they have. Here's another clue...the *exact* same thing happens in the animal kingdom. SO to suggest it is in any way unnatural for one human to "sexually" touch another in a seemingly, otherwise appropriate situation is NOT a violation of "human rights"

Idiocy. Just fucking idiocy.

And, for the record, you have no such thing as 100% "bodily autonomy" in this country. That is an absolutely fraudulent argument that I could tear into a million pieces without even half trying.

Two words: Selective service

Oh, it's way beyond that, though that is a most excellent example.

I can't use my "bodily autonomy" to wrap my finger around a trigger of a firearm and squeeze it when it's pointing at someone.

I can't use my "bodily autonomy" to pick up expensive shit from a jewelry store without first using my "bodily autonomy" to plunk a wad of cash on the counter.

I can't use my "bodily autonomy" to grab a chick's tit without asking permission.

Thucy is an idiot. He think he's can throw fancy terms he learned in college around and bully people with half-thought out Libtard psuedo-intellectualism...and, as always, he fails miserably short.

Three more words: suicide is illegal.

re: bodily autonomy, I think this clip might be useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c