American Religious Teens and Risky Behavior

[MrsSallyBakura]

I was doing some research for a project in my Adolescent Literature class and came across this:

Religion and American adolescent delinquency, risk behaviors and constructive social activities by Christian Smith and Robert Faris (http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf)

This report demonstrates that religion among U.S. adolescents is positively related to participation in constructive youth activities. In addition, those who participate in religious activities seem to be less likely to participate in many delinquent and risk behaviors.

This was published in 2002 so it may be a little outdated, but I skimmed through this and figured that it still applied to American teenagers today depending on the way they were raised and where they went to school.

The kind of stuff that I would like people to talk about is:

-Do you think that it is important for teenagers to not involve themselves in risky behavior? Or is putting themselves in that kind of risk perfectly OK? Why?

-What factors besides religion allow teenagers to make less-risky decisions? Surely there are non-religious teenagers who didn't takes these kinds of risks, and religious teens who do.

-What factors in teenagers' decisions about the importance of religion in their lives?

-Does this apply to teenagers in other countries? How?

-As far as I could see in the article, there weren't any differences listed between teenagers who went to public school and private school. Would that make a difference?

-Anything else that you think applies.

You obviously don't have to comment on all or any of these points; I just listed them as a way for discussion to start. This sub-forum kind of needs it. :P

[Aninamar]

Tell that to my friend. Yesterday he came back from a party he finished at 4 AM and he got quite drunk. He also barely managed to avoid being caught by the police. He's also a really serious Catholic. Meanwhile, I'm his age, I'm opposed to drinking until it's legal for me, and I'm agnostic/atheist.

Then again, I'm not American.

On the other hand, every country in the world belongs to America, so I call bullshit on this article.

[HolyShadow]

Religion is generally supposed to bring about morality.

*Deskslam*

Therefore, while morality can be gained from other sources...

*Finger point*

This is the simplest, most effective way to teach young teenagers how to think morally!

[Spoofs3]

That is only a servey of America though, I cannot comment on how Religion affects society in America but in Ireland it doesn't help at all :P
Over the last hundred years, right up to the 90's not only did it interfere with the youth, it interfered with Politics aswell.
Didn't help at all and in modern days religion is shrinking and other ways of stopping youth from doing bad things have been introduced (I involved myself in Parkour ^_^)

[AllisonWalker]

Stupid people do stupid things. I'm Christian, and I don't drink, have sex, or do drugs, and neither do my extremely conservative cousins. However, I know others that do.

It has more to do with how serious you are then if you call yourself a 'Christian' or not.

There are alot of Jews at my college and they use their traditions to get away with drinking underage.

[MrsSallyBakura]

He's also a really serious Catholic.

Define "really serious."

None of the "really serious" Catholics that I know would get themselves in that kind of trouble, at least not on purpose. Also it depends on how old he is.

And American culture doesn't force itself onto other cultures in every single way.

[Fenrir502]

Religion is generally supposed to bring about morality.
*Deskslam*

Therefore, while morality can be gained from other sources...

*Finger point*

This is the simplest, most effective way to teach young teenagers how to think morally!

Maybe some religion, certainly not all.

If you look at Ancient Greek and therefore, Roman, it was a more, "you scratch the gods' backs, they don't smite yours... usually" relationship.

This contrasts with Catholicism and Judaism, which provide basic ground rules on how to lead your life. These generally come in the form of the ten commandments, but the parables are also insructions on what is the right way to live.

Catholicism and Judaism co-existed with the Roman religion for a time, yet they're still around. This shows that the structure and guidelines of how to be good were more readily accepted than 'do whatever you want, just respect the gods and you'll be fine' was?

[Fat1Fared]

Now, this is very interesting thing, but basic question is, does religion make poeple moral?

=Well without going to indepth (IE what is moral....etc) according to this study, yes, however this comes because of two reasons:-

1=Depending on situation, it can help, but this isn't because of Religion par-say, it is by-product that religion will define morals and that people "generally" people in a conservative religious, will be socialised to believe in living within the these norns/values held by society, however this is too limited to be whole answer, because misses things, such as fact more to do with social upbringing and class, which has religion as a by-product, meaning that cause and effect, here is being mixed and this points, leads onto my second...

2=The limitations of these studies, now I don't have enough information, but looking at it, this study basically compared conservative middle class religious teen's to underclassed children in crime areas and unamazing found these religious. Now if i had done this study and compared a group of Neo Nazi-Christian extremists to a group of middle class Atheist’s, I would get different results and so these studies don't really show whole truth.

-However, this doesn't mean, isn't some truth in them, but need to look at more factors than clear ones, before call Cause and effect

-Do you think that it is important for teenagers to not involve themselves in risky behavior? Or is putting themselves in that kind of risk perfectly OK? Why?

(PS there was spelling mistake here lol, sorry, just me noticing you making spelling, well had to be said lol)
-Now, this is too board a question as:-

First depends on what class as Risk. I mean to me, Mountain Climbing is risky, but seen as good thing for teen’s to do.

Second, are we looking at true risk or socially unaccepted acts. I mean driving is very risky, but one which is more socially acceptable than "less" risky action of using Weed (before go into it, I don't use Weed, but does prove point here,)

Third, does the opinion of people doing the acts matter, I mean these studies are very judgmental in their condemning of many acts, without understanding the sub-cultures behind them, because their done from very narrow perceptive

These need looking at, before go on with this section


-What factors besides religion allow teenagers to make less-risky decisions? Surely there are non-religious teenagers who didn't takes these kinds of risks, and religious teens who do.


-Again, depends on what we are defining our risk as, but if go on the narrow view in study, then simply it will come down to socialisation, and the cultural/society around person teaches them is right/wrong

And this will be affected by millions of things, but easiest example, is Area born in. Someone born in city, will be tort walking through streets at night on own is dangerous, someone in countyside, will be less aware of this.


-What factors in teenagers' decisions about the importance of religion in their lives?


-Social upbringing and parents are general ones, however will be other things, like a life changing moment, but these are not the norn


-Does this apply to teenagers in other countries? How?


This is hard question, but think it will change from county to county, because:-

1=The idea of risk, morals and general actions within every day life will change from county to county IE, you couldn't really use or apply the results in this study to somewhere like South Africa, because simply too different, in social construct terms

2=As I have said, study is too narrow

3=Depends on the importance of religion within a county, IE in England Religion is very weak thing generally and though lot of people say believe in god, there also very benine about it


-As far as I could see in the article, there weren't any differences listed between teenagers who went to public school and private school. Would that make a difference?


Well, yes it will, but it will come down to social terms, (IE most in private school will be middle class) than religion and so this again shows limitations within the study itself

Now like said, these results cannot be seen as wrong, but they are limited and do seem to make mistake, a lot of positivist research makes, which is to mix cause and effect

Allison


Stupid people do stupid things. I'm Christian, and I don't drink, have sex, or do drugs, and neither do my extremely conservative cousins. However, I know others that do.

Now you see, this is same mistake the study makes and is very limited view, I drink, but know how to control myself and sex, but I act in a way I see as responable when I do it,

-you cannot put down board things and then call it stupid, because don't agree with it, especially when thousands of people drink very day and it is a small amount of those, which cause trouble because of it.

-And so it depends on what you consider stupid, I mean despite doing 2 of 3 of your things, I don't consider myself stupid, and one of the most intelligent people I know, does all three,

[MrsSallyBakura]

Fat1Fared, I agree on 2 points definitely:

1. This article is very vague in its definition of risk.
2. The study is really narrow.

I think that what they mean by risk, however, is stuff like smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, and anything else that is illegal. I highly doubt that they mean stuff like mountain climbing and other morally neutral yet potentially dangerous activities. I don't think that religion encourages anyone to stay in a quarantined box for the rest of anyone's life. I have heard from really scholarly religious people to look at life as an adventure.

Also, I drink, but only about once a month (if that), in a homey setting, and never more than I can handle. I have never been drunk.

Also, smoking isn't that bad. Cigarettes are addicting but that's really the only real issue with smoking IMO. I don't smoke because I like to sing and keep myself healthy in that regard, but if other people decide to smoke then that's on them.

In context with the topic, however, I never smoked or drank while I was in high school. I didn't do any of that because I knew that it would be bad for my health. I was also very religious at the time (and still am) so I know that had some influence in my decisions.

[Aninamar]

Define "really serious."

None of the "really serious" Catholics that I know would get themselves in that kind of trouble, at least not on purpose. Also it depends on how old he is.

Fifteen, was on a pilgrimage, visited Rome and Czech Republic just to see Benedict XVI, knows Bible and every Sunday he attends to a mass. Is that enough?

Just because he's Catholic doesn't mean he can't have fun. It's true, isn't it?

Also he is Polish, and as all the Americans should know, all Poland is about is vodka and potatoes. And some guy named Chopin.

*when I only get the chance, I will show you a photo of me with my pet polar bears*

[MrsSallyBakura]

Fifteen, was on a pilgrimage, visited Rome and Czech Republic just to see Benedict XVI, knows Bible and every Sunday he attends to a mass. Is that enough?

Yes it is.

Just because he's Catholic doesn't mean he can't have fun. It's true, isn't it?

Yah, it's true.

Also he is Polish, and as all the Americans should know, all Poland is about is vodka and potatoes. And some guy named Chopin.

*when I only get the chance, I will show you a photo of me with my pet polar bears*

The different culture thing is definitely key in our perspective of things. Of course, that should be obvious, lol.

[Fat1Fared]

Fat1Fared, I agree on 2 points definitely:

1. This article is very vague in its definition of risk.
2. The study is really narrow.


we agree on something did hell just freeze over or is it, just really cold in here right now :thatface:


I think that what they mean by risk, however, is stuff like smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, and anything else that is illegal.


Wait, sex is illegal in US? (no wonder your county is so uptight :thatface: )

LOL, but on serious note, I did know, this is what it probably meant, but I was being pedantic, to make a point about its limitations, and this is the problem, it gets the norms and values of one group and then forces it on the rest, saying their adnormal if don't addear to these norms and values

I mean, an interesting thing is, you pointed out, illegally and that this is accepted right, yet the Law can often be out of touch with real world (wasn't long ago, rape within marriage was legal, but homosexual acts wheren't) and also the law is rarely justice in truth. No it is really more about keeping the social peace and ecomonic balance, which are different things in many cases

(this is also the point I was making with driving and weed,)


I highly doubt that they mean stuff like mountain climbing and other morally neutral yet potentially dangerous activities.


Indeed,


I don't think that religion encourages anyone to stay in a quarantined box for the rest of anyone's life. I have heard from really scholarly religious people to look at life as an adventure.


well, I have to say that religion is about limiting your life to a curtian view, and some can take this so far, that would rather live in small cults, cutting selves off from rest of society however it would be unfair, to say these extremes are norn, themselves,

religion is about limitation


Also, I drink, but only about once a month (if that), in a homey setting, and never more than I can handle. I have never been drunk.


I rarely drink more than I can handle, but have few times, taken self too far, however each time I was still in control enough to know, I had gone too far and so went to bed lol (though ironically, I have mostly given drink over last few weeks, lol)

but even poeple who drink stupidly, rarely cause actual trouble and those that do, normally cause trouble whether drunk or not, or because inexperinced with drink

Main thing with drink, is that actually takes lot for it to hurt you and for you to go to far with it, however sadly poeple still do, and this is what need to look at

-Not sure, what point making here lol (maybe just vindicating myself <__<
>_>)




Also, smoking isn't that bad. Cigarettes are addicting but that's really the only real issue with smoking IMO. I don't smoke because I like to sing and keep myself healthy in that regard, but if other people decide to smoke then that's on them.


well, take too long for me to go into cig's, but think in this context, it would be interesting as I suspect a lot of those who didn't smoke as teen's, started once grow up anywhere


In context with the topic, however, I never smoked or drank while I was in high school. I didn't do any of that because I knew that it would be bad for my health. I was also very religious at the time (and still am) so I know that had some influence in my decisions.

I never smoked, but like said, too long to go into, and my drink was very rare (and only drank illegally about twice) but I think that there are things which religion will help with and things won't, however think that this study is too narrow, however results cannot be completely ignored

[MrsSallyBakura]

we agree on something did hell just freeze over or is it, just really cold in here right now :thatface:

Well, the temperature did drop...

Wait, sex is illegal in US? (no wonder your county is so uptight :thatface: )

Yes, and that's how we also have really high birth rates.

LOL, but on serious note, I did know, this is what it probably meant, but I was being pedantic, to make a point about its limitations, and this is the problem, it gets the norms and values of one group and then forces it on the rest, saying their adnormal if don't addear to these norms and values

I mean, an interesting thing is, you pointed out, illegally and that this is accepted right, yet the Law can often be out of touch with real world (wasn't long ago, rape within marriage was legal, but homosexual acts wheren't) and also the law is rarely justice in truth. No it is really more about keeping the social peace and ecomonic balance, which are different things in many cases

(this is also the point I was making with driving and weed,)

It's true that the law isn't always morally right about everything. But generally speaking, if it's illegal, it's probably best not to get yourself involved in it, especially if it's big enough to get you thrown in jail.

well, I have to say that religion is about limiting your life to a curtian view, and some can take this so far, that would rather live in small cults, cutting selves off from rest of society however it would be unfair, to say these extremes are norn, themselves,

religion is about limitation

Well, religion isn't ALL about limitation, but it requires that (at least, contemporary religion does, like what Fenrir was saying). Self-control is an admirable virtue in religious context.

I rarely drink more than I can handle, but have few times, taken self too far, however each time I was still in control enough to know, I had gone too far and so went to bed lol (though ironically, I have mostly given drink over last few weeks, lol)

but even poeple who drink stupidly, rarely cause actual trouble and those that do, normally cause trouble whether drunk or not, or because inexperinced with drink

Main thing with drink, is that actually takes lot for it to hurt you and for you to go to far with it, however sadly poeple still do, and this is what need to look at

Pretty much. Although I'm not sure if drinking stupidly "rarely causes actual trouble" because what exactly is "actual trouble?" Personal consequences are still consequences, even if the law isn't involved.

well, take too long for me to go into cig's, but think in this context, it would be interesting as I suspect a lot of those who didn't smoke as teen's, started once grow up anywhere

A lot of family members around my age smoke, or at least used to. I'm one of the few who decided not to even try it. I think what convinced a lot of my family to smoke was looking at their older siblings/cousins and seeing them doing it, therefore making it look completely OK. The thing was that most of them waited until they were old enough to purchase their own cigarettes before smoking regularly.

The topic is still about teenagers, though. Yes we all do these things kinds of things now that we're adults and we know how to handle ourselves better when it comes to this stuff, but what about when we were still in high school (or the equilvalent to it in other countries)?

I think it would help this topic more if we had more American teenagers posting in here. Just saying.

[Xanadu]

when I was a teenager-all that I really cared about was girls
things like school, religion, junk like that didn't matter
and religion still doesn't
school does

[killshot]

-Do you think that it is important for teenagers to not involve themselves in risky behavior? Or is putting themselves in that kind of risk perfectly OK? Why?

I think a little risk is good for teenagers, but they should always be smart about it. Some drugs and alcohol at this age isn't the best idea in the world, but it certainly isn't the worst. Some social drinking every once in a while can actually be a good way to make friends and form memories that will last a lifetime. Sure, some people have bad experiences with this kind of thing, but it's mostly harmless fun. I don't even think the legal drinking age should even factor into this discussion since it's so unreasonably high.

I actually think the teen years are the best time to experiment with sex. Sex is awkward the first few times and if you don't get that out of the way early, you could screw up a potential relationship later on down the road. Sex is better when both people have about the same level of experience and you're going to have a hard time finding a virgin who isn't still a teenager. I suppose if both people were devout Christians then this wouldn't be a problem, but that really limits your options.

-What factors besides religion allow teenagers to make less-risky decisions? Surely there are non-religious teenagers who didn't takes these kinds of risks, and religious teens who do.

I would say that the values of both family and friends are more important than religion when it comes to deciding whether or not to engage in risky behavior. Often these values overlap, but I think that these values are significant because they are held by family and friends and not because of any personal conviction. Religion thrives on conformity and religious people have a tendency to follow the crowd.

What factors in teenagers' decisions about the importance of religion in their lives?

Simply put, 9 times out of 10 the value a teenager places on religion is directly proportional to the value their family places on religion. From my own experience, people, especially teenagers, don't really think about religion unless it is Sunday, or there is a known atheist among them. Most of the time, religious people are indistinguishable from non-religious people. Almost all of my Christian friends swear, drink, and have premarital sex just like anyone else. So to answer your question, the deciding factor in determining the importance of religion seems to be the day of the week.

-Does this apply to teenagers in other countries? How?

The main difference between American teenagers and teenagers from other countries is the age restrictions placed on American teenagers. Lets face it, American kids can't do shit. As a result, I think kids in other countries mature faster than American teenagers. The fact is that teenagers are going to be involved in risky behavior. It's the fault of the American legal system for adding criminal charges for a teenager engaging in an activity that would otherwise be legal for an individual to do.

As far as I could see in the article, there weren't any differences listed between teenagers who went to public school and private school. Would that make a difference?

The only difference I could possibly see is the economic status of the private school teenagers. From my experience, wealthier (upper middle class) families are more likely to be religious. Parents that send their kids to a private school are probably more strict than the parents of a teenager in public school. A teenager with strict parents is less likely to engage is risky behavior. I think it mostly boils down to how much money the parents have and not the morals they teach their children.

[AllisonWalker]

Then you're saying Killshot, people like myself don't exist? I may not go to church, but I've never had sex, smoked any sort of drug, or had alcohol(outside of half a glass at home on holidays). Plenty of people stay away from risky (or what I'd just call dumb) behaviors, for religious reasons or just common sense.

And I really don't think sex will be a problem for me. ;)

[MrsSallyBakura]

Then you're saying Killshot, people like myself don't exist? I may not go to church, but I've never had sex, smoked any sort of drug, or had alcohol(outside of half a glass at home on holidays). Plenty of people stay away from risky (or what I'd just call dumb) behaviors, for religious reasons or just common sense.

And I really don't think sex will be a problem for me. ;)

I don't think that he's saying that Christians who don't have sex don't exist. Rather, he just knows people who have that Christian label who have sex and therefore their religion doesn't have an influence of what behavior they engage themselves in.

This brings up something that the article explains about the degree of importance that they place on their religion. I for one place a lot of importance on it and thought about it more than just when I went to church. It was emphasized that I should be acting like a Christian more than once a week so I lived by that.

I actually think the teen years are the best time to experiment with sex. Sex is awkward the first few times and if you don't get that out of the way early, you could screw up a potential relationship later on down the road. Sex is better when both people have about the same level of experience and you're going to have a hard time finding a virgin who isn't still a teenager. I suppose if both people were devout Christians then this wouldn't be a problem, but that really limits your options.

First of all, I can find plenty of people who have very few sexual experiences.

Secondly, how would not having sex early enough screw up a potential relationship? I'm not really understanding where you're coming from because I find that those who have sex early don't actually end up staying together. There's also something about sex that really attaches you to your partner but if you keep having different partners, you start getting less and less attached and that can pose as a problem for whoever you decide to marry because you're not bonding with that person the way you would if you had never had sex before.

[HolyShadow]

I ADMIT IT.

I'm a virgin. (Well, in the sense that I've never had physical relations with another person...)

And I'm waiting until I'm married, even if it means I'll never have sex in my life.

By the way... sex clouds your judgment. It really makes your mind blank, especially when engaging in it often. It really does make you stupid to have your mind on sex all the time.

You get a lot more accomplished if you cut out sex.

[AllisonWalker]

Exactly what the both of you said, I totally agree. Why should I waste a special, intimate moment that I should share with someone I love, on a stupid, awkward teenage boy who'll probably go tell his friends(and dump me, eventually). Sex means a hell of a lot more to me than 'a good time'.

Or waste my valuable time looking for it? Being a virgin does help you get more things done. Its been proven in history, some of the best military leaders were casterated males.

[Aninamar]

Or waste my valuable time looking for it? Being a virgin does help you get more things done. Its been proven in history, some of the best military leaders were casterated males.

http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~kautz/Courses/244autumn2008/humor-penguin-logic.jpg

[killshot]

First of all, I can find plenty of people who have very few sexual experiences.

Secondly, how would not having sex early enough screw up a potential relationship? I'm not really understanding where you're coming from because I find that those who have sex early don't actually end up staying together. There's also something about sex that really attaches you to your partner but if you keep having different partners, you start getting less and less attached and that can pose as a problem for whoever you decide to marry because you're not bonding with that person the way you would if you had never had sex before.

This is more my own opinion and I don't really have anything to back it up with, but sex is an important part of a relationship. If someone is inexperienced with sex and starts dating someone who has an adequate level of experience, I can see the experienced person feeling unsatisfied and unwilling to pursue the relationship any further. You might call this shallow and say sex isn't something a relationship should be built around, but this is sometimes the way it works. People are different and want different things out of a relationship. If someone wants to wait until they are married to have sex then that's fine, but I think they are missing out.

By the way... sex clouds your judgment. It really makes your mind blank, especially when engaging in it often. It really does make you stupid to have your mind on sex all the time.

I agree with this. However, I think virgins think about sex far more often than someone who is regularly having sex. I think virgins tend to over glorify sex and build it up in their minds to be something much bigger than it really is. I really don't see much of a difference between having sex regularly and masturbating regularly with respect to having sex on your mind constantly. If you can somehow suppress your natural instincts and not think about sex then more power to you. However, I think the people who are having regular sex are the ones who aren't thinking about it that often.

Then you're saying Killshot, people like myself don't exist? I may not go to church, but I've never had sex, smoked any sort of drug, or had alcohol(outside of half a glass at home on holidays). Plenty of people stay away from risky (or what I'd just call dumb) behaviors, for religious reasons or just common sense.

I'm certainly not saying people like you don't exist. But can you answer me this? What view does your family have on these kinds of behaviors? How about your friends? My point was that the opinions of your peers are more important than religion when deciding whether or not to engage in these behaviors.

[Fat1Fared]

I think, this may end as worlds longest ever post 0_o

First, won't go into my own view to much now, as if mix what put before with pretty much what Killshot put, you have my view


It's true that the law isn't always morally right about everything. But generally speaking, if it's illegal, it's probably best not to get yourself involved in it, especially if it's big enough to get you thrown in jail.


In USA, if boy under 16 has consended sex with girl under 16, he can be charged with rape, (does that make this law right?)

In UK, it legal for a company to offer its employess's a new contract (of any kind, as long as within law) and then if employee rejects it, demiss him without contractual breach (is this right?)

In China, it is legal for your home to be taken by goverment without any compsenation of any kind.

No, in same way, I don't use religion as way to judge moral standing, I would be careful about using Legal systems, as they are more interested in seeing their own ends met, than true justice


Pretty much. Although I'm not sure if drinking stupidly "rarely causes actual trouble" because what exactly is "actual trouble?" Personal consequences are still consequences, even if the law isn't involved.


indeed, but I was including them, and this maybe my own arrogence here, but I feel I'm one of better placed poeple, for speaking about world of drink and its consequences, because my life is directly involved in it and though I have seen it have negative effects, most of time, this is with poeple who are negative without the drink (they can wake up in a ditch or get into a fight with or without drink)


A lot of family members around my age smoke, or at least used to. I'm one of the few who decided not to even try it. I think what convinced a lot of my family to smoke was looking at their older siblings/cousins and seeing them doing it, therefore making it look completely OK. The thing was that most of them waited until they were old enough to purchase their own cigarettes before smoking regularly.


Well, again "legal" age isn't real factor here, but rather fact that social upbringing will effect whether wish to do it or not (I have found peer pressure is main cause of smoking here in teen's and I went to an RC school, but wouldn't say that religion is cause of it or a way to stop it)


The topic is still about teenagers, though. Yes we all do these things kinds of things now that we're adults and we know how to handle ourselves better when it comes to this stuff, but what about when we were still in high school (or the equilvalent to it in other countries)?


that is an interesting point, do adults know better than teens? (however cannot be bothered to go into it lol)

Then you're saying Killshot, people like myself don't exist? I may not go to church, but I've never had sex, smoked any sort of drug, or had alcohol(outside of half a glass at home on holidays). Plenty of people stay away from risky (or what I'd just call dumb) behaviors, for religious reasons or just common sense.

And I really don't think sex will be a problem for me. ;)

-But what is common sense? I mean non-drinkers are in minority, does this make Majority idiots? or maybe there is like a said to you before, a far more fine line between being sensiable and being completely restrictive, to point that life is no longer real, I mean in my opinion it is a lack of common sense to never try anything and that having too much self-control, is just as debtrmental to you as doing too much and in my opinion, the only one of the three things which i would taboo is drugs, because being addicted to things is a fear of mine and so anything which has addictive powers scares me (maybe good or maybe poor reason) and all this is my subjective opinion made from others life experiences which have directly (as in, I was there) mixed/linked with my own, rather than what poeple (parsents main ones here, but others are very much included) tell me is right, I mean the first tragic thing I ever learnt for myself, was that parsents lie o_0 and that those every things they tell you are socially wrong are things they practised, rather freely themselves and in end, most of them turned out ok,

-With second point, trust me on this one, experience sex, before say how it will go for you or evil a thing it is (outside your restrictions on it) and how it clouds your judgment....etc as Killshot is right, sex can be confusing thing at first and vigirn's generally have lot more thoughts about sex than active poeple, as there are lot of thoughts and rumours about it, which scare them (and this for holy as well)




First of all, I can find plenty of people who have very few sexual experiences.

Secondly, how would not having sex early enough screw up a potential relationship? I'm not really understanding where you're coming from because I find that those who have sex early don't actually end up staying together. There's also something about sex that really attaches you to your partner but if you keep having different partners, you start getting less and less attached and that can pose as a problem for whoever you decide to marry because you're not bonding with that person the way you would if you had never had sex before.

Well, I will put all this here, but this is also in comment to Allisons point about wasting first time, as if it is something truly special (the first time normally sucks as have no idea what doing and so scared doing it wrong, that end up doing even worse)

This comes down to two things:-

1=Sally, you activaty socilise within a sub-group which activity practises these ideals, so your social exp, is not good overal example, in same way, that though I have very board group of poeple who I know, generally they are still a poor representive of overal soceity, because "mostly" lower middle class poeple, (though good ethic range lol)

2=I think, this comes down to USA, which seems to have very strange, scared and tentative relationship with idea of sex, where puts it on this massively high throne of rumours, fear, taboo's and god like status (not actully on about god here, but get what mean) where think it is this thing which more important than is (well to other countries) and even scrathed thing, when I have found lot of european and "eastern" Asian countries (very different for other Asian countries) see it is just a really nice bodily function, and so because it doesn't have this taboo label and fear status to it, it treated lot more calmly to point, not big deal. Love however is different, and is more "special", but that is whole other topic, which I cannot go into well, as never been in love.

[AllisonWalker]

I'm certainly not saying people like you don't exist. But can you answer me this? What view does your family have on these kinds of behaviors? How about your friends? My point was that the opinions of your peers are more important than religion when deciding whether or not to engage in these behaviors.

Since I was a bastard child, they learned their lesson about sex before marriage the hard way.

My friends are all over the place. Some have had sex, some have not.

Religion has nothing to do with my personal choice.

Well yeah, Fared, sex wouldn't be any good if you're doing it as a awkward sixteen year old. ;) However, I've never heard of any adults who had sexual problems after marriage when they choose to substain until then.

And I never said I'd wait until marriage. But I wouldn't do it with someone I wasn't serious with.

[MrsSallyBakura]

This is more my own opinion and I don't really have anything to back it up with, but sex is an important part of a relationship. If someone is inexperienced with sex and starts dating someone who has an adequate level of experience, I can see the experienced person feeling unsatisfied and unwilling to pursue the relationship any further. You might call this shallow and say sex isn't something a relationship should be built around, but this is sometimes the way it works. People are different and want different things out of a relationship. If someone wants to wait until they are married to have sex then that's fine, but I think they are missing out.

Well, I come from the viewpoint that sex is important in a marital relationship and that when you take it out of that context then it can actually help ruin a relationship. I recently went through a break-up but it went very peacefully and I think that if we had tied sex into the relationship, then the break-up itself would have been a lot harder to deal with. I have an old friend who lost her virginity when she was 15 to a guy she had dated for 2 months. She was having a lot of problems with him and when I said that they should be just friends she said something like, "No! We could never be just friends! I love him!" Later down the line they had a messy break-up, she never wanted to talk to him again, then they got back together a couple of years later and she got pregnant. She's a single mom now. I've got a couple of friends who started dating when they were Juniors in high school, never had sex, and they're still dating and they'll both be 21 soon. He's going to propose to her pretty soon.

The thing about sex is, whether or not you personally think that it's a big deal, there are people who do think that it is because for some people it really glues them to their partner and there can be some heavy consequences as well. When you completely take it out of the picture before you're ready for it, then it causes a lot of drama and it can turn your life around.

Also, missing out on what? AIDS? Teen pregnancy? Sex doesn't lose its excitement when you're old. I thought you said that it wasn't a big deal. What are you missing out on if it's not a big deal?

I agree with this. However, I think virgins think about sex far more often than someone who is regularly having sex. I think virgins tend to over glorify sex and build it up in their minds to be something much bigger than it really is. I really don't see much of a difference between having sex regularly and masturbating regularly with respect to having sex on your mind constantly. If you can somehow suppress your natural instincts and not think about sex then more power to you. However, I think the people who are having regular sex are the ones who aren't thinking about it that often.

I think that people think about sex a lot period, whether they truly intend to or not. I do know that sex could probably be disappointing so I don't try to think about it all that often because I know that there are better things to concentrate on. It honestly depends on the person and how badly they want sex. Just because you're a virgin it doesn't mean that you're holy or whatever; it could just mean that you're not "getting some" and you really really want it.

Also, I completely agree with you about not seeing much of a difference between having sex regularly and masturbating regularly in terms of thinking about sex. Masturbating and imagination go together in that respect.

[HolyShadow]

Sex doesn't lose its excitement when you're old.
...Yeah, you just need to use viagra and hope it doesn't interfere with your regular medication.

[MrsSallyBakura]

...Yeah, you just need to use viagra and hope it doesn't interfere with your regular medication.

That's not true either. :P

Just like with anything else, you actually get better at it the more you do it.

[OverMind]

Or waste my valuable time looking for it? Being a virgin does help you get more things done. Its been proven in history, some of the best military leaders were casterated males.
http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~kautz/Courses/244autumn2008/humor-penguin-logic.jpg

Sir, your witticisms never cease to enlighten and entertain me. I salute you.

Another rebuttal to that argument; one of the greatest military leaders was Alexander the Great. Not only did he coordinate seemingly-perfect strategy, but he was actually apart of the warfare.

Well, since he as such a great military leader, surely the secret to his success was castration, right? Well, no, it wasn't. If anything, he practised polygamy, marrying quite a few princesses from the regions he conquered.

My point, castration or even chastity has no bearing on one's leadership skills. Such an assertion is just plain silly.

[HolyShadow]

...

I masturbate about two to three times a day.

Occasionally, I take a week off.

When I take a week off, my mind gets much clearer and I get much smarter.

Pretending that doesn't happen is nothing but bull.

Try it for yourself.

[Aninamar]

I masturbate about two to three times a day.

Uh-huh. And you wrote 6,704 posts already, which means you spend a ton of time here. These forums' main trade is yaoi...

Just in case we ever meet, make sure you don't violate my personal space too much, okay? :P

But this is quite a paradox, wouldn't you say? After all, when Shining doesn't jack off...
*glasses*
...he comes. To his senses.
Sir, your witticisms never cease to enlighten and entertain me. I salute you.

http://www.ene3.com/nds/aceattorney/milesedgeworth-bow.gif

Another rebuttal to that argument; one of the greatest military leaders was Alexander the Great. Not only did he coordinate seemingly-perfect strategy, but he was actually apart of the warfare.

We don't actually have to go that far. After all, there isn't a source anywhere that says Erwin Rommel was impotent.

[Fat1Fared]

Since I was a bastard child, they learned their lesson about sex before marriage the hard way.


So what is their viewpoint?

=And I believe that:-

1=You are allowed your belief, even if disagree with me, but maybe shouldn't be so black and white with your own (or lest way show your own)

2=I agree, that you should learn from their actions, but in my opinion, you shouldn't take their life or their beliefs as ones which are your own, because in end you and your parents are different poeple with different paths. (now next comment to this will be a hasty protest of "I DON'T" and so to speed the prossess along, I will answer this now ^_^ I cannot say if you or don't, but this is my view and it is one gained through bitter experience, feel free to ignore it or accept with own will)

3=Finally, I agree you shouldn't be "silly" about sex, but you seem to very black and white about how you view this subject, and what you view as being stupid with sex, when I personally think it is a lot more complicated issue and that need to take lot of factors into account with it and in end, only poeple who really know if ready for sex, is you and person doing with it (though not saying, cannot get it wrong.)

PS are you angry at being a bastard? Not being sarcastic here, you just sound sound little bitter about this point and so trying to understand you and your beliefs better, however I understand how personal a question this is, and so feel free to tell me where to stuff my question, as I know I would be unhappy with it, which makes me bit of fool, in asking it (just being a bastard wasn't big thing for me)


Religion has nothing to do with my personal choice.


well that is too me good thing (lol) and think you do have right to your choices, but like said, you seem little black and white with them (of course, I do have to take into account, that this is brief talk over internet and so your views may in truth be more complicated than your first posts would indicate)


Well yeah, Fared, sex wouldn't be any good if you're doing it as a awkward sixteen year old. ;) However, I've never heard of any adults who had sexual problems after marriage when they choose to substain until then.


That is probably, because most have had sex in truth ^_- (though on serious note, trust me, though sure there are those it worked for, I do know of those it didn't work for and think in our modern age, sex after marriage is something which is outdated, because we want more from our lives and so by default our marriages than before, plus getting married now, is lot more of personal choice, than in past, when it was more of a forced one and one which took at very early age to someone, who lot of time didn;t actually love, but needed to marry out of social needs)

However marriage before sex, wasn't the only group on about


And I never said I'd wait until marriage. But I wouldn't do it with someone I wasn't serious with.

And I never said said it ether ^_- (if look, I consciously used the words your personal restrictions,) and also, though may look like it, I'm not actually trying to get you to change these restrictions (because as we all know, I could if wanted <___< >_> lol) you are completely allowed these restrictions, in same way, I'm allowed to agree or disagree with them, I just think you seem to have made few judgments, which cannot really make yet and that you "appeared" very black and white on issue

...

I masturbate about two to three times a day.

Occasionally, I take a week off.

When I take a week off, my mind gets much clearer and I get much smarter.

Pretending that doesn't happen is nothing but bull.

Try it for yourself.

As your personal subjective experiences prove everything ^_^

[MrsSallyBakura]

That is probably, because most have had sex in truth ^_- (though on serious note, trust me, though sure there are those it worked for, I do know of those it didn't work for and think in our modern age, sex after marriage is something which is outdated, because we want more from our lives and so by default our marriages than before, plus getting married now, is lot more of personal choice, than in past, when it was more of a forced one and one which took at very early age to someone, who lot of time didn;t actually love, but needed to marry out of social needs)

Hmm, how didn't it work for them? Just curious.

And it's not like people have been engaging in premarital or extramarital sex only recently. Many people have been doing such a thing for quite some time. It's true that married culture has changed over the years but I don't think that sex itself has except that there's a greater fear of STDs and children.

Also, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. Not the best kind, obviously, but it adds to discussion and gives someone something to think about. Maybe there's some official research on the issue.

[HolyShadow]

It seems that when a side is losing, then they try to discount what people say without presenting any proof to the table.

I provided evidence.

You have not, Fared.

Prove that a person having a lot of sex doesn't make them spent more time having sex than doing more constructive things, ergo increasing their experience in said constructive thing, ergo making them SMARTER.

[killshot]

...

I masturbate about two to three times a day.


Holy Shit.

When I take a week off, my mind gets much clearer and I get much smarter.

Pretending that doesn't happen is nothing but bull.

Try it for yourself.

If I go more than a few days, I start having deviant thoughts during commercials that don't even have people in them. I sometimes need to masturbate just so I can concentrate. It must work differently for some people.

[HolyShadow]

(I can shoot off about 5 times a day if I have a whole day to work at it, and I can go for about 11 hours before I have to if I'm trying to hold back)

Yeah, there's a period of time that if you don't do it, then it makes you only think of it, but after about a week, you don't really have to. You just want to.

[Kanariya674]

This is such a hard question to reply to, because there are so many examples of exceptions to each opinion...

I find myself split here based on my personal experience. I see half the people I know find religion and stick with it, and others who say FU and go about their own way. Each side has its good and bad people.

I see kids who are completely restricted during their teenage years go wild once they are one step into freedom. They are so sheltered (whether it be because of religious rules or overprotective parents) that they lose it when they are finally on their own. I also see kids constantly living with it fall into the same pattern. This applies to those high and low on the social ladder.

Some upper class teenagers = completely restricted from risks. They want to rebel from the normalcy.
Lower class teenagers = surrounded by risks possibly on a daily basis. They give in to what's been surrounding them.

Both extremes are bad. Many choose not to be part of this pattern and end up being successful. Honestly, do what you think will make you feel safest yet satisfied at the same time. If you want to have sex, find a partner who you can see yourself compatible with for a while. Nowadays, one night stands are very dangerous (There's a risk to that, but the effect could be some incurable AIDS or genital herpes so I just see it as a death trap).

The more we are restricted, the more temptation we will have to see what lies on the other side. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not; it depends how you see yourself and how you react to the situations brought upon you. There's no definite answer to this...

[Aninamar]

It seems that when a side is losing, then they try to discount what people say without presenting any proof to the table.

Don't worry, we don't doubt that you're capable of "giving it a shot" three times a day. (Not me, at least). ;)

Prove that a person having a lot of sex doesn't make them spent more time having sex than doing more constructive things, ergo increasing their experience in said constructive thing, ergo making them SMARTER.

Well, you know, when *I* jerk off, I usually just spend about 2 minutes and simply wipe the stuff of my chest, instead of playing some weird autoerotic asphyxiations. This means that in order to do perfect passionate, creative things in my life, I have "only" 1438 minutes left per day. Assuming I am as horny as I am cold sexy, I lose 2 minutes x 3 JOT (Jerk Off Times), meaning I'm behind by... OMG, 6 minutes.

Think of all the card games I'd never play. :( Imagine if Jack Bauer had this kind of dilemma.

But seriously, Shining, this kind of thinking is flawed. I can claim just as well that I somehow play StarCraft 15% better just because of the full moon at night.

You know you really waste more time writing actual things on this awful forum than jerking off?

...well, unless when you jerk off, you feel so fucked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q0ClKn08vU) up that you actually activate a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Kochiha]

That is only a servey of America though, I cannot comment on how Religion affects society in America but in Ireland it doesn't help at all :P
Over the last hundred years, right up to the 90's not only did it interfere with the youth, it interfered with Politics aswell.
Didn't help at all and in modern days religion is shrinking and other ways of stopping youth from doing bad things have been introduced (I involved myself in Parkour ^_^)

From what I remember, wasn't religion the primary cause of risky behavior in the north for about 30 years?
And the Troubles are just one example of what organized religion does to people, and this isn't just going to be one of my usual Christian-slamming sessions. Getting involved in organized religion is one of the primary ways to forfeit your morality as well as your own beliefs. Sure, Christianity is the worst of them because of how divided it is, but just take a look at what's going on in Iraq. It's just like the UVF and the IRA duking it out, except this time the division is across Islam and the United States armed forces are only there because they found themselves caught in the middle rather than going in to occupy a territorial interest. But it doesn't change the fact that it's two sects of the same religion fighting each other simply because the organized factors of their "beliefs" suddenly decided to lable each other as enemies. And then there's the cross-religion violence. Youths around the world are encouraged to take up arms in the name of their religion's beliefs (since they aren't going by their own) that declare that the organization that is another religion is evil and must be purged. Arab nations threatening to destroy Israel. Israeli forces getting itchy trigger fingers in anticipation of the next war to come around. Continued actions by the RIRA (I'm not sure if the CIRA is still around) and whatever Protestant groups are around up there. China's actions against Confucianists. Aum Shinrinko in Japan. Borderline treasonous activities taking place amongst members of the United Church of Christ in Illinois. Nations may have learned to stop fighting each other on the basis of religion, so why haven't religious organizations learned that, retrospectively, creed, dogma, and ritual mean absolutely nothing?
This isn't, however, to say that religion in and of itself is a bad thing, though. I'm a self-professed Buddhist (with Shinto influences), and I live my life accordingly. It's when one becomes a part of an organized religion (such as the Roman Catholic Church, Sunni Islam, or Shiite Islam) that all becomes lost. And from what I remember, church groups are merely extensions of organized religions, meaning that being a part of them teaches you how to disregard other beliefs and how to hate other people. Be as Christian as you want; just don't go to church.

[HolyShadow]

You know...

I've always found it strange how people forced others to believe in their religion for so long in other countries... America negates that and makes it so people can believe what they want.

I guess what I'm asking is...

How many holy wars has America had?

[HolyShadow]

Don't worry, we don't doubt that you're capable of "giving it a shot" three times a day. (Not me, at least). ;)



Well, you know, when *I* jerk off, I usually just spend about 2 minutes and simply wipe the stuff of my chest, instead of playing some weird autoerotic asphyxiations. This means that in order to do perfect passionate, creative things in my life, I have "only" 1438 minutes left per day. Assuming I am as horny as I am cold sexy, I lose 2 minutes x 3 JOT (Jerk Off Times), meaning I'm behind by... OMG, 6 minutes.

Think of all the card games I'd never play. :( Imagine if Jack Bauer had this kind of dilemma.

But seriously, Shining, this kind of thinking is flawed. I can claim just as well that I somehow play StarCraft 15% better just because of the full moon at night.

You know you really waste more time writing actual things on this awful forum than jerking off?

...well, unless when you jerk off, you feel so fucked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q0ClKn08vU) up that you actually activate a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ah, so you can only last 2 minutes?

Wow, it'd be amazing if you could keep a mate for more than... well, 2 minutes.

[Fat1Fared]

Hmm, how didn't it work for them? Just curious.

And it's not like people have been engaging in premarital or extramarital sex only recently. Many people have been doing such a thing for quite some time. It's true that married culture has changed over the years but I don't think that sex itself has except that there's a greater fear of STDs and children.

Also, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. Not the best kind, obviously, but it adds to discussion and gives someone something to think about. Maybe there's some official research on the issue.

Indeed, and it was not my intent to say haven't, however the idea of pre-marriage sex in western as norn is still modern day ideal (well sedo-modern anyway 60's+)

however, sally I wasn't discarding anecdotal evidence, in fact I was actually using it myself (however the situations are little private to go into too much detail over internet, but basically left them unhappy when finally came to fulfilling what thought would be a romantic act)

-However, there seems to be a BIG misconception on here, that STD's are new thing, this is very MUCH wrong and many have been around for very long time, Aids in humans is reportedly a newer problem, true, but most STD's are in fact very old and because of contraceptives...etc we are now safer from them than ever before

-As for how great sex is, well is overrated (ironically) and you will probably be ven more disappointed if save self for it, because did all that work only to find out, it wasn't what told it was lol (sorry, being purposely thericious to wind you up ^_^)

Holy this is NOT evidence, this is your opinion, based on nothing but your own placebo filled mind, I mean I personally think it has no effect and from my own mind this is true, but doesn't stop being opinion,

Now can we move on from this degrading and unneeded subject

-As for other point, notice how USA restricts lot of political ideals and forces them other nations and it has in its short history had more war than most other nations put together (take from this what you will,)

From what I remember, wasn't religion the primary cause of risky behavior in the north for about 30 years?


is this from study or something, (sorry not sure what mean?)


Sure, Christianity is the worst of them because of how divided it is, but just take a look at what's going on in Iraq.


Ok I'm no fan of Christian idealogy or religion ether, but:-

1=To call anyone of them worse than others is kind of repugnant as just impossible to lump them all in one bin

2=If going to do it this way, don't just go for a Religion you know the lot about, Christians have their fair share of problems and troubles, but if going to go into it, I would say even their most extreme factions are far from what could be considered the "Worse" under any definition of the word


It's just like the UVF and the IRA duking it out, except this time the division is across Islam and the United States armed forces are only there because they found themselves caught in the middle rather than going in to occupy a territorial interest.


Ok, problems with this statement:-To be caught in the middle, implies:-

1=They weren't their by choice
2=They had no involvement within the troubles
3=They haven't gained anything from it

As for the UVF and IRA, well that to be fair was political problems under the mask of religion (and the ones who are truly fighting for religious causes are hard to be trusted as the norm, when some of them believe that RC is founding religion of Ireland (somehow))


But it doesn't change the fact that it's two sects of the same religion fighting each other simply because the organized factors of their "beliefs" suddenly decided to lable each other as enemies. And then there's the cross-religion violence. Youths around the world are encouraged to take up arms in the name of their religion's beliefs (since they aren't going by their own) that declare that the organization that is another religion is evil and must be purged. Arab nations threatening to destroy Israel. Israeli forces getting itchy trigger fingers in anticipation of the next war to come around.


well I to be fair, their is merit to this point, and this is reason I said we had to place this study in context and that it was too narrow/the risk it was on about was too undefined

and this is why in relation to USA, your point, holds a lot less water than in these countries you have said

However, there is another problem with your view, but go into it later


Continued actions by the RIRA (I'm not sure if the CIRA is still around) and whatever Protestant groups are around up there. China's actions against Confucianists.


Not to be condescending here, but maybe you should learn what Confucianism is first, it is not a Religion it is a theological ideology /doctrine (which maybe could be political ideal, but not religion) and part of its ideal was that "War is a Good Thing" (PS they damned the Mystic’s and this is why set up the legalists)

Now, if you had said the mystic’s or followers of "The Way" then yes, maybe you could make a point, however many of these were ether totelaurians or naturists, so their beliefs ether support complete control or no control at all, meaning war is natural by-product of their own ideology. This means rather fighting over intrepatation, they fight because it is part of the belief or will just happen because of lack of structure in way their way of living.

(However even this is too simplistic a view to truly make you understand my point or how it worked, but to go further into this, will take too long and be off topic, so I will say if want to understand this area better, read a "Tao Te Ching" translation (I recommend Lao Tzu's, as he helps explain it, as well as translates it and gives a brief history on its rise within china/basic ideology’s)


Nations may have learned to stop fighting each other on the basis of religion, so why haven't religious organizations learned that, retrospectively, creed, dogma, and ritual mean absolutely nothing?


Here, this other problem, i was on about earlier, to be fair, we have "rarely" front over religion, though has happened a lot, in the true grand construct of history, most of our wars were always about:-

1=Resources
2=Land
3=Political ideology (or how to run the world)

And religion was mostly a subplot or self-vindication within one of these, rather than actual cause of war

Case:-
Henry 8th, made Britain Protestant, but this was to regain British Sovereignty, not because he cared about religion par-say (he died a Catholic)


This isn't, however, to say that religion in and of itself is a bad thing, though. I'm a self-professed Buddhist (with Shinto influences), and I live my life accordingly. It's when one becomes a part of an organized religion (such as the Roman Catholic Church, Sunni Islam, or Shiite Islam) that all becomes lost. And from what I remember, church groups are merely extensions of organized religions, meaning that being a part of them teaches you how to disregard other beliefs and how to hate other people. Be as Christian as you want; just don't go to church.


Buddhism is an organized religion (with lot of restrictions) in fact, one of the 5 main religions, it just that it is lot less greedy and political than other religions and tech has no god

[OverMind]

Ah, so you can only last 2 minutes?

Wow, it'd be amazing if you could keep a mate for more than... well, 2 minutes.

... You're not addressing his original point.

[Aninamar]

... You're not addressing his original point.

That's no problem, Ovie; he just didn't come around to it yet. :P

Hey, in fact...
Remember all those times where Edgeworth or Franziska pull out key evidence that's supposed to screw you royally up, and you wonderfully emerge out of it, and then use the said evidence to turn the trial on your side?

<Present:
Shining's Post>
:objection:

It seems that when a side is losing, then they try to discount what people say without presenting any proof to the table.

[HolyShadow]

Well, my point to that was...

If you can only last two minutes, you aren't as desirable. If so, then you won't use time on a relationship, so using 2 minutes shouldn't be a problem at all.

Of course, if you look at it from the perspective of using 2 minutes to make a real difference, and those 2 minutes you'd never get back, that'd work too, but it would be weaker.

And then there's the whole aspect of using masturbation to relieve stress. You could lift weights to accomplish the same task.

[AllisonWalker]

You guys are way off topic now.

[Aninamar]

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I had to castrate myself to beat that pesky Terran who kept pwning me with a mech build. :/

If you can only last two minutes, you aren't as desirable. If so, then you won't use time on a relationship, so using 2 minutes shouldn't be a problem at all.

Haven't we already covered that sex is bad, clouds your reasoning, and should never make a foundation for a relationship? Therefore I don't see this as a problem. And I'm pretty much growth-stunted and I'd not like to talk about this.

Of course, if you look at it from the perspective of using 2 minutes to make a real difference, and those 2 minutes you'd never get back, that'd work too, but it would be weaker.

Err... those are two minutes. Two minutes in an entire 1440 minute day. You really think I'm going to lose more time wanking than, for example, writing this post? Fapping is more enjoyable anyway, gets rid of certain excess fluids, trains your wrist, helps you sleep and prompts you to do creative things (see Autoerotic Asphyxiation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZlzWSCYmEQ)). Meanwhile on those forums I lose my eyesight, get more mad, my back is getting more and more hunched, I'm exposed to yaoi and the stupidity of certain posters... All the time I'm spending to show off my point and to pinpoint the weaknesses of your reasoning is wasted, and all this excess time I could spend by strobilating a polyp, beating the Nazi in the helmet... and actually having fun!

And then there's the whole aspect of using masturbation to relieve stress. You could lift weights to accomplish the same task.

Well, to relieve stress, you could also throw yourself off a 10-story building. It's actually pretty much the fastest way to relieve your stress! (Your body will be under some pressure after the rigor mortis, but that won't really bother you anymore...) But you don't have to if you don't like! You can go the hard way. See? That's what life is about: do whatever choices that you find pleasable. And this way I also get to keep a few spare bones, which is quite a perk in itself.

[HolyShadow]

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I had to castrate myself to beat that pesky Terran who kept pwning me with a mech build. :/

Zerg player? Piece of cake.

Haven't we already covered that sex is bad, clouds your reasoning, and should never make a foundation for a relationship? Therefore I don't see this as a problem. And I'm pretty much growth-stunted and I'd not like to talk about this.

This isn't the logic you're likely to use. I tend to use my opponent's logic before finding holes in it. You're trying to do the same thing, but if you're willing to say this is true, then I guess I win.

Err... those are two minutes. Two minutes in an entire 1440 minute day. You really think I'm going to lose more time wanking than, for example, writing this post? Fapping is more enjoyable anyway, gets rid of certain excess fluids, trains your wrist, helps you sleep and prompts you to do creative things (see Autoerotic Asphyxiation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZlzWSCYmEQ)). Meanwhile on those forums I lose my eyesight, get more mad, my back is getting more and more hunched, I'm exposed to yaoi and the stupidity of certain posters... All the time I'm spending to show off my point and to pinpoint the weaknesses of your reasoning is wasted, and all this excess time I could spend by strobilating a polyp, beating the Nazi in the helmet... and actually having fun!

1: That's why I said it was a weak argument.
2: If you're not having fun, then don't go onto this website.

Well, to relieve stress, you could also throw yourself off a 10-story building. It's actually pretty much the fastest way to relieve your stress! (Your body will be under some pressure after the rigor mortis, but that won't really bother you anymore...) But you don't have to if you don't like! You can go the hard way. See? That's what life is about: do whatever choices that you find pleasable. And this way I also get to keep a few spare bones, which is quite a perk in itself.
...

LOL

So you're a preferentialist?

[Aninamar]

Zerg player? Piece of cake.

Pfeh, sure. What rank are you? :P I remember helping you out with the friggin' campaign, you pesky youngster!

This isn't the logic you're likely to use. I tend to use my opponent's logic before finding holes in it. You're trying to do the same thing, but if you're willing to say this is true, then I guess I win.

But there's no point to win. What does the fact that I'm the quickest hand to the east of Germany have to do with the debate at hand or my future love life?

1: That's why I said it was a weak argument.

Erm, why?

2: If you're not having fun, then don't go onto this website.

I enjoy torturing myself. I also frequent Fanfiction.net.

...

LOL

So you're a preferentialist?

I'm assuming you're talking about this term in a pejorative sense.

Then yeah, I guess that when I have a choice of killing myself or shooting the load, I'd choose the latter, even though they both carry out the same goal (but with different side effects).

[HolyShadow]

Pfeh, sure. What rank are you? :P I remember helping you out with the friggin' campaign, you pesky youngster!

I meant that Zerg vs Terran is rather one-sided. Terran are stronger against protoss because they can remove shields from buildings. But against Zerg, they don't have much other than tanks.

But there's no point to win. What does the fact that I'm the quickest hand to the east of Germany have to do with the debate at hand or my future love life?

Well, you said that sex clouds your reasoning. Therefore, I have convinced you of my point and have won.

Erm, why?
You're the one who wrote out why. Don't make me reiterate it. It wasn't a strong argument. That's why it wasn't my main one, or even a side one. Just something to mention.

I enjoy torturing myself. I also frequent Fanfiction.net.

So you like yaoi fanfics involving Twilight vampires?

I'm assuming you're talking about this term in a pejorative sense.

Then yeah, I guess that when I have a choice of killing myself or shooting the load, I'd choose the latter, even though they both carry out the same effect (but with different side effects).
Nope, just asking.

[Aninamar]

I meant that Zerg vs Terran is rather one-sided. Terran are stronger against protoss because they can remove shields from buildings. But against Zerg, they don't have much other than tanks.

Please, stop, because seeing you write this kind of crap is breaking my heart.

The only thing that lets the Zerg survive the late game against Terran is Defilers. Because the Terran will have a crapload of Marines & Medics supported by Tanks and Science Vessels, so relying on pure Lurkerling won't cut it and you need the Hive tech for Defiler special abilities.
When the Terran goes mech, Zerg can't engage his army head-on, and he has to resort to drops and mass expansion most of the time to take advantage of the Terran's immobility.

And the fact that Terran has EMP doesn't tip the match in their favor. It's main use is to prevent the Arbiters from making a devastating Recall into your base, and of course to detect stuff.

Well, you said that sex clouds your reasoning. Therefore, I have convinced you of my point and have won.

No, I haven't said anything like that. I think you're lately having way too much sex to think like this.

You're the one who wrote out why. Don't make me reiterate it. It wasn't a strong argument. That's why it wasn't my main one, or even a side one. Just something to mention.

Oh, that would make sense.

So you like yaoi fanfics involving Twilight vampires?

Yes, while they rape the infant Renesmee and sing Chacarron Macarron.

[HolyShadow]

Please, stop, because seeing you write this kind of crap is breaking my heart.

The only thing that lets the Zerg survive the late game against Terran is Defilers. Because the Terran will have a crapload of Marines & Medics supported by Tanks and Science Vessels, so relying on pure Lurkerling won't cut it and you need the Hive tech for Defiler special abilities.
When the Terran goes mech, Zerg can't engage his army head-on, and he has to resort to drops and mass expansion most of the time to take advantage of the Terran's immobility.

And the fact that Terran has EMP doesn't tip the match in their favor. It's main use is to prevent the Arbiters from making a devastating Recall into your base, and of course to detect stuff.

Sorta meant without Brood War, but sure.

No, I haven't said anything like that. I think you're lately having way too much sex to think like this.

Haven't we already covered that sex is bad, clouds your reasoning, and should never make a foundation for a relationship? Therefore I don't see this as a problem. And I'm pretty much growth-stunted and I'd not like to talk about this.

You JUST said this.

[Aninamar]

You JUST said this.

I'm using YOUR reasoning.
If sex isn't that important and definitely can be held back until marriage, you can just as easily have a healthy relationship without any sex. So I will worry about my "low uptime" until a long, long time later.

Sorta meant without Brood War, but sure.

Without Brood War Zerg don't have Lurkers, too.

[HolyShadow]

I'm using YOUR reasoning.
If sex isn't that important and definitely can be held back until marriage, you can just as easily have a healthy relationship without any sex. So I will worry about my "low uptime" until a long, long time later.

It was a joke if you didn't notice. None of my jokes are getting through to you...

Without Brood War Zerg don't have Lurkers, too.

I was referring to the medics and you know it.

[Aninamar]

It was a joke if you didn't notice. None of my jokes are getting through to you...

Sure, because sarcasm is really easy to use through the internet...

I was referring to the medics and you know it.

If I was forced to play Terran without Brood War against a Zerg, I'd go mech.

[Kochiha]

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions...

is this from study or something, (sorry not sure what mean?)
The Troubles.

Ok I'm no fan of Christian idealogy or religion ether, but:-

1=To call anyone of them worse than others is kind of repugnant as just impossible to lump them all in one bin

2=If going to do it this way, don't just go for a Religion you know the lot about, Christians have their fair share of problems and troubles, but if going to go into it, I would say even their most extreme factions are far from what could be considered the "Worse" under any definition of the word

They're not the worst religion; they have the greatest problem of division.

Ok, problems with this statement:-To be caught in the middle, implies:-

1=They weren't their by choice
2=They had no involvement within the troubles
3=They haven't gained anything from it

As for the UVF and IRA, well that to be fair was political problems under the mask of religion (and the ones who are truly fighting for religious causes are hard to be trusted as the norm, when some of them believe that RC is founding religion of Ireland (somehow))

Perhaps this was a case of my being too vague in my rambling. What happened was that the US Army went into Iraq for the purpose of dethroning Saddam Hussein; they accomplished that and thus ended Gulf War II promptly. The sectarian conflicts erupted whilst they were in the process of rebuilding the country's armed forces and thus prompted them to stay longer. The sectarian conflicts within Iraq have more to do with the differences in Muslim beliefs, rather than a reaction to the presense of the Americans, who are actually quite popular over there contrary to what the media sells (and then categorizes Fox News as being slandered when they disagree).
Now in reference to the Troubles, I thought that was the other way around; religious problems under the guise of politics, especially when you consider just how deep-rooted the problem is. It kind of doesn't help that Ian Paisley was so inflammatory; the way he went on, you'd think that Northern Ireland was its own country.

Not to be condescending here, but maybe you should learn what Confucianism is first, it is not a Religion it is a theological ideology /doctrine (which maybe could be political ideal, but not religion) and part of its ideal was that "War is a Good Thing" (PS they damned the Mystic’s and this is why set up the legalists)

I know full well that Confucianism is no more a religion than Stoicism, but there are those that do indeed treat it as a religion and deify Confucious. I don't buy into it that much, of course, but it just goes to show you that there are extremists in everything.

Here, this other problem, i was on about earlier, to be fair, we have "rarely" front over religion, though has happened a lot, in the true grand construct of history, most of our wars were always about:-

1=Resources
2=Land
3=Political ideology (or how to run the world)

And religion was mostly a subplot or self-vindication within one of these, rather than actual cause of war

I was talking about now. We've had plenty of wars over plenty of issues (including one fought for the sole purpose of "teaching Russia a lesson"...and it still remains that all anybody got from the Crimean War was a neat little poem and the miné bullet), but nowadays most conflicts are religious or racial. Additionally, more religious wars have been fought throughout ancient and medieval history than the greater wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Case:-
Henry 8th, made Britain Protestant, but this was to regain British Sovereignty, not because he cared about religion par-say (he died a Catholic)

I thought it was so he could get divorced when the Pope wouldn't annul his marriage...

Buddhism is an organized religion (with lot of restrictions) in fact, one of the 5 main religions, it just that it is lot less greedy and political than other religions and tech has no god

Organized religion refers to following a specific practice of a certain religion. I can be Buddhist and not be a part of the Buddhist community, much as one can be Christian and not belong to any specific church. Unaffiliated is a good term for these kinds of people.

[Kochiha]

You know...

I've always found it strange how people forced others to believe in their religion for so long in other countries... America negates that and makes it so people can believe what they want.

I guess what I'm asking is...

How many holy wars has America had?

They may not have been wars, but that's only because America kept its religious issues political. Take for example, the Scopes trial.

[AllisonWalker]

Henry the Eigth seperated from the Catholic Church so he could have completely control over his own Church(which was alot like the Catholic Church). Henry did not like answering to a Pope(major reason why he split, besides the divorce issue), so no, he didn't actually die a Catholic.

[HolyShadow]

They may not have been wars, but that's only because America kept its religious issues political. Take for example, the Scopes trial.
Not what I asked. America has never had a holy war.

This is a good thing, and people are free to hate religion all they want.

But personally, I find science a little scary... I like to think of people as animals... biological creatures, at the least. Mastery of science and technology just seems to be overstepping that a bit.

...Though, scary probably isn't the right word. It just doesn't sit too well with me to think what we'll be capable of in 100 years.

I use a computer, television, a car with a radio, and video games... and that's about it. It doesn't feel right to use cell phones, so I keep that to a minimum.

Is that odd?

[Fat1Fared]

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions...
The Troubles.


This is still really vague and not very helpful, but I'm going to surmise, that your basically saying its your opinion, which is fine, just make sure we know it is your opinion


They're not the worst religion; they have the greatest problem of division.


Well you used the word worse, but maybe was misunderstanding on my part, however even this is questionable, as if look back to their routs many of the religions (even world religions) are infact just offshoots of other religions and if look at look at many middle Asian religions, believe it or not, most are refractions in same way as Christianity, its just lot more defined and lot less known


Perhaps this was a case of my being too vague in my rambling. What happened was that the US Army went into Iraq for the purpose of dethroning Saddam Hussein; they accomplished that and thus ended Gulf War II promptly.


Well reasons for being their aside, this makes this part of war political (just a point)


The sectarian conflicts erupted whilst they were in the process of rebuilding the country's armed forces and thus prompted them to stay longer.


Did it never accore to you, that US removing Saddam, may have in fact been the reason these "conflicts" started up

-You know making a slight power vacuum, releasing prisoners, making selfs look like invaders, rather liberators

=Again, these were all political things, not religious (not saying, religion wasn't used as way to unit different groups, as that wouldn't be true, but---

1=US caused this as I said
2=These still come down to political ideology of land, resources and how to rule (though I will be fair to you and that there idea of rulership generally seems quite a fundermental one, this is my "opinion" again more self-vindication and it doesn't stop, their true aims being political)


The sectarian conflicts within Iraq have more to do with the differences in Muslim beliefs, rather than a reaction to the presense of the Americans, who are actually quite popular over there contrary to what the media sells (and then categorizes Fox News as being slandered when they disagree).


-Well, fact you defend Fox News, explains a lot (not meant to be as insulting as probably sounds, just making a point, however I do agree, you cannot trust news groups)

1=The US isn't popular there, maybe in the areas, they have improved, they are accepted (though still mistrust, more better us than them thing,) but outside these areas, there is still a great mistrust over them and I think the best example of why we could never truly be taken in by these countries is actually shown by Afghanistan V Pakistan

-Though, it may have taken many years for Pakistan to really get into action, they have now all but won their war against Treiban, when we after lot more action, death and work, are actually finding ourselves floundering, why? =because of 3 key points:-

1=We were two Quick to try and remove Trieban, when we move against them, there was still support for them among the poeple and so we instantly became seen as invaders and infedals. The Pakistanie's purposefully allowed the Trieban to show their own "colours" and once they knew the support for these groups was being lost from their own actions, they then acted (harsh way to do it, but worked lot better in long run)

2=Second, our aims are completely just (and take to long to go into the politics's) and these poeple know this and those against us, use it as way to create more mistrust. However because the Pakistanie government is sort of now seen as foe you know, and Trieban pulling power their is lessening, they lessen this

3=This is the most important one, we are seen as outsiders!!! The poeple of Pakistan were willing to get behind their army, despite its past actions, because they saw them as bothers and kinmans still, and so when they take land, so are seen as liberators and accepted into the community, while we are still seen as invaders and separted from the community. The poeple will activity help Pakistan soldiers, but ours receive no such help generally and in many cases find themselves undermined by these poeple, because we are not one of them

And we faced the same problems in a Iraq, and that is why even now, after everything we have done, the place is still so unstable

PS also the US placed Saddam in power in first place <___<
>___>


Now in reference to the Troubles, I thought that was the other way around; religious problems under the guise of politics, especially when you consider just how deep-rooted the problem is. It kind of doesn't help that Ian Paisley was so inflammatory; the way he went on, you'd think that Northern Ireland was its own country.


OK, I spent longer on last one, than I meant to and so running out of time here, but just say, that spoofs is better placed than me to answer questions on it, but most of it comes down to Britain messing up (by mistake this time overmind :thatface: ) the whole thing, when handing part of county over


I know full well that Confucianism is no more a religion than Stoicism, but there are those that do indeed treat it as a religion and deify Confucious. I don't buy into it that much, of course, but it just goes to show you that there are extremists in everything.


Well:-

1=You just said Confucianism as a whole, if only on about a small sect of it, then you must say this.

2=If going to go with their intreputition, then you may as well agree that any extremist group can make anything a religion, even something like Football or Maxrism (thing which rejected religion)
=IN short they were not true Confucists, they were offshoot with new ideas and beliefs

3=They never had enough power to cause this kind of trouble, any war caused by Confucianism was done by the main shoot of it


I was talking about now. We've had plenty of wars over plenty of issues (including one fought for the sole purpose of "teaching Russia a lesson"...and it still remains that all anybody got from the Crimean War was a neat little poem and the miné bullet),


Again, not got time now, but will advise you to look this up (unless your being sarcastic)


but nowadays most conflicts are religious or racial. Additionally, more religious wars have been fought throughout ancient and medieval history than the greater wars of the 19th and 20th centuries.


Well if go on a world scale, then need to include Eastern Asian and Africa and then even less of them come down to religion, in fact, the only place where I would say you could even argue this, is middle Asian and even then, it is debatable


I thought it was so he could get divorced when the Pope wouldn't annul his marriage...


Again, not sure if being sarcastic or not, but do you really think that even if he was insane enough, he had kind of power to do change the whole of British rule and ideal, just to get a divorce?
=If so, you really don't understand how British politic's used to work o_0

PS he reinstated himself as catholic before he died Allison


Organized religion refers to following a specific practice of a certain religion. I can be Buddhist and not be a part of the Buddhist community, much as one can be Christian and not belong to any specific church. Unaffiliated is a good term for these kinds of people.

So then you still follow the ideals of major religion, just without making it offical (which means still follow a religion)

-My point here, isn't that religion is tool of war or hasn't started any wars (as is one it has) its that generally religion is ether excuse or tool for war, rather than cause itself and so if you removed religion, though I would dance for joy, I wouldn't expect all these wars to stop, as poeple will just find another excuse to fight them

-Secondly, though I do see where coming from with your first point, that religion causes risky behavior, I think it would be more apt to say extremist religion causes risky behavior, not general overall one

SR what does conversation with Amir have to do with anything

[Aninamar]

SR what does conversation with Amir have to do with anything

I WAS FROZEN TODAY!!!!!

[HolyShadow]

Well, teens have sex. I'm trying to say that allowing sex to consume you is bad, especially as a teen.

It's on topic, since several religions frown on sex in certain forms.