Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Govt. Tells Singles No Sex Till You're 30
ABSNews Health ^ | 10/31/06 | Brian Hartman

Posted on 11/01/2006 10:48:21 AM PST by steve-b

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2006 — If you're single and in your 20s, the federal government wants you to steer clear of sex.

That's the new guidance for states under the Department of Health and Human Services' $50 million Abstinence Education Program....

"Whatever happened to conservatives that were against big government," Wagoner asks. "If this isn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, what is?"

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: genx; government; nannystate; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-252 next last
To: steve-b

If you're one of my kids, then never.


221 posted on 11/02/2006 7:02:48 AM PST by InvisibleChurch (The default mode of the heart is set for Drift.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The Comstock Laws were opposed and effectively overturned through the efforts of one Margaret Sanger--if you know anything about her history, it figures she's a Left icon.
Unless the Comstock Laws and these later efforts involved Taliban-like Enforcers from the Ministry of Vice and Virtue, I don't see the problem. Even though I am someone,like most Americans, who had Plenty of pre marital sex , I don't have too much of a problem with the Government trying to balance the "Condoms-on-bananas-in-the-public-classrooms" movement, by spreading the abstinence agenda. Is it a waste of money? Probably, but it might be worth it to hear the teeth-gnashing by the Left, as they make fools of themselves by attacking after all what is only a sensible suggestion.


222 posted on 11/02/2006 9:04:38 AM PST by supremedoctrine ("Talent hits a target no one else can hit , genius hits a target no one else can see"---Schopenhauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine

The Comstock laws were becoming increasingly unpopular, and Sanger's celebrity was due in no small part to her success in getting them overturned. Comstock also insisted that abortion be considered a form of birth control under the law, in order to bolster the argument that contraception was morally equivalent to murder. That doctrine had unintended consequences down to road.


223 posted on 11/02/2006 9:40:51 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener

The Mrs. Robinson Act of 2006?


224 posted on 11/02/2006 9:52:51 AM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine

ROTFLOL

:D


225 posted on 11/02/2006 11:49:03 AM PST by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: JackDanielsOldNo7

A NEED is something for SURVIVAL, yourself.

Sex is NOT a need. Why should I have to explain that you're not going to die if you don't have sex? It should be intuitively obvious.


226 posted on 11/02/2006 11:49:13 AM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

I've never heard of a monk - or nun (you know, we WOMEN do count in these things) - dying of no sex.

If one MALE needs to clear out his pipes, please himself. It wouldn't have to be emptied into another person.

Linking into the original subject, avoiding sex outside marriage avoids *ever* having children who are subjected to in-ideal situations. It is selfish and potentially puts totally innocent new people in peril. That is *the* prime reason for the "moral" of avoiding extramarital sex.


227 posted on 11/02/2006 11:57:21 AM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: timm22
I want to move towards a market approach to schools.

Milwaukee has implemented something along the line of a market approach. Some of the schools are specialty schools, such as a German immersion school, a school focused on the arts, college prep schools or parents can apply for their neighborhood school. Parents choose 3 schools. Those who are "returning" to a school get the first spots. Siblings get the next spots, if they've made that school their first choice. The rest of the spots get filled in a lottery type of thing. I'm not sure, but the child may have to also qualify to get into the specialty schools. Choices include charter schools (private) & some suburban schools take some city students, via Chapter 220 (a Federal program). The original voucher funding was done by private donation, but it's now done with state funding.

The 99% school would be private. Anyone moving into the community could place their children into it. The school is also open to the 1%. The school was created because of mandates on public schools in the area of sex education.

228 posted on 11/02/2006 12:05:44 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: timm22
I would be much more skeptical of the motives for an all-white school.

Why?

229 posted on 11/02/2006 12:07:25 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
I've never heard of a monk - or nun (you know, we WOMEN do count in these things) - dying of no sex. If one MALE needs to clear out his pipes, please himself. It wouldn't have to be emptied into another person. Linking into the original subject, avoiding sex outside marriage avoids *ever* having children who are subjected to in-ideal situations. It is selfish and potentially puts totally innocent new people in peril. That is *the* prime reason for the "moral" of avoiding extramarital sex.

Sex with ones' self, whether male or female, is still sex. People do it because they "need" sex. There are lots of things in life that can put "totally innocent new people in peril," such as driving a car, small swallable objects, and dirty hands.

230 posted on 11/02/2006 12:24:49 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

LOL - "totally innocent NEW" means brand-new babies, not adults. They have no say in what situation they're born into. Best if that situation is carefully planned and doesn't just "happen".

As for pleasing oneself - at least it doesn't get anyone ELSE in trouble - neither a "partner", nor an innocent child. However, I'll say it again - it is NOT a "need". You do not need to please yourself to survive. If an *instinctual* whole male dog can survive his whole 12 years w/o "pleasing himself", I think humans can too.


231 posted on 11/03/2006 5:41:52 AM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; ...
Big Government 'Social Conservative' Alert....





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
232 posted on 11/03/2006 6:42:07 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Amnesty_From_Government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Dammit, what if its already too late?


233 posted on 11/03/2006 6:43:39 AM PST by dforest (be careful you don't become what you hate the most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM

Hey, why don't we slap a big 'ol sin-tax on rubbers and dildoes? Then, that can pay for these programs.
Hey, I like it!

And, we could file lawsuits against Larry Flynt again. The "Big Porn" settlement can take over where the tobacco settlement left off.

Hey, anything to save on insurance,and we gotta save that socialist medi-care program, too. Freedom costs too much money. $hit, it's gotta go.


234 posted on 11/03/2006 8:10:00 AM PST by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
I've never heard of a monk - or nun (you know, we WOMEN do count in these things) - dying of no sex.
If one MALE needs to clear out his pipes, please himself. It wouldn't have to be emptied into another person.

Biologically, that's where "wet dreams" come in -- if the pipes need clearing, the subconcious mind will take care of it.

235 posted on 11/03/2006 8:54:14 AM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

LOL - good point! Why didn't I think of that?


236 posted on 11/03/2006 12:15:04 PM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Apparently, my federal government misunderstands me.

If I have all the sex, booze, tobacco, fast cars, fast driving, fast food, etc., etc., free of their restrictions, then I am no longer distracted by the pursuit of those things, and I can work toward the things they want.

Otherwise, there is going to be an inward (and eventually outward) rebellion.

That is counterproductive.

We owe it to society to be hedonistic.

(And no, this is not a joke).

237 posted on 11/03/2006 6:43:03 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Whatever. I didn't get married until I was 36, and before then I did take a few free trials (turned some down too). It is natural and instinctive for people to put those desires into action, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

I did just fine without the government spending tax money telling me what to do, as do the vast majority of unmarried sexually active people. People just need to be responsible, and because relationships can be unhealthy for plenty of reasons beyond the potential consequences of having some fun in the sack, maybe a little selective.
238 posted on 11/03/2006 10:06:07 PM PST by Clinging Bitterly (Oregon - a pro-militia and firearms state that looks just like Afghanistan .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

Comment #239 Removed by Moderator

To: steve-b; Philistone

What was that discussion we were having again, about social conservatives being against this sort of thing?


240 posted on 11/04/2006 2:05:53 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (When personal character isn't relevant to voters or party leaders, Foley happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-252 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson