Planned Parenthood's Take on Promiscuity


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

I suppose this is no surprise. PP's take is that "promiscuity" (they always put it in "" "") is basically an word used against girls (seldom boys), and that its meaning is oh-so-subjective. The kicker--there really is no moral aspect to it.

Since PP makes its bread and butter from teen promiscuity, this take is good business. It's just a bit much that they couch it in a youth advice column "Ask Alex..."

Someone asked us: Is promiscuity a bad thing? ... - Hi! We're Planned Parenthood

Maybe it's too harsh to invoke Jesus' warning about those who harm children would be better off with a milstone tied around their neck... :(

Matthew 18:6

King James Version (KJV)

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.

i'm speechless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm speechless.

Me. too.

Just...wow.

Plus, the hypocrisy involved in these attitudes. Don't judge someone who has slept with dozens..or hundreds...of people. But it's always okay to judge those who don't.

I have been judged over and over again..with clear, direct words...for choosing to live the Law of Chastity. I've been told very explicitly that there is definitely something "wrong" with me for not having sex outside of marriage.

Do young people without any moral guidance even stand a chance against these kinds of attitudes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was flabbergasted about is that Planned Parenthood is supposed to address a problem of teen pregnancy. Being sexually active, especially with a high number of people give you a much bigger chance of getting pregnant regardless of how good your birth control pill works.

Making these statements are counter-productive to their mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been judged over and over again..with clear, direct words...for choosing to live the Law of Chastity. I've been told very explicitly that there is definitely something "wrong" with me for not having sex outside of marriage.

It's attitudes like you are describing that are why Isaiah's words in Isaiah 5:20 are timeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's attitudes like you are describing that are why Isaiah's words in Isaiah 5:20 are timeless.

Yeah, and this is not just promiscuity either... it's any social ill really. Now, if you don't proclaim gay marriage as a healthy relationshp you're stigmatized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To their credit, they did give the sound advice of

Some things that can be unhealthy include having sex before you’re ready, having sex to try to seem impressive or cool, having sex when you don’t want to, having sex with people you don’t like/trust/care about, and having sex without using protection – like condoms and birth control.

But they failed miserably at accounting that the more sexual partners a person has, the more they put themselves at risk for STD's. They don't go into much details about routine screening for STDs, asking your partners to be screened before sleeping with them, asking about past sexual histories, etc. Even for a secular organization, ignoring such matters is irresponsible and dangerous, and I'm really disappointed in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and this is not just promiscuity either... it's any social ill really. Now, if you don't proclaim gay marriage as a healthy relationshp you're stigmatized.

well I think that more comes from the extremes things take.

Where some are simply against it, and that's that, there are others who assault and wish death on gays and they being the most vocal are the ones people pay most attention to.

A few bad apples ruin the batch - but that's just an example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was flabbergasted about is that Planned Parenthood is supposed to address a problem of teen pregnancy. Being sexually active, especially with a high number of people give you a much bigger chance of getting pregnant regardless of how good your birth control pill works.

Making these statements are counter-productive to their mission.

What to do, what to do? Abortions and pregnancy are down.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

This is good...and not good for Planned Parenthood. Their mission is being accomplished, but their reason for being is diminishing. Plus, those nasty social conservatives continue to lobby against federal funding (a little over 1/3rd of their income is from our taxes). Alas, the urgent problem of teen pregancies must be reignited in the minds of the American public. Thankfully, "Ask Alex" is available to stoke the fires of teen lust.

As I approach 50 I'm afraid I'm becoming way too cynical. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What to do, what to do? Abortions and pregnancy are down.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

This is good...and not good for Planned Parenthood. Their mission is being accomplished, but their reason for being is diminishing. Plus, those nasty social conservatives continue to lobby against federal funding (a little over 1/3rd of their income is from our taxes). Alas, the urgent problem of teen pregancies must be reignited in the minds of the American public. Thankfully, "Ask Alex" is available to stoke the fires of teen lust.

As I approach 50 I'm afraid I'm becoming way too cynical. :rolleyes:

Perhaps a bit cynical. Remember that most of their business is in checkups and contraception. Pregnancy and abortion rates can go down, but women will still need those services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarginOfError says...

Perhaps a bit cynical. Remember that most of their business is in checkups and contraception. Pregnancy and abortion rates can go down, but women will still need those services.

Maybe a bit...but abortion fees and contraceptive sales account for 38% of their income.

Planned Parenthood

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should never be a surprise that someone will recognize that the activities that they choose are harmful. Even so I once read that Baby Face Nelson (the infamous cop killer) during his final shoot out with Feds and other law enforcement called a reporter from his room and exclaimed that he did not understand why he was being attacked so aggressively and added that he had never hurt anyone.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Lakumi. I hope you are having a fine day! :)

well I think that more comes from the extremes things take.

Where some are simply against it, and that's that, there are others who assault and wish death on gays and they being the most vocal are the ones people pay most attention to.

A few bad apples ruin the batch - but that's just an example

In my experience, what you say isn't even the case anymore, if it ever was the case. If you are against gay marriage you are almost immediately labeled a homophobe, regardless of any other fact. If you just voice a preference for traditional marriage, without even explicitly calling gay marriage wrong, you are still attacked and labelled as a homophobe. The ironic thing is that most who subscribe to liberal social policies like gay unions, are constantly touting the word "tolerance" but in practice what they really mean is that you must agree with their moral standard, otherwise you are intolerant.

There can never be a rational discussion about this because those who are against gay marriages are demonized and they are irrationally equated with people who want to do violence to gays.

Its like so many things in this country. If you can slap a label on a person or a group of people, then you can demonize them and simply disregard their arguments becaus they are "wackos". It ridiculous how hypocritical the liberal left is on this issue.

Sexual morality is being reshaped by people and organizations in order for them to spread there agenda and their atheistic philosophy. The idea is to destroy any notion of God from the general population and to replace God with government. Ultimately the father of all of these movements is the devil because they lead people away from the truth and from God. Planned parenthood has an agenda that has nothing to do with keeping teenagers safe or helping society.

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree church and state should be separate. I don't like the idea of a church being in the government, no more then a government should be in a church.

A government has no right to dictate a church's doctrine, or force them who to marry.

Alternatively, I don't think a church has any right to force a doctrine on a population - especially due to the diversity in this day and age (there being other religions and atheists)

Many people are quick to judge and what not, and yes there is a double standard, I see it constantly.

I enjoy having conversations about my beliefs and others beliefs, and while I am completely against trying to push my beliefs on others, I am not against simple conversation (problem is, most people don't know how to have a friendly conversation and it breaks down into insults and "you're wrong")

and I don't think a government can take away faith from someone. If you were so quick to loose it, you never had it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and this is not just promiscuity either... it's any social ill really. Now, if you don't proclaim gay marriage as a healthy relationshp you're stigmatized.

I agree, but I would add a little to your comment...

I am not gay, but I live in a city with a huge number of gay men and lesbians. My business partner is gay and has a same-sex spouse, and about a third of my clients are gay or lesbian. So I have seen and heard a lot about same-sex relationships. All my friendships in the GLBT community were made during my years in the wilderness when I was inactive in the LDS Church. Had I been active in the LDS Church, I doubt whether I would have made these friendships. (Not because I avoid GLBT people, but simply because I would have moved in different social circles.)

Of all the people I know in same-sex relationships, almost all have gone through an "open" phase where one partner wants to explore sexual options outside the relationship. Some relationships oscillate between being open and closed. The most conservative same-sex relationships I know are mostly closed, but every few years one partner will want to sow some wild oats and the other partner grudgingly goes along out of fear of destroying the relationship. (Can you imagine this in the straight world, where a husband wants to fool around, asks the wife for permission, and the wife grudgingly agrees so the marriage doesn't end?)

I am speaking from my own observations and experience, which may or may not follow national patterns in same-sex relationships. I only know some gay people in one city, and you can't draw a line from one point. So resist temptations to form stereotypes from my comments here.

Anyway, when I began to make friends in the GLBT community, I was utterly shocked by the rules that same-sex partners routinely make regarding an open relationship. Some of the rules I've heard are below. One partner will tell the other partner: "You may engage in sexual activity outside our marriage/relationship provided that:

(a) You don't tell me anything about it, OR

(b) You tell me everything about it, including prurient details, OR

© You only do it while you're out of town on travel, OR

(d) You always come home every night, OR

(e) You only do it with strangers, OR

(f) You take precautions to avoid STDs

and a few more than I won't repeat because polite people don't talk about such things publicly. My point is that these "rules" would have rather different results in a heterosexual marriage, and would probably lead to divorce or loss of child custody. Yet if you ask a same-sex couple here about these rules, they generally laugh and shrug it off with a comment like, "Yeah, everyone does it, and you're a bigot if you oppose this behavior."

I know this is an explosive post, so I emphasize that I am simply repeating what other people have told me. But if my local observations also reflect same-sex relationships nationally, then I think traditional marriage is very much under assault by same-sex marriage as practiced today. Perhaps the role of the Church is to challenge the GLBT community to move toward a new definition of same-sex marriage that views promiscuity as a sickness and not harmless recreation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never be in an open relationship, and none of the gay people I know have been in them. And I have certainly never been told I was a bigot for opposing the concept of an open relationship.

I always though the "traditional marriage" got more harm from celebrities who treat it like a joke, it was that, which made me see marriage as largely useless when I was younger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree church and state should be separate. I don't like the idea of a church being in the government, no more then a government should be in a church.

A government has no right to dictate a church's doctrine, or force them who to marry.

Alternatively, I don't think a church has any right to force a doctrine on a population - especially due to the diversity in this day and age (there being other religions and atheists)

Many people are quick to judge and what not, and yes there is a double standard, I see it constantly.

I enjoy having conversations about my beliefs and others beliefs, and while I am completely against trying to push my beliefs on others, I am not against simple conversation (problem is, most people don't know how to have a friendly conversation and it breaks down into insults and "you're wrong")

and I don't think a government can take away faith from someone. If you were so quick to loose it, you never had it.

Do you have examples of a church trying to force doctrine on a population in this country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree church and state should be separate. I don't like the idea of a church being in the government, no more then a government should be in a church.

A government has no right to dictate a church's doctrine, or force them who to marry.

Alternatively, I don't think a church has any right to force a doctrine on a population - especially due to the diversity in this day and age (there being other religions and atheists)

Many people are quick to judge and what not, and yes there is a double standard, I see it constantly.

I enjoy having conversations about my beliefs and others beliefs, and while I am completely against trying to push my beliefs on others, I am not against simple conversation (problem is, most people don't know how to have a friendly conversation and it breaks down into insults and "you're wrong")

and I don't think a government can take away faith from someone. If you were so quick to loose it, you never had it.

Of course the replacement for God will not be explicit. It will be subtle. However, when you look at what actually happens when you remove God from government and government begins to provide the necessities of life. The U.S. government has at its foundation the idea that we are endowed with inalienable rights from God. Our basics rights to life, liberty, and to own property are things we have because God gave those rights to us. The United States government does NOT give us any rights. Now, if this notion is reversed, the idea that we get our rights from God, and it is replaced with the notion that government provides rights, then is not the government our God then? They give and they take away. Further, if the government can provide food stamps, cash, healthcare, and other entitlements, what need do the people have for God? Their government gives them everything they need. If the government is divorced from any universal moral norms and essentially advocates promiscuity because "its all relative" then this results in the people being given permission from those in authority to act immorally without the guilt. The government advocates the Planned Parenthood agenda by providing public funds to it, allowing Planned Parenthood to continue to exist.

It is a delusion to think that we can maintain social morality with the exclusion of God. What is even more important to understand is that our government of the United States is a form of government that relies on God. Otherwise our system doesn't work. So, there is a concerted effort by many in government and in the private sector to remove God from public discourse and from public thought. If they can successfully reduce everything down to some naturalistic law then they can control it. There is an effort to make the idea of there being a universal moral law that comes from God offensive. Even people who are religious and generally moral are being fooled. In many cases you have religious people who are helping to take God out of our government and replace it with an idol.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have examples of a church trying to force doctrine on a population in this country?

Your country? Well no, simply how the US was founded, because they were being forced a doctrine on them in England

But I don't pretend to understand religion in the US government, I don't live there.

religion doesn't seem to have any real place in the Canadian government it seems (I assume, due to our great multiculturalism and that's a thing we seem to like)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree church and state should be separate. I don't like the idea of a church being in the government, no more then a government should be in a church.

A government has no right to dictate a church's doctrine, or force them who to marry.

Alternatively, I don't think a church has any right to force a doctrine on a population - especially due to the diversity in this day and age (there being other religions and atheists)

Many people are quick to judge and what not, and yes there is a double standard, I see it constantly.

I enjoy having conversations about my beliefs and others beliefs, and while I am completely against trying to push my beliefs on others, I am not against simple conversation (problem is, most people don't know how to have a friendly conversation and it breaks down into insults and "you're wrong")

and I don't think a government can take away faith from someone. If you were so quick to loose it, you never had it.

And herein lies the problem when we talk gay marriage... You are making an assumption that the reason I am against gay marriage is because it is against my religion.

But, this is not a gay marriage thread... so let's get back to promiscuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the replacement for God will not be explicit. It will be subtle. However, when you look at what actually happens when you remove God from government and government begins to provide the necessities of life. The U.S. government has at its foundation the idea that we are endowed with inalienable rights from God. Our basics rights to life, liberty, and to own property are things we have because God gave those rights to us. The United States government does NOT give us any rights. Now, if this notion is reversed, the idea that we get our rights from God, and it is replaced with the notion that government provides rights, then is not the government our God then? They give and they take away.

-Finrock

I always disagreed with the whole God given rights, because Canada and the US (for example) has added rights (women, natives, black people the right to vote, end of slavery, etc)

In the 1940s the US (and Canada) took the rights away from Japanese-Americans, simply because they were Japanese. They had nothing to do with Japan, but because they were ethnically Japanese they were thrown into camps. Rights aren't rights if you can take them away.

If God did give us rights, he wouldn't let humans take them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And herein lies the problem when we talk gay marriage... You are making an assumption that the reason I am against gay marriage is because it is against my religion.

But, this is not a gay marriage thread... so let's get back to promiscuity.

No, but statistically it is the most common so, by the math I have an edge :lol:

(but once again math has failed me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but statistically it is the most common so, by the math I have an edge :lol:

(but once again math has failed me)

You have to go watch Two Weeks Notice.

Quote from that movie:

Lucy Kelson: I think your the most selfish human being on the planet.

George Wade: Well that's just silly. Have you met everybody on the planet?

People have been assuming that the religious people who vote against gay marriage and people who teach their children not to have sex before marriage are against it because it is against their religion... and that includes your statistics.

A lot of them are against it because they believe it is bad for society despite their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to go watch Two Weeks Notice.

Quote from that movie:

Lucy Kelson: I think your the most selfish human being on the planet.

George Wade: Well that's just silly. Have you met everybody on the planet?

People have been assuming that the religious people who vote against gay marriage and people who teach their children not to have sex before marriage are against it because it is against their religion... and that includes your statistics.

A lot of them are against it because they believe it is bad for society despite their religion.

statistics are made in my mind from what people I have encountered have told me (in recent years, I was never around people with vastly different beliefs then me when I was younger)

its a flawed system, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

statistics are made in my mind from what people I have encountered have told me (in recent years, I was never around people with vastly different beliefs then me when I was younger)

its a flawed system, yes.

Those aren't statistics, those are impressions.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share