I don't think its my responsibility to police the behavior of others. In this case the victim could have spoken for herself and for reasons known only to her chose not to. I would try to make her feel better in that moment but would direct none of my attention toward the offender.

This is exactly what I said to Hannibal. He wasn't having any of it.

I think you will be okay, actually. FLL4 repeats the information adding new information along the way. But, if she is really lost then it might not hurt for her to do the review lessons again (they are every 10th chapter or something). Those are long lessons that you can break up into 2 or 3 days worth of lessons.

No, I wouldn't have but I probably would have been delighted to watch you do it. I'm in the category that would have made some kind of comment to the cashier in hopes of being comforting.

I was once trampled by Hannibal's elephants while on holiday in the Alps. That was before I moved to Vermont where I was once pushed aside by Howard Dean's entourage (aka his brother) while Howard took his kids on a tour of the Ben & Jerry's factory.

Based on anecdotal information from my own life I would not do this because of your younger children. If it were just you and your dh I would encourage you to go ahead and give it a try. You can try to help in other ways. :grouphug:

No, I do not discard all studies published in professional journals. I spend a good deal of my time each morning reading medical journals on a particular subject. Because of how specific my area of interest is I'm able to see which studies were done well and which were heavily manipulated in desperate attempts to get published. Virginity pledges are not an area of specific interest to me so I'm loathe to spend a bunch of time reading the study and evaluating the data. So I used the following formula: New Yorker liberal agenda + Unbridled support of anti-Christian community + Highly subjective data + Highly subjective field of science = Significant doubt as to the objectivity of the results Notice that I always expressed doubt and nothing more. Facile? Perhaps. But part of gathering knowledge of the world around you is to simplify some of your decisions by basing them on what you already know.

One person's fascinating is another person's ridiculous. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Medical journals are not the end all and be all of science, btw. The kind of machinations that go into getting published would probably surprise people who think medical journals are the same as medical fact. Not to mention that we're dealing with a subjective "science" here.

Because its in the New Yorker (I don't care where else it is). Because its a social science. Because its not statistical so much as subjective interpretation of numbers.

Wow. I love this post. LOVE. :grouphug: to the OP

I would be very inclined to doubt the neutrality of this article and any research that was involved.

I read that as "edible" and thought, "I really hope not". Glad you got some answers.

I find it very odd that there seems to be a link between sexual happiness in a marriage and prior sexual experience. I find it equally strange that sexual happiness with a person prior to marriage guarantees it 10 years later. I think its entirely possible that delaying sex until marriage can create a marriage with the typical ebbs of flows in all aspects of the relationship all of which require some work and commitment by both parties. Our world is full of examples of people who tore it up before marriage still end up being unhappy with their sex life. What's that about?

This is a great point and I think it goes to this whole movement toward a society that feels that failure is not an option. You know, because failure makes us feel bad. So we lower the bar until we can easily step over it and then we throw a party for ourselves. We've moved away from the idea of pairing up at a younger age and weathering the storms of marriage so that we could have less divorce. In exchange we got a society that celebrates promiscuity and places an outrageous importance on sex raising it to a level that actually makes most people feel like they are doing it wrong because in their own lives it doesn't take on that level of import. Its wild that now teen pregnancy is only a failure if you've appeared to make a commitment to avoid it. The same group that acknowledges that teen sex is such a temptation that we should just accept its likelihood are the same ones who point fingers of blame at teens whose families still tried to avoid it. Our progressive society has decided that its only a failure if you bothered to try.

I find the difference between breaking an oath and committing a mortal sin to be a pretty blurry line. I'm neither personally for nor against the oath actually. In my argument I'm believing the oath to be an extension of the commitment to godly principles I imagine are inherent in the religion. I'm basically saying what Drew says, that the oath is extraneous to the idea. I don't know that the presence of the oath creates any stronger a dedication to the spiritual commitment...it merely brings a physicality to it. I don't think it increases your liability to God. I don't believe that's the intention.

The risk being that they will make a promise and not be true to their word? Perhaps I'm not understanding you. Because I don't think we lower our standards until they are sufficiently easy to meet and failure becomes exceedingly unlikely. For people of faith I don't think its going to be very convincing to suggest that they abandon their belief because its tough for kids to live up to the moral code of their religion.

Well said. In a world that tries to avoid making anyone feel bad about anything a conscience isn't seen as a positive thing anymore . Too bad.

:lol: Busted.

.

I would add that its expected by their peer group. There is no pressure to be "nice" anymore.

Well, I do not intend to make prophylactics available to my children. Meaning, they will not get them from me.

I believe the exact same pressure is now applicable to girls who delay sex. They are prudes or cold or unpopular.

Given that no system but abstinence is fool proof they are playing the odds either way.

I will in turn surprise you by agreeing with almost everything you say here. I do not agree that the virginity pledge has to be a shaming experience. Its my experience that these families are actually very open about human sexuality and its benefits but prefer that their children delay sex until marriage. Often the pledge is private.