With 13% of its Female Population Pregnant - Ohio High School Drops Abstinence Only Sex Ed

I'm pretty sure that young people were figuring out sex before television, books, or movies. I'm even confident that they were doing this before mankind was herding sheep. Heck, I'm sure that they were doing it before mankind and sheep had even evolved into what we see today! Young people having been having sex since we evolved past asexual reproduction. If we, as a society, are going to place certain expectations on them, then we'd damn well better prepare them for it. That or just drug the hell out of them…

Sex education is the way to go.

No, on second though, you've got a better answer right there.

The only way abstinence-only will work is if we don't expose our children to television, music, movies, books, friends, or sheep. Well, ok, leave the sheep in there if they're diapered. In addition, we would need to delay the onset of puberty until marriage. Sex education is the way to go.

This must all be a joke

@ Apollo

Yes, my tongue was firmly inserted in my cheek, except for the "Sex education is the way to go" part. :)

There's a tendency for kids that take "virginity pledges" to be highly at risk for STDs.

Theory goes - "Well, if it's not vaginal intercourse, then I'm not violating my pledge."

So we see an increase in oral and anal sexual acts, and since these things are not covered in abstinence only education, most of the times the kids are clueless that these acts can spread STDs.

They are also a lot less likely to use condoms when they do start having vaginal intercourse, being that most abstinence only courses label them as ineffective anyway. I guess they figure - Why bother?

We should tell them to not do their homework, not worry about doing anything with their lives, etc also. Hmm somehow I think that only works in certain cases -_-

LOL @Andrew

Silvey has a point, but it should be refined. If you make something taboo, you are bound to have people do it just out of curiousity or for the rush. Why else was the prohibition such a failure?

Why else was the prohibition such a failure

Because a lot of people REALLY, REALLY like having a drink, and a lot of other people can make a lot of money making it possible.

Yeah, and most everyone likes doing something "bad" on occasion. No one, deep down, likes doing what they're told to do all the time. It may seem comforting for a while...but then you just have to go out and break the taboo...and then you run back to the safety and comfort of the system again and beg forgiveness.

Seriously, if we all raised our kids with stories of how we never did our homework and we never obeyed the rules 'cause only stupid kids did that and so on, I imagine a surprising number of kids would turn out to be straight-A students. As they step into adulthood, they want to establish their own boundaries, and the first step in that is rebelling against those established for them. Most of us humans don't run them off at maturity like other animals do. They have to do something to break away from the nest.

Hormones are another part of the natural cycle of things. Once they reach physical maturity (as opposed to social ideas of maturity) they have a desire to establish their own nests, whether they recognize it as such or not. The mating impulse is a part of that desire which is hard to trump. Moral obligations disintegrate once you realize your authority figures are fallible. The best solution (not to say I am opposed in any way to comprehensive sex ed--quite the contrary) is to surround teenagers with babies. All the time. Morning , noon, and night. Nothing like practical experience to quell the mating urge.

Bondage, cool.

Oh, once my girls are in school, I plan on at least being an outspoken member of the PTA, if not eventually running for the school board. There will be no removal of evolution, teaching of abstinence only, or any other silliness...not on my watch.

Same here. Between these issues and the ideas I have on how to introduce a more green culture to kids in school, I suspect the local schools will loathe and fear me.

Because I think the socialization of traditional schooling is an important part of childhood development.

I, for one, look forward to teaching my daughters preventive measures early enough that I'll get angry phone calls from other kids' parents because my girls have gone and told them factual things they didn't want them to know.

By early enough I hope you mean about 6th grade.

I once had a fully grown friend nearly collapse in my kitchen when my seven year old son asked me what condoms were and I offered a detailed explanation, complete with a lecture on necessity once he was old enough to be interested in having sex and a detailed description of how they are to be applied.

As per my previous post, he has been inundated by babies since he was an infant, and I hope to continue the trend into his teen years. I have no interest in being a grandma when I am forty.

And, yes, we homeschool. And I itch to debate the socialization issue...but I reckon this is not the place. Better go write an article, or something...

Part of me thinks that schools giving out condoms would be a bit much, but another part of me remembers how many people I knew in high school who thought of condoms as something they'd use if it was convenient, but if they couldn't easily get ahold of some, they'd just have sex without them, and that, I believe, is something we want to avoid.

Giving out condoms kind of seems like a double-edged sword to me. On the one hand if they are going to have sex then at least they will(hopefully) use one. On the other hand it may encourage more kids to have sex which could also obviously have problems. Overall though I think the good would probably outweigh the bad as I'm sure there are plenty of teenagers who have sex who are too embarrassed to buy condoms.

On the other hand it may encourage more kids to have sex which could also obviously have problems.

Sean: I hear that argument thrown a lot, but I have never seen any evidence to support it. However, I have seen loads of evidence (ref. StacyM's comments above) to indicate that teaching sex ed. (and making condoms available) does reduce some of the problems associated with teenage sex. While I appreciate that we have apparently come to the same conclusion, I feel it is best to come to a conclusion based on evidence when available.

I see what you're saying but have you seen any evidence that suggests giving kids condoms doesn't make a difference in the number of kids having sex? Because as it is neither of us have factual evidence. And on all other points I think we agree.

Here's a study from 1997

Here's a followup study done on the 1997 study in 2003.

Couldn't find the actual studies, but these should give you enough information to go on if you want to do more research.

I stand corrected. Well in that case I see absolutely no reason not to give them out.

I would think so, but I think it's obvious some simply aren't learning these things on their own, either out of willful ignorance, or a lack of easy to reach resources.

To be honest, I think the idea of having to ask an adult when condoms are sold behind the counter is a bigger restraint to their use than knowing how to use one. A 15yr old doesnt feel right asking the 40yr old woman working at the 7-11 for a box of trojans.

Teach both of these ideas health classes.

I've actually never heard of a health ed. class or safe sex campaign that didn't do just that. It usually takes the form of abstinence is the only 100% sure fire way to prevent STD's or pregnancy. However, it you choose to have sex, then here are the safest methods to do so…

The health classes I had in middle/high school were the same way, and apparently, they just passed new rules in either Maryland, or Frederick County, I forget which, moving the sex ed up a grade, so there's a 5th grade course, and an 8th grade course, both of which suggest abstinence as the only foolproof method, but teaching all other preventive measures as well.

I hate this state sometimes, but occasionally they do things right.

I would also tend to think that abstinence only education also leads to the embarrassment factor that Andrew commented on. They seem to think that purchasing a condom is something they aren't supposed to do and therefore won't.

I think the closest analogy I can come up with (although this one doesn't get anyone pregnant, just possibly hurt or killed) is underage drinking and driving. Sure, we don't want our children drinking, but if and when they do, we'd much rather them know to hand the keys off to someone else rather than think they'd better drive themselves home for fear of showing evidence they've been drinking. I'm not trying to stretch the analogy too far, but just to point out that we should teach teenagers what is best to do and, barring that, what to do when presented with they get themselves into a bad situation. Anything less is irresponsible on the part of us adults.

We can laugh at a kid who doesn't know how to properly use a condom, but isn't the joke on all of us?

When I was a teenager, my parents always said if, for some reason, I was unable to drive myself home, or needed a ride for any reason, they'd be happy to give it. Amusingly, that never was an issue, and I hope to extend the same offer to my children, despite hoping that I won't be taken up on it.

The health classes I had in middle/high school were the same way, and apparently, they just passed new rules in either Maryland, or Frederick County, I forget which, moving the sex ed up a grade, so there's a 5th grade course, and an 8th grade course, both of which suggest abstinence as the only foolproof method, but teaching all other preventive measures as well.

I had health/Sex ed class for 4th, 7th, and 10th grades, a very uncomfortable lecture from my parents when I was about 12ish-10ish years old (yea i know, I'm very embarrassed about it), tv, and over hearing friends. By the time I got to high school I was a expert at it... I mean... doh! Well you know what I mean.

My health classes actually went over every way you can have safe sex. I also got info how to get free condoms. But the bottom line of each health/sex ed class was that abstinence was the best way to do it.

When I was a teenager, my parents always said if, for some reason, I was unable to drive myself home, or needed a ride for any reason, they'd be happy to give it. Amusingly, that never was an issue, and I hope to extend the same offer to my children, despite hoping that I won't be taken up on it.

My parents did the same, and also made sure that I realized very young that drinking was not the problem with them (they offered to buy a keg for my 16th birthday party, for gods sake). The issue was to drink responsibly, to not drive, and to encourage my friends to do the same. It was the same with sex.
Actually, I believe my father's words were "Hell yes, sex before marriage is fine. Would you buy a car without test driving it first? Just make sure you pack an airbag."
I wasn't in any way, shape or form a rebellious teenager (well, my views on gay marriage has my mother occasionally tell me I'm going to hell), but knowing that my parents remembered what it was like to be a teenager helped out quite a bit through those years.

I believe my sex talks from my parents (divorced by the time it came up) amounted to "Just don't" from my mother, and "There's condoms in the top dresser drawer" from my father.

You can guess which one I paid attention to.

You can guess which one I paid attention to.

Oh, you are such a nice boy for listening to your mother. :)

In a community that fosters abstinence only education it is also often very difficult to access preventative measures (CONDOMS).

When I finally returned to the "modern world" as a teenager after growing up in "third world asia" I couldn't believe what we were being taught about sex ed, or how difficult it was to get condoms. I had to get my older sibling to get them for me as no one under 18 was sold them by the local pharmacist ,which was only location that you could buy them in our small community. Sure I wish now with hindsight I had not been so experimental so young, but I was and I am glad I was able to do it safely.

Preventing education about contraceptives is guaranteeing the continuation of teenage pregnancy and worse the continuation of large numbers of teenagers with STD's which in some communities here in Australia is as high as 60% (I will find link to study if any one really interested)

JJ

I recall vividly back in my day (60's) where I innocently asked in Health Class: So when can you have sex safely. Teacher said: I can't tell you that. So, we've turned back the calendar by making sure to NOT provide information in the hopes that the kids won't follow their hormones. Didn't do any good for me. Okay, I lived and didn't get an STD and didn't get pregnant. Sheer chance.

heh... I played the odds and lost... I got my then girlfriend (now wife) pregnant in 12th grade. Thank God we both had parents that were supportive of us or we would have ended up on the streets working bottom of the barrel jobs and resenting our son (because we resented ourselves) for not being able to achieve our goals in life. I learned the hard way about protecting oneself before you are actually ready to have children, and I have already started telling my oldest son about not having kids until he is done with his Ph.d. :-) (he is 8 1/2).

I think this is anecdotal evidence to support a preconceived notion.

While I don't disagree that having a sense of personal responsibility is a good thing, I don't think that men are "less" considerate towards women than they were in the 60s.

How is it that when I was in high school (class of '69) we had no sex ed classes, yet the pregnancy rate was 1%? Midwestern town of about 10,000, plus farm kids from about a 14 mile radius.

Actually, when we look at past trends we find that teen sex wasn't any less common in past decades, actually, teen pregnancy peaked in 1959 for the United States.

It's just that the kids were married off as quickly as possible if a pregnancy happened. So instead of showing up as "pregnant teen" they were now "young wives".

I think it was because the guys were more considerate of the girls and also recognized the danger to their own futures as well.

I feel if anything, men are probably more considerate today towards women than there were in the past. The percentage of sexual assault, which I think would be a good indication of men's attitudes towards women, has dropped considerably since the 1970s.

As I understand it, my uncle never finished college because he got my aunt pregnant and my grandfather gave him basically two choices: drop out of school, get a job, and support her; or: die. Granddad did not make idle threats, either. It probably didn't help that granddad was himself an illegitimate child who was adopted out of an orphanage essentially to be a hired hand on (adoptive) great-granddad's farm.

Incidentally, it is my uncle who is my blood relative, so the pressure to "do the right thing" when a pregnancy occurred was just as strong from the father's side of the family as it was from the mother's. My aunt and uncle just celebrated their 45th anniversary as well, are extremely well off, and have grandkids of their own now, so such marriages actually can have happy endings, although I won't claim their experience as proof that every such situation ends well.

Incorrect, unwed pregnancy rates, last I knew, were just as high among "Christian" teens as any others.

Yeah! Bring back the shotgun weddings and then the problem will be solved!

Bwah hahahah! Thanks I needed a good laugh! "try zero"? I wish it were that way.

Every single one of the above posters need to re-read my criteria. I did not say "christian" (in quotes). What I said was people who are submissive to and obedient to God.

If a person is sexually involved with another, outside of marriage, they are not submissive to and obedient to God. In fact, they are directly disobedient to His clearly stated will.

If you are not sexually involved with another outside of marriage, there is ZERO chance of being an unwed pregnant woman. Hence, if you are obedient and submissive to God, you will not be an unwed single parent.

Remember, just because a person says they are a Christian doesn't make them one. Genuinely being submissive to and obedient to God does.

Every single one of the above posters need to re-read my criteria. I did not say "christian" (in quotes). What I said was people who are submissive to and obedient to God.

Way to miss the point. What a strange thing to focus on.

Anyway, I'm confused.

First you state that in the past, when people were more "spiritually minded", the pregancy rate was less. Well, unfortunetly, I debunked that theory above - which you might have missed as it was before your post - the teen preganacy rate actually peaked in our country in 1959.

So either being "submissive to god" does little in terms of the teen pregnancy rate, or people were not more "spiritually minded" (to wich I am assuming you mean "submissive to god") back in the 1950s.

I'm guessing it's the first one.

Michael the Great:

Remember, just because a person says they are a Christian doesn't make them one. Genuinely being submissive to and obedient to God does.

I really don't want to have a long discussion on my personal faith in public, but when you said that, I just can't leave it un-addressed

1. You do not get to define my faith for me. I am a Christian because I say so and it has absolutely nothing to do with what you claim or believe. You have no right to denigrate my faith or that of anyone else. It is simply not your call, and to think that it is, is arrogance to the very highest degree.
2. There are many people of different faiths who would claim that they are both submissive and obedient to God and are not Christian. I'm sure they would have equally damning things to say about you and your faith. They would also be just as incorrect as you are.

You of course may respond in whatever way you wish. I have no desire to add anything else to this particular subject at this time.

Yeah, because a woman might never be raped or sexually abused...

No, he's right. The number of unwed pregnancies among "people who are submissive to and obedient to God" (which he defined as "people who don't have sex outside of marriage") is zero. He defined it that way!

Actually, if you change the definition a bit to "anyone who doesn't break any of God's rules", you still get zero unwed pregnancies, because you get zero people who fit the definition.

A corollary would be "The number of liars among people who are submissive to and obedient to God is zero." See? It works for everything. :)

My point was that his argument was circular. No one who is submissive to God has premarital sex because not having premarital sex is part of his definition of being submissive to God (according to him). His definition definitely doesn't fit with the Bible, though, because it does, in fact, say that everyone sins. Picking this sin as special isn't supported very well by the Bible.

Of course he has a very narrow definition of God, as well. I'm not sure that Dionysus exactly condemned sex out of wedlock, for instance.

Well if the authoritarian political xtians had their way it would be zero for everyone, no matter how many people they had to put to death to acheive it.

Imagine the pregnancy rates are pretty low under authoritarian islam and sharia as well.

Then again, school pregnancy rates could be got rid of overnight just by banning female children from going to school.

Nothing scares a Conservative more then kids people having orgasms!

Fixed that for you.

Arggh. The overstrike showed in the preview. What good is a preview that doesn't match the posting???!?!

Grumble.

This is why the young kids are all liberals. :-p

I Heart Orgasms.

Thanks. The problem is that preview shows the STRIKE tag as working. It shouldn't if it will be stripped at posting and DEL is the correct tag to use.

Sounds like a good bug to report. :) I'm sure they'll fix it if it needs to be fixed.

No, there is something wrong with teaching our kids that abstinence is the only answer when biologically their bodies are going to tell them otherwise. You're not dealing with reality when you expect teenagers to "not" have sex. You're playing with fire when you refuse to teach them how to protect themselves from a given.

For you to assert that STDs are more common in areas where kids are taught safe sex and given access to such products than in areas where they are not -- is just absurd.

I realize you say (IMO) but I think you'll find that research does not support your opinion. StacyM posts several links to the numbers further up this thread and they don't look good for your opinions.

I don't want kids having unsafe sex,

If this is truly the case, you need to accept the reality -- they will if you do not teach them about safe sex.

I don't want kids having unsafe sex, but giving kids condoms doesn't necessarily reduce the number of pregnancies or STDs.

Yes, it does.

Also, at some point though, you have to realize that this "ideal" of "sex for teens is bad and they shouldn't do it" just isn't working. Look at teen pregnancy throughout history (I provided a link above). No matter what the ideological state of the country, it's always been a problem.

When we look at Western Europe, who has easy access to birth control and birth control information, we see that the STD and pregnancy rates are the lowest in the world. Compare them with America, who still holds to the Puritan values when it comes to sex. Then look at history, and see that teen sex has been going on no matter what the era, no matter what the rhetoric, no matter how much we have tried to scare kids into not having sex. At this point, we have to ask ourselves what a more logical and helpful solution is to the problem of teen pregnancy. It's pretty evident now that to hold on to this ideal is only hurting teenagers.

There is nothing wrong with teaching our children self control.

No, there is not. But there is a problem with punishing a momentary lack of self control with pregnancy and disease.

Maybe they need to be taught about safe sex and self control. So teach them about safe sex but also tech them not to have sex with a new boy/girl every weekend.

"There is nothing wrong with teaching our children self control."

I agree, if we teach our children that they don't have to have every toy at the store, every girl in their bed and every beer in front of them, we have armed them for life with the notion of moderation; something dramatically overlooked (from one extreme to the other) in today's society.

There will always be the kids that "save themselves", those that "give themselves away" and those that fall somewhere in the middle.

By teaching safer-sex practices (while making kids aware of abstinence as an option) we are helping ALL of them. Teaching abstinence only (and attaching guilt to naturally ocurring urges) makes kids less likely to educate themselves about the joys and risks of human sexuality.

Finally, I can see where an abstinence-only mentality fosters the false perception that rectal and oral varieties also come with formidable risk (if not greater, in some circumstances) of disease transmission. If we can't talk about regular ol' penile-vaginal intercourse both in terms of anatomy and sexuality as a part of human life, how can we even bring up rectal, oral and other varieties of the act and expect the kids to understand it.

If we can remove some of the shame from even the discussion of sex and anatomy, our kids will be more apt to have open and honest discussions with them about the subject(s). We will know what kind of parenting they need, and how we can keep them as safe as possible.

will_s said it beset:

There will always be the kids that "save themselves", those that "give themselves away" and those that fall somewhere in the middle.

and his advice on reaching all those teens is spot on. bravo.

My theory is that their personalities in their teenage years were an effective form of birth control. No one would want to sleep with them anyway.

I remember being a teen as well, and abstinence was an option. It was an option in college as well. And after college. In fact I was a 29 year old virgin when I got married. I wasn't happy about it, but I believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong, so I didn't. I masturbated a lot, but I didn't have sex. It is possible.

Abstinence is always an option of course, but never an attractive one, imo. As soon as I realized I could be doing something that felt good in a unique way that couldn't be replicated by anything else (even masturbation), I absolutely pursued it.

Certainly, anyone can make the choice to be abstinent, be it for moral/religious reasons, or a simply lack of sexual drive, but our sex education should certainly take into account the fact that many will *NOT* make that choice regardless of what we tell them, and respond accordingly.

I know, for me, the "danger" of sex was far outweighed by how fantastic it sounded, even before I had it. If you try to scare kids out of it, and someone takes the risk, and discovers nothing bad happens, you open a floodgate. Giving children/teens a realistic education is far better than lies and scare tactics that many seem to want to employ.

you are right... and every time the Abstinence Only movement gained ground was when a conservative was in office.

Nothing scares a Conservative more then kids having orgasms!

Wait a second. The boys are having orgasms. The girls? i suspect not so much - not with those boys, anyway. If 90% of teen sexuality isn't about boys getting off & the compliant girls who help them, then I must never have been to high school.

What gets lost here is that delayed intercourse, by whatever orifice, is better for girls even if they can avoid pregnancy. When I look back at my high school years, I recall that the girls in "serious" relationships looked like they were having a lot less fun than the rest of us.

What gets lost here is that delayed intercourse, by whatever orifice, is better for girls even if they can avoid pregnancy.

Girls who have trouble having an orgasm is just one more symptom of being told over and over that sex (and masturbation in particular) is something to be ashamed of.

I think now that more and more girls are beginning to masturbate (the numbers of girls who do so are rising, if I recall) you will find that they will be more likely to understand their body enough to discuss it with whoever they sleep with. Part of the problem is that girls haven't known enough about themselves to tell a guy how to help her have an orgasm.

I suspect that most guys want the girl they are sleeping with to orgasm -- and I don't believe the idea that they are all selfishly looking to get off without reciprocating.

see below - orgasm good. Safe sex education - absolutely. But please, how is it better for a 15-year old girl, or 16 or 17 even, to be having intercourse than to not? Or a boy for that fact? The developmental task of adolescence is self-discovery, and this healthy selfishness is at odds with the pursuit of intimacy. All things in due time. Until then, kiss, pet, stroke, tingle, dance the night away. The best is yet to come.

Moreover, why would you pick "Trojan" as the name of your condom brand? The Greeks breached the wall!

Exactly, they got inside.

A little off subject..... In the service, I served under a Captain Trojan. We called him Captain Prophylactic ( I swear it's true) :-D

Wildly off-topic, but I've got you beat, Jim.

When I was in the service, the ship cook was named Gruel. Gus Gruel.

hahahahaahah that's so wrong on so many levels.

Definitely funny, but as StacyM points out, just because you can't get pregnant through anal or oral sex doesn't mean it's a safe practice.

Besides, I can't imagine someone limiting their activities to "oral sex" without switching over to real sex within a few days or weeks anyway.

Sex and/or Oral Sex is inevitable. Teaching the "safe" aspect should be a given.

That opens a whole new can of worms. I think the abstinence-only group advocates no sexual activity of any sort, so oral sex, masturbation, and mutual masturbation would be as bad as intercourse. Remember, orgasms outside of marriage are evil!!!! :)

Or So I Have Read, you bear out my point perfectly. Oral sex is about the boy getting off. The last thing a teen girl needs is to be servile to a boy. Better to remind the girls that masturbation is healthy & effective. That should put boy-craziness in perspective.

Remember, orgasms outside of marriage are evil!!!! :)

Orgasms in marriage - optional - :(

Oral sex is about the boy getting off.

I don't buy your point.

It's not about the boy getting off if the boy is going down on the girl. My experience (which is probably no more limited than yours) is that most boys are not actively out to deny a girl an orgasm.

@ MissJ

Sorry to hear that! I enjoy giving my wife pleasure more than I like getting it.

Agreed. But I must admit, in my high school experience, such traits among young men were fairly rare.

such traits among young men were fairly rare.

In young men period? Or in the type of young men who were likely to be having sex -- which is a significantly smaller pool?

It seems to me that most of the people that had sexual "reputations" were the kind of guys that girls shouldn't want to have sex with anyway. There's always going to be that group of guys who care little about girls -- but I don't think they care about much of anything in life at that point -- other than their own status. It's not a sex thing -- it pervades their whole lifestyle.

I still say that there are more guys than not who would love nothing more (when it comes to sex) than to do whatever it takes to help a girl achieve orgasm.

I suspect that most of the equal opportunity sex partners weren't having sex because they weren't cool enough to sleep with.

I guess I don't think it really has to do with age as much as it does with experience.

Both a couple in their teens and a couple in their 30s that lose their virginity might follow that same experience. A lot of women do take longer to get off. And a lot of men, when first starting out, can't hold it back or realize that she might take a bit more effort.

Now, it becomes harmful when the mentality of the woman is like "Well, I haven't gotten there the past three times, maybe there's something wrong with me" and end up internalizing the problem. But I think this is something that can happen to anyone starting out, no matter what the age.

I would say that maybe because we do shame teens in sexual matters, and they can't get straight answers besides "Don't have sex", this inaccurate information might be more likely to be internalized at that age.

I still say that there are more guys than not who would love nothing more (when it comes to sex) than to do whatever it takes to help a girl achieve orgasm.

I think the mentality behind female sexuality is changing, women are demanding more than they did in the past. Like what was pointed out earlier, in the past it was just plain shameful and immodest for a lady to talk about this sort of thing. But now that it is out there, I think attitudes are changing. Something I have noticed is the switch to what men brag about when it comes to sex. Before, it was common to hear men brag about just getting laid - because women were tricky, frigid little things, so just getting in there was quite the feat. However, now you are more likely to hear bragging about how they made that woman scream in ecstasy the night before, because there is this knowledge now that women actually enjoy it as well and as much as men.

it was a joke - what i meant was that the abstinence only crowd doesn't seem too concerned with orgasms.

On the other hand, the female orgasm must have - ahem - evolved for some purpose -oh-hoh, but that is another can of (eveolved) worms.

one more time!

it was a joke - what i meant was that the abstinence only crowd doesn't seem too concerned with orgasms.

- in marriage. or ever.