this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2026
1411 points (99.6% liked)

Curated Tumblr

7552 readers
145 users here now

For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.

Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:

Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 71 points 1 day ago (7 children)

I had a zealot of a coworker saying teaching them sexual education and safe sex practices is giving them "permission" to engage in pre-marital sex. So instead, the increased risk of EVERYTHING sex related is better because apparently punishment?

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 42 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I hear that's quite literally and openly what certain types of religious people believe.

That's like telling them to cross a busy street at night in block clothing and no illumination. She's going to go sideways easily. Those people just seem like the opposite of logic and intelligence and it baffles me how one can revel in it.

[–] EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's because nothing that comes from a religion makes any sense. Don't try to understand it. It's not possible to understand delusions.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

It does make sense when you consider their fundamental views and values

In their eyes, the only thing that truly matters is your relationship with god. They feel pre-marital sex is a sin harmful to that

Something like lifelong complications of STDs is nothing compared to that. Even if you died of AIDS as long as you're going to heaven, it's a better outcome than a long, happy life (to them)

I can understand their perspective when they truly believe it. The part I can't wrap my head around is genuinely believing the religion

I'm supposed to believe there is an all-powerful god that made everything, and he personally cares what I do with my penis? He made everything in the universe, told us about it because he wants us to worship him, but also doesn't want to prove he exists and will torment us for eternity for not believing in him. If true that would require unbelievable levels of narcissism

[–] Horsey@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Religious people I know, think that STDs are a good thing to punish bad people who have non-marital sex, especially young people.

In America, people are extremely sex negative, and anything outside procreative sex should be punished, not just discouraged.

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I never understood this train of thought. If you go into ANY situation not knowing what you're doing, chances are it will end in a fuck up. Be it sex, driving a car, working with electricity, whatever, if you are untrained you can screw up someone's life.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

It’s simple, really. They believe ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are something you are rather than something you do. So there are Good People and Bad People. Good People only do Good Things and only have Good Things happen to them, and Bad People only do Bad Things and have Bad Things happen to them. So anyone who gets an STD deserves it, because those are Bad Things, so it’s just a case of Bad People getting properly punished for being Bad.

This is also why they excuse infidelity, cheating, stealing, and even sometimes murder in their own group, but scream about people in the ‘out group’ daring to wear a tan suit. Because as Good People, they only hang out with and support other Good People, and if a Good Person does a bad thing it was definitely for a Good Reason. Anything a Bad Person does however, even if it appears innocuous or good, is always done for Bad Reasons and is not to be trusted.

[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

you forgot drugs.
going in without knowing the situation is half of most the fun

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Without data from an intuitive standpoint I can see where she may think sex ed could lead to an increase in pre-marital (I assume teenage) sex, even if more but safer sex is still preferable to less but more risky sex. So I did a quick search and it appears that she’s just wrong anyway!

[–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The premise still fails, it assumes teenagers are rational actors.

Are you really going to state that your Axiom is teenagers weigh risks and benefits from all available information?

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m confused. What I’m saying is that without looking at data I could totally see someone imagining a teenager saying “oh, cool, I don’t have to worry about having a kid if I just use a condom” then having more sex because of that. And if I could imagine that for one teen, then I could imagine it for many. That doesn’t seem to be the case though based on the link I shared.

Are you saying teenagers are incapable of weighing pros and cons? Because that wouldn’t make sense. That’s exactly what they’re doing when they play CoD(teens still play that, right?) and decide using a shotgun is the best choice on the Cargo map. Just because their reasoning is less developed doesn’t mean it’s not there.

don’t have to worry about having a kid

No. The current situation is they

don’t worry about having a kid

Adding info doesn't change the fact that they are not considering consequences, or value the consequences so low vs the immediate result.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It also assumes that people are dumber than the stupidest of animals. Who taught all of them to have sex? And some of them go at it like rabbits!

[–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090206081312.htm

teenagers consider the future less and prefer immediate rewards over delayed ones

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I'm not disputing anything you said, I'm just adding on that "well, if they just don't know what sex is" is a demonstrably false presumption. And sure, teenagers tend to not worry about the future as much, which only means that planning works better. If they might have sex and have condoms they will be far likelihood to have sex with condoms than either not having sex because they don't have condoms or stopping in the heat of the moment to get condoms.

His argument isn't based on any facts or logic, in fact this man was immune to it.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

no sex ed isn't permission for premarital sex, there's no need for permission for premarital sex as long as they do it safely

You're looking at it from a rational actor side of things though. This guy was immune to facts and logic, anything counter his viewpoint he shrugged off, ignore, or just made some weird bullshit argument. God, guy was an insufferable prick. I'm glad he got his comeuppance at work. Too bad for his kids though, he was vehemently anti-vaccine as well and modern medicine.

[–] SpikedIguana@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So she certainly never engaged in pre-marital right?

Oh no, he as sure was a horn dog as he would talk about in his youth. He's one of those found again Christian types that I feel are MORE dangerous than those who grew up that way.