Condoms for teen agers

[Ozme52]

Entire argument apocraphal!

Morality, how it's defined, changes with time and place.

And in times past, birth control was in the hands of woman, who were far better versed in the use of herbals. The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were "premature" births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the "hard choices".

Not to mention other options... meaning orifices, that are considered "improper" by those same moralists. And today... a teens are very willing to call themselves virgins and chaste because they don't have vaginal sex. Oral (nor anal) isn't even "sex".... they know because Bill Clinton said it wasn't

Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[DuncanONeil]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Mostly what I had in mind is; "The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were 'premature' births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the 'hard choices'."

Which essentially means neither side can actually produce material of an evidentiary nature.

Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[Ozme52]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Well bud!... you didn't capitalize it the first time!... so!, yes!, you did say spurious!

!!!

Main Entry: apoc·ry·phal
Pronunciation: \-fəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1590
1 : of doubtful authenticity : spurious
2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha