Dumped.

[Talon_Skywarp]

Man the fuck up and take the bullet I say.

 

[RabbidKuriboh]

At least most of you had the chance to be dumped or dump someone I've just turned 18 and the closest thing i've had to a relationship was a girl in school that liked talking to me because i was "interesting", not that she thought i was witty/handsome but she liked seeing the weird way i see the world.Needless to say i had chance after chance to tell her how i felt but my cowardice prevented me now i am convinced i am doomed to live life without knowing a proper relationship.


Que female readers to go "D'aaaaww" which ironically i hear a lot from the oposite sex

 

[Timmehexas]

I was dumped by my girlfriends best friend in a text message, but its okay I was 14 and trying to compensate for being gay so I deserved it. Girls are icky anyway.

 

[EgoDeusEst]

A relationship can end in two ways: A tragic breakup, or death.

Optimism is a good thing sometimes.

Also, I don't remember where I got the quote from.

 

[Zer_]

Untrue, between the end of the renaissance to the start of the 1960's chastity was the norm. Now I'm not arguing that this situation is good either because it was largely due to religious and social oppression, but neither situation is great.

Actually, that's untrue. At least since Victorian times, sex was incredibly common, hence the fact that there was approximately one prostitute on the streets of Britain for every 12 men. That doesn't really imply that there wasn't a whole lot of demand. It was pretty much the same in youth culture at the time.

And furthermore, chastity is totally useless when hooking up and marrying a 14 year old was rather common too. The same shit happened then, it was just viewed in a different light and more socially acceptable through things like "marriage" and etc...

 

[BGH122]

Oh, please. That has been a leading phenomenom in youth culture ever since there WAS youth culture. Don't pull the 'the world is going to shit' card on me, it's been shit all along.

Untrue, between the end of the renaissance to the start of the 1960's chastity was the norm. Now I'm not arguing that this situation is good either because it was largely due to religious and social oppression, but neither situation is great.

Massive Citation Needed as the evidence is to the contrary.

You've got the oppression right, but not the chastity that is for sure.

Cite your point too please. Furthermore, showing that phenomena like prostitution were rampant doesn't prove that 'young people have always been at it' because sex due to necessity isn't equivalent to promiscuity by choice. Here's a citation for increasing pro-promiscuity norms (only wikipedia, I'm afraid):

[...] before the 1920s the Victorian era was much more conservative than even the 1930s and 1950s. Due to the invention of TV and the increasingly wide use of it in the 1950s, a vast majority of Americans had television by the 1960s.

This mass communication device, along with other media outlets such as radio and magazines, could broadcast information in a matter of seconds to millions of people, while only a few wealthy people would control what millions of people would watch. Some have now theorised that perhaps these media outlets helped spread new ideas among the masses.

Yeah and it sickens me. It's also costing the NHS (and thus me) a huge amount of money each year in STD treatment because these fucking little whores (I mean that as a slight against both the boys and girls) don't understand self-control.

Are you sure you dont mean contrception?

It's equivalent: contraception isn't always available and when it isn't they just have sex anyway because they have no self control. Furthermore, a lot of teenagers in the UK underclass don't even use contraception, presumably because it makes sex significantly worse for the male so instead of having the self control to just have a worse experience they just do it without.

Untrue, between the end of the renaissance to the start of the 1960's chastity was the norm. Now I'm not arguing that this situation is good either because it was largely due to religious and social oppression, but neither situation is great.

Actually, that's untrue. At least since Victorian times, sex was incredibly common, hence the fact that there was approximately one prostitute on the streets of Britain for every 12 men. That doesn't really imply that there wasn't a whole lot of demand. It was pretty much the same in youth culture at the time.

You're first point (prostitution) I've heard before so I won't ask for citations, but it's an irrelevant point: having promiscuous sex for money out of poverty is a completely unrelated issue to having promiscuous sex by choice for pleasure. The prostitution argument doesn't work.

Please cite your source(s) for the statement that the non-poverty stricken teenagers were having promiscuous sex.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Teens in London don't date, they copulate. It repulses me.

....
....

>.>

<.<

Whats's copulate?

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

I have never been in a relationship I have had multiple casual encounters but in the end I am still incredibly lonely and angry with myself for not having/being in a relationship. My repressive anger causes me many physical problems such as skin irritation and on one occasion a peptic ulcer.

I hate it when I see happy couples together (and happy people in general), one time on the bus home I saw a couple just being happy in each others company; one arm around the other all that malarky and I had to more seats so I didnt have to look at them it honestly made my blood boil just seeing what seems so out of reach for me.

I have had anger management in school and it helped alot but now I have just gone back to square one. I have gotten back into that habit of repressing the majority of my emotions and now I fear that it might end up killing me (in one way or the other).

tl;dr: My troubled childhood causes me to feel anger and hostility against happy people (and couples) and my repression of that anger will probably kill me.

If it makes you feel any better I am incredibly lonely and unhappy.

I'm in my 20s and I've never dated. People have asked but I've never accepted. As an asexual, I know it wouldn't work out. How to tell someone you like that the thought of them touching you makes you feel like throwing up a little? They get all offended and stuff for some reason.

I'll just chill here in the corner alone.

You have truly risen above. People are over-rated. We all cling to our pitiful lives, prisoners of our material possessions. Nothing is static. Everything is falling apart.

Cool Story Bro. Do you really live by this? Honestly? Enjoy it while you can, you're not here long.

 

[Nvv]

Untrue, between the end of the renaissance to the start of the 1960's chastity was the norm. Now I'm not arguing that this situation is good either because it was largely due to religious and social oppression, but neither situation is great.

Well, you could say that the ideal virtue was chastity, but I highly doubt it was the norm in the lower social classes.
Other than that I agree with you.

OT: I have never been dumped, and I've never dumped anyone. Mostly due to my shy nature and one succesful (so far) relationship.

 

[Smokescreen]

Oh, please. That has been a leading phenomenom in youth culture ever since there WAS youth culture. Don't pull the 'the world is going to shit' card on me, it's been shit all along.

Untrue, between the end of the renaissance to the start of the 1960's chastity was the norm. Now I'm not arguing that this situation is good either because it was largely due to religious and social oppression, but neither situation is great.

Massive Citation Needed as the evidence is to the contrary.

You've got the oppression right, but not the chastity that is for sure.

Cite your point too please. Furthermore, showing that phenomena like prostitution were rampant doesn't prove that 'young people have always been at it' because sex due to necessity isn't equivalent to promiscuity by choice. Here's a citation for increasing pro-promiscuity norms (only wikipedia, I'm afraid):

[...] before the 1920s the Victorian era was much more conservative than even the 1930s and 1950s. Due to the invention of TV and the increasingly wide use of it in the 1950s, a vast majority of Americans had television by the 1960s.

This mass communication device, along with other media outlets such as radio and magazines, could broadcast information in a matter of seconds to millions of people, while only a few wealthy people would control what millions of people would watch. Some have now theorised that perhaps these media outlets helped spread new ideas among the masses.

You're going to 1) make a claim about human sexuality stretching for about 500 years and then insist that I prove my point--when I ain't making the claim and then 2) back it up with a WIKI link that discusses the /Victorian/ era (early 1800's) and specifically is talking about attitude shift in the 1960-70's?

Ha. Ha.

Just because there was an oppressive view of sex doesn't mean people didn't have it. Hell, arranged marriages were set up for children as young as 12.

Just because there was an oppressive view of sex didn't mean people weren't having rampant amounts of it from young to old ages. I cite the 8 billion people on the planet.
/ha

If you want to argue that things are more sexualized than they were 100 years ago, you got it; I'll support that argument. However, that isn't your argument. Your argument is that 'young people can't keep it in their pants now and it's pissing me off!'

Well, they NEVER could.

However, I'm not here to convince you; I'm here to demonstrate your argument doesn't hold water. I'll leave that to the forum to weigh. If you're looking for thought on the idea that human beings are far more sexual than most other species on the planet, then I'd recommend Sex at Dawn (which I have to confess I have not finished yet). Or just look at our species behavior vs everything except bonobos. We like to fuck. A lot. It's our nature and I figure there are two options:

1) THOSE DARN KIDS! Whhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrgggbl!

2) Educate them so they know what they're getting into. Societies that do this tend to have lower teen pregnancy rates than societies that don't. Which means more of your hard earned money stays with you and that seems to be something you care about.

/edited to seem less snarky; apologies for that

 

[TimbukTurnip]

Only had 2 girlfriends, both asked me out and both dumped me, however at both dumps I was close to dumping them as it just wasn't working.
The first dumped me by text and when I didn't have my phone, the other over Bebo mail (old social network no one uses anymore)

 

[Trivun]

Well, I've never really had a proper girlfriend (yes, I know, single at 20, what a loser, just save it...), so I can't really say anything here. However, when I was younger I did have a long-distance relationship with a girl in Scotland who I met on holiday in North Wales. Anyway, it kind of fizzled out fairly quickly, but I'm ashamed to say I dumped her by text. That said, it was a mutual thing anyway, and I would have sorted things out to her face except, you know, about 400 miles separated us so that was kind of difficult, leaving texting as the only feasible option.

Otherwise, I absolutely abhor people who dump others by text or online. If you're leaving someone, don't be a coward. Face them and do it in person, or at least by phone. Don't just leave it as a message for them, because that's just vile and cowardly.

 

[Palademon]

I have never been in a relationship I have had multiple casual encounters but in the end I am still incredibly lonely and angry with myself for not having/being in a relationship. My repressive anger causes me many physical problems such as skin irritation and on one occasion a peptic ulcer.

I hate it when I see happy couples together (and happy people in general), one time on the bus home I saw a couple just being happy in each others company; one arm around the other all that malarky and I had to more seats so I didnt have to look at them it honestly made my blood boil just seeing what seems so out of reach for me.

I have had anger management in school and it helped alot but now I have just gone back to square one. I have gotten back into that habit of repressing the majority of my emotions and now I fear that it might end up killing me (in one way or the other).

tl;dr: My troubled childhood causes me to feel anger and hostility against happy people (and couples) and my repression of that anger will probably kill me.

I can relate to that, but probably to just a lesser degree.
Since I was bullied when younger for just being myself and for no good reason, and the only person I ever asked out lying to me about her reasons for saying no, then going back to staring at her Twilight pics, I am made greatly jealous by any person I know is decent praising other people that I don't know, or if I know they're idiots. I don't get overly angry, except maybe the images in my head of brutally hurting people I don't like whenever they mock me. I mostly just think about all features of the world I hate thta will never be resolved and how I will only be able to be truly happy when I am with my perfect person. Who probably doesn't exist considering my unreasonably high standards. Knowing that I'm someone's favourite in the whole world and that they would forsake all others to be with me would make me so happy.

 

[RocksW]

I can relate to that, but probably to just a lesser degree.
Since I was bullied when younger for just being myself and for no good reason, and the only person I ever asked out lying to me about her reasons for saying no, then going back to staring at her Twilight pics, I am made greatly jealous by any person I know is decent praising other people that I don't know, or if I know they're idiots. I don't get overly angry, except maybe the images in my head of brutally hurting people I don't like whenever they mock me. I mostly just think about all features of the world I hate thta will never be resolved and how I will only be able to be truly happy when I am with my perfect person. Who probably doesn't exist considering my unreasonably high standards. Knowing that I'm someone's favourite in the whole world and that they would forsake all others to be with me would make me so happy.

I feel for you man, been in the same boat a lot. Best thing to do is fill your life up with stuff, volunteer for any fucking opportunity that comes along. Try get a job maybe, it helped me. The vast majority of people are alright. If theyre forced to talk to you theyll get to like you. Try to be better than anyone who wants to bring you down.

There are a lot of pretty girls as pissed of with life as you and me. honestly

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

For example, if you have a long distance relationship, travelling to someone to break up with them is pretty much out of the picture. Either you do it right at the end of your visit or you do it right at the start but the whole prospect either way is going to totally colour the experience. Phone or whatever is the only remotely sensible way to do it.

My last relationship was long distance. I agree; as "wrong" as I see it to end a relationship without doing it face to face, it's really the only viable option. You can't travel all the way out there to dump them and come back. That seems, oddly enough, more vindictive.

Out of my relationships I've only ever been dumped once, and that one really badly affected me. She did it face to face, and I suppose I'm grateful for that. I'm over it now happily, but that was a bad period of time. Although recent evidence over why I was dumped (never did find out the real reason) leads me to be quite angry at my twatty friends.

 

[BGH122]

Pre-emptive apologies for meta quoting, it's an annoying way to critique people's arguments but I couldn't find a way to assess all your points in a single essay.

You're going to 1) make a claim about human sexuality stretching for about 500 years and then insist that I prove my point--when I ain't making the claim and then 2) back it up with a WIKI link that discusses the /Victorian/ era (early 1800's) and specifically is talking about attitude shift in the 1960-70's?

Ha. Ha.

Fair enough, I'll concede that stating that sexual attitudes were less in favour of promiscuity from the renaissance to 1960's was incorrect. Sexual attitudes were less in favour of promiscuity from the Victorian era to 1960's. That's that sorted.

Secondly, why on earth do you have a problem with using Wiki as a source? Whenever Wiki is used in a debate there's always this '*sigh* not wiki' response. This frankly just seems like an ad hominem against Wiki: imply the source is dubious without stating why and then move on to ignore any evidence from the source without refuting it.

Lastly, I believe I'm within my rights to ask that you cite sources for your beliefs too. The burden of proof to show a statement is accurate when questioned does indeed fall on the proposer of the statement, but you too are proposing a statement: that teenage sexual activity has not changed. This is a statement you must back up, just as I must back up mine.

Just because there was an oppressive view of sex doesn't mean people didn't have it. Hell, arranged marriages were set up for children as young as 12.

I have no idea whether they did or did not have sex at the same levels as today's youth and I have no data on which to base any such belief. I've obviously miscommunicated my point: sexual attitudes have become vastly more in favour of promiscuity. Furthermore, critiquing an argument that teenage promiscuity has increased by showing that monogamy was common for those below (and presumably for the rest of their life) their teens makes literally no sense. Even if my point were that teens can't keep it in their pants then this wouldn't work as a criticism since monogamy is solely about keeping it in one's pants when not with one's partner.

Just because there was an oppressive view of sex didn't mean people weren't having rampant amounts of it from young to old ages. I cite the 8 billion people on the planet.
/ha

Which planet are we talking about? There's less than 7 billion people on earth with 6 of that billion having been born post 1800:

I'm not claiming that the increase is due to sexual attitudes, it's largely due to improvements in health care and nutrition. Yet, saying 'I cite the fact that there's [an incorrect number] of humans on the earth today [as proof that sex has always been occurring at the same rates since the renaissance period]' when almost all the population growth occurs after 1940 isn't exactly an argument in your favour. Again, lest I miscommunicate my point here, I don't believe the steep exponential rise in population is due largely to sexual attitudes becoming more in favour of promiscuity, I'm just showing that your 'cited evidence' doesn't work.

If you want to argue that things are more sexualized than they were 100 years ago, you got it; I'll support that argument. However, that isn't your argument. Your argument is that 'young people can't keep it in their pants now and it's pissing me off!'

Well, they NEVER could.

And again, where's your evidence. Doubt wikipedia all you want, but until you provide a source that's at least as efficacious then it's the best we've got. Furthermore, my argument is that societal sexual norms today are more in favour of promiscuity than they were between 1960's and up to two centuries ago. I'm confused as to whether you do or don't agree with this point.

However, I'm not here to convince you; I'm here to demonstrate your argument doesn't hold water.

No, you're here to wildly distort my argument into the following:

1) THOSE DARN KIDS! Whhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrgggbl!

2) Educate them so they know what they're getting into. Societies that do this tend to have lower teen pregnancy rates than societies that don't. Which means more of your hard earned money stays with you and that seems to be something you care about.

Perhaps, amidst misanthropic ranting, I distorted my own argument into the preceding, but to very clearly redefine it (with the accepted criticism of the somewhat stab in the dark renaissance start period): I believe that societal sexual attitudes have become rapidly more promiscuous post 1960 than they were between 1800-1959. The data presented by both parties of the debate at this point supports this assessment.

Furthermore, I genuinely don't understand the purpose of the last sentence of point 2. Doesn't everyone want their 'hard earned money' to be theirs? I haven't once advocated any kind of extreme capitalist view so I genuinely don't understand why the critiqued sentence is even included in point 2, which is essentially bundled as a criticism. I don't understand why wanting my money to not be carelessly spent by those who haven't earned it is something to reconsider.

Lastly, here in the UK we do have sex education classes. They don't work. We do practically beg teens to show self control when they turn up for their millionth free chlamydia prescription. It doesn't work. We even introduce measures that force parents to pay child support for 18 years. It doesn't work.

You seem to have decided that I'm some ranting old codger who hasn't given the matter any thought. Well I'm currently on my way to earning my MBBS and I have friends working in the NHS who are practically apoplectic with rage that they have to waste their valuable time as a doctor and the very limited resources of their council's health budget endlessly giving the same teens (and it's not all teens, just too many to be tenable) ludicrously expensive treatments to prevent them from spreading their STDs everywhere. One of my friends said to me the other day that one of the girls at his clinic admitted that she'd had sex with at least three different boys in a single night at a party (she couldn't remember the exact number because she was too drunk), none of whom wore a condom. It's frankly depressing, but we have no choice but to keep these licentious morons on the romp with free medication because they're not going to change their sexual behaviour through any means currently available to us and if we don't medicate them then we'll just see an epidemic.

/edited to seem less snarky; apologies for that

Flipping heck, I daren't even think how snarky it was before the edit if you consider openly laughing at me throughout an improvement!

 

[Imp Poster]

Well, it seems relative. There seems to be more online dating going on so I sure there is going to be more online dumping.

 

[irequirefood]

Haven't had anything end online before, unless you count saying it isn't working after one date, know one of your friends really likes her and she likes him back, and you just met the one in a million girl as a big thing.

Mostly it's happened either over the phone, or face to face. People probably do it online because it's easier. Face to face hurts so goddamn much, for both sides.

 

[Smokescreen]

Pre-emptive apologies for meta quoting, it's an annoying way to critique people's arguments but I couldn't find a way to assess all your points in a single essay.

You're going to 1) make a claim about human sexuality stretching for about 500 years and then insist that I prove my point--when I ain't making the claim and then 2) back it up with a WIKI link that discusses the /Victorian/ era (early 1800's) and specifically is talking about attitude shift in the 1960-70's?

Ha. Ha.

Fair enough, I'll concede that stating that sexual attitudes were less in favour of promiscuity from the renaissance to 1960's was incorrect. Sexual attitudes were less in favour of promiscuity from the Victorian era to 1960's. That's that sorted.

Missing the point; the article wasn't about what you were trying to make it about and that's where I was calling you out. Your claim started with the Renaissance for pete's sake, and the article itself was about an ATTITUDE shift that happened in the 1960's and merely referred back to the Victorian era-1800's! It had nothing to do with whether or not people-especially the young- were having lots of sex at very young ages from the 14th Century on.

Lastly, I believe I'm within my rights to ask that you cite sources for your beliefs too. The burden of proof to show a statement is accurate when questioned does indeed fall on the proposer of the statement, but you too are proposing a statement: that teenage sexual activity has not changed. This is a statement you must back up, just as I must back up mine.

You make the claim, you back it up. I'm the one saying; hey, this is all normal and you were the one claiming it wasn't and since you were the one claiming an aberration, the demonstration that it is falls to you, especially since you made the claim first.

However, I thought I had mentioned the book Sex at Dawn [http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805] (while admitting I hadn't finished it yet) which is about this very thing; people had sex a lot, from pre-history on. An oversight on my part.

Just because there was an oppressive view of sex doesn't mean people didn't have it. Hell, arranged marriages were set up for children as young as 12.

I've obviously miscommunicated my point: sexual attitudes have become vastly more in favour of promiscuity.

And what did I say? I said; if you want to make an argument that society has become more sexualized, I'd support it. It's pretty easy to make and fairly obvious because mass media has made it so easy to reach so many people. However, we've always liked being promiscuous; that ain't new.

Just because there was an oppressive view of sex didn't mean people weren't having rampant amounts of it from young to old ages. I cite the 8 billion people on the planet.
/ha

Which planet are we talking about? There's less than 7 billion people on earth with 6 of that billion having been born post 1800:

Ye gods, I'm off by a billion! Apparently wryness is lost on you. 'S OK and not really relevant to our discussion but fine: You're right.

If you want to argue that things are more sexualized than they were 100 years ago, you got it; I'll support that argument. However, that isn't your argument. Your argument is that 'young people can't keep it in their pants now and it's pissing me off!'

Well, they NEVER could.

And again, where's your evidence. Doubt wikipedia all you want, but until you provide a source that's at least as efficacious then it's the best we've got.

Except that we're having two separate discussions now; whether or not people have been fucking a lot for the past 500 years, or whether or not society is more sexualized than it used to be.

Pick one of them. Since I can find ample evidence that says children were getting married as young as 12, and there are plenty of things to establish that many young women died in childbirth, I think it's fair to suggest that by 13, they'd figured out slot a went into tab b and they did it as often as they could.

Furthermore, my argument is that societal sexual norms today are more in favour of promiscuity than they were between 1960's and up to two centuries ago. I'm confused as to whether you do or don't agree with this point.

Huh? We've always been in favor of promiscuity. Always always. Even in the most repressive societies, there has been lots of sex and in many cases a deep sexual underground; even when society claimed to be against sex, people were hugely for it. So whatever argument you're attempting to make isn't clear. Is it that we're more accepting of promiscuous behavior than we used to be? That it's not as shamed as it once was?

If that's what you're saying then yes, I'll agree to that. But let's be clear; that shame thing? Didn't stop people from having sex, even sex that involved health risks of various stripes. Didn't keep those who were going to go way out there from going out there.

However, I'm not here to convince you; I'm here to demonstrate your argument doesn't hold water.

No, you're here to wildly distort my argument into the following:

1) THOSE DARN KIDS! Whhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrgggbl!

2) Educate them so they know what they're getting into. Societies that do this tend to have lower teen pregnancy rates than societies that don't. Which means more of your hard earned money stays with you and that seems to be something you care about.

Perhaps, amidst misanthropic ranting, I distorted my own argument into the preceding, but to very clearly redefine it (with the accepted criticism of the somewhat stab in the dark renaissance start period): I believe that societal sexual attitudes have become rapidly more promiscuous post 1960 than they were between 1800-1959. The data presented by both parties of the debate at this point supports this assessment.

Er, no. There is a difference between 'sexualized' and whatever you're talking about. I'm suggesting that we, as a species, like sex a lot and have always been about having as much of it as we could, reasonably or otherwise. You seem to be complaining that people are having more sex than they ever did and that's new and bad and I'm saying it's not new at all. You might not like the consequences but that's your thing and that's cool.

Furthermore, I genuinely don't understand the purpose of the last sentence of point 2. Doesn't everyone want their 'hard earned money' to be theirs? I haven't once advocated any kind of extreme capitalist view so I genuinely don't understand why the critiqued sentence is even included in point 2, which is essentially bundled as a criticism. I don't understand why wanting my money to not be carelessly spent by those who haven't earned it is something to reconsider.

Because it tells us where you're coming from. Your concern is about money. Not about health. Not about whether or not these kids are damaged or in need of more than just a shot, not about how to make their lives better. Money-specifically, your money.

Lastly, here in the UK we do have sex education classes. They don't work. We do practically beg teens to show self control when they turn up for their millionth free chlamydia prescription. It doesn't work. We even introduce measures that force parents to pay child support for 18 years. It doesn't work.

Oh? Are you certain? Define 'not working'? More abortions? Less? The spread of STD? Imagine if there was no education, or worse, you had it like the US where the kids are just told; Don't have sex and a whole group grows up thinking anal sex isn't sex?
/it's deeply troubling

Point is, you say it's not working but how can you be sure? Nobody complains when a teenager DOESN'T get pregnant. And as someone who had sex young, I avoided that because I was taught how to avoid that. (But this is anecdotal evidence and thus not really relevant.)

You seem to have decided that I'm some ranting old codger who hasn't given the matter any thought.

And where did I say that? Although your attitude certainly suggests something.

Well I'm currently on my way to earning

Waitaminute, I DON'T CARE and it ISN'T RELEVANT.

my MBBS and I have friends working in the NHS who are practically apoplectic with rage that they have to waste their valuable time as a doctor and the very limited resources of their council's health budget endlessly giving the same teens (and it's not all teens, just too many to be tenable) ludicrously expensive treatments to prevent them from spreading their STDs everywhere.

Huh. Last time I checked it was a doctor's job to treat their patients. That whole 'time' and 'money' thing...kinda secondary, especially as it involves this massive judgment over someone else's life but clearly a concern for you.

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't priorities and yes, people need to take responsibility and do what they can to stay healthy but this is like complaining that doctors are angry that they have to treat fat people, or smokers or stuntmen or athletes or drug addicts or whatever.

All those things come with consequences that could be avoided, that could reduce the spending of your money--but people do them anyway so that complaint rings very hollow.

One of my friends said to me the other day that one of the girls at his clinic admitted that she'd had sex with at least three different boys in a single night at a party (she couldn't remember the exact number because she was too drunk), none of whom wore a condom.

1) Anecdotal evidence. Sad story but...so? Are you trying to tell me that people haven't been doing such things for 500 years? Because I don't think she's the first person to do such a thing.
2) Admittedly depressing but there are always going to be people on the extremes doing extreme behavior. I don't see you complaining about the asexuals--presumably because they aren't costing you any money? Yet I think it could be easily argued that those people are also deeply troubled and in need of help.

I guess I'd just be asking; if X isn't working (and you can prove it is, which is admittedly very, very difficult because do we really want to see what happens in the absence of any education?), why isn't it working? Is there a way to improve it? Because people are going to have sex regardless of anyone's attempt to stop it.

And along with that, I sadly accept that there are going to be people who cannot be helped. Doesn't mean I stop or refuse education, as a vocal group in the US wish to do, doesn't mean I stop welfare, though there are corrupt people on that, and it doesn't mean I think prison is the be all end all for criminals. It means I accept that life ain't perfect-but we do what we can to make it better.

It's frankly depressing, but we have no choice but to keep these licentious morons on the romp with free medication because they're not going to change their sexual behaviour through any means currently available to us and if we don't medicate them then we'll just see an epidemic.

Well, 'we' do have choices, and one of them is to judge people with compassion instead of contempt. I don't know why a young woman would behave in the manner you suggest (except to live out a fantasy but let's agree that that is a very different animal) but I would suggest that there is something deeply troubling in her life, and more to her than being a licentious moron.

In addition all of what you've said supports my point that people have been having lots of sex for the past 500 years because these behaviors don't come out of nowhere. It does little to support your point (if I'm reading it right) that society has become more sexualized (which I'd agree with-but I'd do so knowing that you haven't presented evidence on the subject) or your other point that we've become more tolerant of promiscuity over the last 500 years. If you want to start over at the Victorian era, fine but you've now moved the goalposts.

/edited to seem less snarky; apologies for that

Flipping heck, I daren't even think how snarky it was before the edit if you consider openly laughing at me throughout an improvement!

Well, even if it didn't work, I tried.

 

[Vault101]

I had to be the Dumper....And I felt nothing

I'm not really cut out for relationships