New York Times: Teens Not Having Sex Is ‘Anti-Science’

Image result for images of total astonishment

Well, now I’ve heard everything.

The New York Times, once the cheerleader for Stalin, says it’s “anti-science” to encourage teenagers not to have sex until they’ve finished school and are emotionally ready for a long-term commitment ( The Times editors say that “defies all common sense.”

They wouldn’t know common sense if it ran up and bit them in the butt.

The Times excoriates the Trump administration for backing efforts to promote abstinence as pregnancy prevention and a sure way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

Gee, you mean it isn’t? Like, how are you supposed to get pregnant or get an STD if you don’t have sex?

Maybe by reading the New York Times.

11 comments on “New York Times: Teens Not Having Sex Is ‘Anti-Science’

  1. Ludicrous! People seem to have forgotten one fact, “having sex” has the potential to procreate a child. That was a major, major deterrent back in the day. Smart teens, back in the fifties, may have been seething with hormones to no less degree than the young people do now, but they realized that giving in to their desires could restrict their future freedoms to a great degree.

    “The Pill” came along in 1962, which changed things dramatically, but because “The Pill” is not 100% effective, there was a need for a fallback plan, which resulted in legalized abortion. Apparently people have forgotten that sexual activity and pregnancy are even related.

    That’s a scientific fact, sexual intercourse is a prerequisite to procreation. No sex, no children. As wonderful as the gift of sex is, it is not an essential part of life. If procreation were not needed, there would be no reason for God to have equipped us with sexual abilities or sexual desire.

    At this stage in life, marrying would seem a bit of a loss. Certainly, I would gain some things, but I would lose many others, including my freedom to pursue my interests. At this point in time, I see a sex life as a bit too costly in terms of the impact upon other life areas. I didn’t always feel this way, but I certainly do now.

    1. If you ever examined a “comprehensive sex education” curriculum, you would never, ever guess that sex had anything to do with starting a family. Only there’s this disease called “pregnancy” that has to be cured by an abortion.

      This age we live in is disgusting.

    2. I gave this matter a lot of thought some years back and realized that the Creator made things the way He did for a reason. If thinking twice, so to speak, before sexual activity, is part of the plan, then we should use that as criteria. For the overwhelming proportion of human history, sex meant a very real risk of pregnancy. God apparently wanted us to think long and hard before making a lifetime commitment.

  2. What does “science” have to do with abstinence? They throw the “anti-science” label around like an ad hominem. Doing it God’s way guarantees against STDs and teenage pregnancies, and it’s a great way for girls to weed out guys who only want one thing. The problem with sex-ed is that it requires teens to be responsible, and teens are notorious for being irresponsible. Besides that, sex-ed should be the responsibility of the parents, not the teachers.

    1. Maybe they’re catching on that “racist” has been done to death and no longer means anything, so “anti-science” will replace it as the all-purpose epithet.

    1. Everybody knows that even the most trivial opposition to anything favored by liberals is not only Racist, but also Anti-Science.

Leave a Reply