Abstinence does not work

[jayb2000]

http://www.iht.com/articles/509550.html
"Teenagers who make a one-time pledge to remain virgins until marriage catch sexually transmitted diseases about as often as those who don't pledge abstinence, according to a study of the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents.
...
One of the problems, researchers found, is that virginity pledgers are less likely to use condoms.

''It's difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you're not going to have sex,'' said Peter Bearman, chairman of Columbia University's sociology department, who coauthored the study with Hannah Bruckner of Yale University."

Just one more in the list of things President Bush is wrong about. :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

'Scuse the heck out of me! How is Bush wrong?

You get STDs from having sex. All this article shows is that the pledges weren't kept. Had the pledges actually been kept, there wouldn't have been sexual encounters and there wouldn't have been any STDs in the pledge group.

Ya wanna blame Bush 'cause a bunch of kids lied?

Sheesh!

"The best way for a girl to avoid STDs or pregnancy is aspirin. One tablet: She holds it between her knees."

'Rat

[Sayhey]

'Scuse the heck out of me! How is Bush wrong?

You get STDs from having sex. All this article shows is that the pledges weren't kept. Had the pledges actually been kept, there wouldn't have been sexual encounters and there wouldn't have been any STDs in the pledge group.

Ya wanna blame Bush 'cause a bunch of kids lied?

Sheesh!

"The best way for a girl to avoid STDs or pregnancy is aspirin. One tablet: She holds it between her knees."

'Rat

I think the point is that the Bush administration has a policy on teaching children about sex that doesn't work to protect our children. Kids have to take responsibility for their own actions, but it is the responsibility of their elders and their government to provide them with the knowledge to be able to make those choices. The Bushies shouting abstinence to the exclusion of everything else doesn't do that.

[jayb2000]

'Scuse the heck out of me! How is Bush wrong?

You get STDs from having sex. All this article shows is that the pledges weren't kept. Had the pledges actually been kept, there wouldn't have been sexual encounters and there wouldn't have been any STDs in the pledge group.

Ya wanna blame Bush 'cause a bunch of kids lied?

Sheesh!

"The best way for a girl to avoid STDs or pregnancy is aspirin. One tablet: She holds it between her knees."

'Rat

Simple, President Bush only wants to spend money on abstinece education. But, study after study shows that abstinence only eduction does not reduce teen pregnancy or STDs.
Also, you can catch STDs with your legs closed, male or female. To put the onus (or blame) on women is chauvanistic.

[Taft]

'Scuse the heck out of me! How is Bush wrong?

You get STDs from having sex. All this article shows is that the pledges weren't kept. Had the pledges actually been kept, there wouldn't have been sexual encounters and there wouldn't have been any STDs in the pledge group.

Ya wanna blame Bush 'cause a bunch of kids lied?

Sheesh!

"The best way for a girl to avoid STDs or pregnancy is aspirin. One tablet: She holds it between her knees."

'Rat

You do get STDs from having sex. And these kids did lie about keeping abstinent. But it still indicates something Bush was wrong about: abstinence only education doesn't work.

If abstinance only education tries to get kids to pledge they won't have sex, but those pledges aren't kept, then that education has failed. Compound that with the fact that abstinence only education often doesn't teach PROVEN STD prevention methods like condom use, and those kids are actually put at HIGHER risk.

I wanna blame Bush because he believes abstinence only education is a valid way to keep kids from getting pregnant or getting a STD. All evidence points to the fact that this education has little value in reducing the rate of teen pregnancy and STD contraction. You can't blame Bush for the kids lying, but you can't blame the kids if they weren't taught realistic and effective methods for preventing pregnancy and STD contraction along with all of the risks associated with those methods.

Abstinence is the only perfect method of birth control/STD prevention. It is also very unrealistic that all, or even most kids, would make that their lifestyle choice, even after telling them all of the horrible things that accompany STDs and/or teen pregnancy. Studies confirm this. Therefore, if kids will be kids and have sex no matter what you say, it might be wise to educate them in effective ways to REDUCE THE CHANCE of prenancy and STD contraction. Sure, there is still a chance that they will get pregnant or contract an STD, but the chances are FAR reduced. Bush is against this type of education.

Don't believe me? Why have various STD education associations who promote comprehensive sexual education, including condom use, been audited at a rate not seen in any previous administration, even without evidence of wrongdoing? Why aren't associations which promote abstinence only education getting audited at the same rate? Why was the study my girlfriend works on in danger of losing federal funding for their research in how to teach comprehensive sexual education to developmentally challenged kids even though they had received strong support during the Clinton administration?

Because Bush doesn't believe in science and statistics, THATS why.

Taft

[Edited for horrible grammar]

[zimv20]

Because Bush doesn't believe in science and statistics, THATS why.


who needs facts and studies when you've got strong beliefs?

[Desertrat]

Yeah, you cn get STDs with crossed legs, but it sure doesn't come off of toilet seats. :)

Funny. I started my sophomore year of high school in 1948. Austin HS, Austin, Texas. 3,500 students, the largest in the state at that time. Now this general discussion about SexEd and all has come up many time, so I've had more than one occasion to search my memory of the past. So far as I can recall, we had one gal drop out of school to get married because she and her boyfriend did the "Oops!" thing. It was the Big Deal at school for a while. Yeah, there could have been a couple of others, but such was a rarity..

My point is that the times have changed, and not for the better, and I generally blame the last couple of generations of parents.

Now, I'll admit I hadn't heard about "abstinence only" in the schools. I do remember the howls of outrage when the idea of teaching abstinence as well as other options was first raised. Quoting an "Educator" lady from the northeast, "But for some of those kids, it's the only recreation they have!" Sure says something for our society, doesn't it?

Yeah, Bush might be naive, but he's danged sure morally correct. And I still believe that to put somebody down because they're fed up with the frequency of reading about grandmothers in their twenties or early thirties just strikes me as either cynical or stupid.

But Gratification Is All, right?

'Rat

[Ugg]

My point is that the times have changed, and not for the better, and I generally blame the last couple of generations of parents.

Now, I'll admit I hadn't heard about "abstinence only" in the schools. I do remember the howls of outrage when the idea of teaching abstinence as well as other options was first raised. Quoting an "Educator" lady from the northeast, "But for some of those kids, it's the only recreation they have!" Sure says something for our society, doesn't it?

Yeah, Bush might be naive, but he's danged sure morally correct. And I still believe that to put somebody down because they're fed up with the frequency of reading about grandmothers in their twenties or early thirties just strikes me as either cynical or stupid.

But Gratification Is All, right?

'Rat

Kids these days are exposed to a constant stream of sex and violence. The only way to deal with it is to make it perfectly clear that abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies BUT by using condoms one can significantly reduce the risk. It's far too late to turn back the clock but it is also very stupid and patronizing to think that kids today are going to believe that abstinence is the only way to heaven when their parents or grandparents were whooping it up guilt free, during the sixties and seventies.

Bush and his ilk are not only naive but are putting at risk an entire generation of children through their "faith based" stupidity. Gratification is not all and never has been but forced ignorance will be the death of many kids.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, Ugg, and the sad part is that all that's remembered is the "guilt-free" part. I had a lot of friends who did the Timothy O'Leary bit; tuned in, turned on and dropped out. "She ingested every chemical known to man, and some that weren't!"

The behavior itself is not new; it's the amount of it that's awesome to me. I mean, we had the old joke over 50 years ago, where a teacher exclaims, "Would you want to ruin your life for twenty minutes of pleasure?" From the back of the room a small voice, "Ma'am, how do you make it last twenty minutes?"

'Rat

[Dont Hurt Me]

Responsibility is reponsibility, if you are having sex you may get std's, if you eat at burger king 3 times a day you may be fat. If you pull the trigger of a gun while its pointed at someone you may kill. Be responsible and dont have sex and there is a good chance you will never get a std. Its simply common sense but that is lacking in todays world. If you got to do sex wrap that thing. its not rocket science its common sense.

[JamesDPS]

DHM: I agree with you. The problem is, even though using a condom is hardly rocket science, there are plenty of kids who still don't have the foggiest idea. To use the murder analogy, kids need to be TAUGHT not to use guns, common sense can't just be expected, even though we would all like that! But anyways too many kids are being brought up in this "religious right" way where they don't learn ***** because parents and politicians would rather keep telling themselves that their kids won't have sex if they tell them not to. I even met a girl who, IN HER THIRD YEAR IN COLLEGE (at a top 20 school, she's not a COMPLETE idiot) honestly thought a woman could get pregnant from swallowing! Okay, maybe she WAS an idiot ;) but it was because her equally idiotic parents brought her up to be a "nice conservative girl". Well, long story short, eventually she was taken advantage of, and has now gone off the deep end, going to male strip clubs nearly constantly (her new addiction) and basically whoring herself out.

What kids need to be taught is that sex is an incredibly special thing that is so much better when it is with someone you truly love and who loves you, and that when you engage in it, you have to be smart about it and safe about it. And it's a parental responsibility, more than the schools', to teach the common sense, not bury their heads and pretend THEIR kid isn't like the rest of the animal kingdom.

Also, don't forget that people don't generally get married as early as they used to: the behavior hasn't changed except that at least now the norm is to get married in mid to late 20's, rather than at 18 like it used to be (or 16 or 15 as it used to be before that). So clearly there's more time for more than one partner before marriage. For people who DO vow celebacy until their married, I think they run the risk of sex suddenly becoming a REASON to get married (whether consciously or, more likely, not) which it obviously isn't. And then we wonder why there's a 50% divorce rate... anyways these things why there probably seems to be more "sluttiness" these days, I think ;). Not to mention that at least in my personal experience, the most conservative kids are the ones more likely to "snap" at some point and go the complete opposite direction. And, of course, there are too many kids with no direction at all -- we ALL need to find that middle ground, that moderation, and it needs to be found (and taught) at an EARLY age.

[zimv20]

Well, long story short, eventually she was taken advantage of, and has now gone off the deep end, going to male strip clubs nearly constantly (her new addiction) and basically whoring herself out.

i think there was a similiar phenomenon wrt nancy reagan's 'just say no' campaign. by treating all illegal drugs equally, someone would try pot, find out that it didn't kill them or make them crazy, and the message became "all drugs are as harmless as pot".

For people who DO vow celebacy until their married, I think they run the risk of sex suddenly becoming a REASON to get married
i know a couple who did this. she would brag to me how they would have oral and anal sex, so they were still virgins (she was religious and had a holier-than-thou attitude). i sensed from him that he wanted the wedding so he could finally have vaginal sex.

[jayb2000]

. :)
...
Now, I'll admit I hadn't heard about "abstinence only" in the schools. I do remember the howls of outrage when the idea of teaching abstinence as well as other options was first raised. Quoting an "Educator" lady from the northeast, "But for some of those kids, it's the only recreation they have!" Sure says something for our society, doesn't it?
...
'Rat

Yeah, and I heard some "Christian" from Texas advocating a death penalty, calling it "the ultimate justice". Ignoring Jesus' ideals of turning the other cheek and the New Testament meaning that Christians are not supposed to follow Jewish law, but Christ's example. :rolleyes:

The only way to never die in a car crash is to never drive. But yet, we still teach people to wear their seatbelt. It's not a garauntee, but its better than not.
Teaching kids the only "truth" is that they should never have sex means that the 5, 10, or 50 % who do ( I don't know the numbers) will have sex based solely on what they figure out themselves. Which means no condoms and increased pregnancy and STD rates.
Teaching that abstinece is the only truly safe way AND that if they choose not to do it that, how to safely use condoms. dental dams, etc, will reduce the risk leads to lower rates of pregnancy and STD transmission.
Teaching ONLY sex ed with condom use lowers STD and pregancy risk, compared to Abstinece education, but its not as low as teaching both.

So, while common sense works, the Bush administration pushes for the least effective option, but one that fits with a minority's view of what is morally right. Pusing religious beliefs over proven empirical evidence costs the country money, gets more people sick or pregnant, and increases the number of situations where women might choose abortions. So, to save money (old Republican ideal), to save lives (generally human idea), and to prevent abortions, we should teach kids to wait on sex, BUT to use condoms in case they don't.

That is why President Bush is wrong.

[Taft]

Yeah, Ugg, and the sad part is that all that's remembered is the "guilt-free" part. I had a lot of friends who did the Timothy O'Leary bit; tuned in, turned on and dropped out. "She ingested every chemical known to man, and some that weren't!"

The behavior itself is not new; it's the amount of it that's awesome to me. I mean, we had the old joke over 50 years ago, where a teacher exclaims, "Would you want to ruin your life for twenty minutes of pleasure?" From the back of the room a small voice, "Ma'am, how do you make it last twenty minutes?"

'Rat

Rat, I understand where you are coming from. I, like you and many others, think that instant gratification is far too prevalent in our society. People just don't think about the consequences of their actions. Its a shame, because many people are paying a high price for that lack of consideration.

But now that we have that out of the way, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT??? That is, assuming you think something SHOULD be done about it. You seem to take an attitude of "well, in my day, people weren't having sex all the time and we were allright...so it serves these immoral bastards right!" Maybe its my idealist side (or my youth), but I can't be so callous.

And with this issue, it isn't as black and white as: sexually active = dead and/or infected; sexually inactive = alive and uninfected. Condom use DOES prevent the spread of most STDs. Condom use DOES help. If a sexual education program doesn't acknowledge this fact, it is not a valid program, IMO.

And, as other have stated, none of this is to say I don't want abstinence taught to the kiddies. If you talk to any responsible educator on this subject, they would be the first to tell you that abstinence is the first thing taught, but then is backed up by proper use of contraceptives. This is because, quite obviously, abstinence is the best way to prevent STD prevention and pregnancy. If a sexual education program doesn't acknowledge this fact, it is not a valid program, IMO.

I think education is of the highest importance to reach a goal of higher public awareness on these issues. And I think its a cop out to say, "well some areas don't allow abstinance education, so its OK if others don't allow contraceptive education." While contraceptive only education is certainly bad, it performs better than abstinance only education (compared statistically, of course). And I don't see how piss-poor education (be it either abstinance-only or contraceptive-only) is acceptable, anyway.

We should be giving our kids comprehensive education and help guide them down the path of making informed and rational decisions. Neither abstinance-only education or contraceptive-only education accomplished this.

I'm for comprehensive sexual education for our kids.

What's Bush for? Seemingly, piss-poor education.

Go Bush!

Taft

[Neserk]

Based on the original post it doesn't look like either group is using protection since they contracted STD's at the same rate so apparently the sex education wasn't working either... that is odd.. I think I want to read the study...

[pseudobrit]

Sure says something for our society, doesn't it?

Yeah, Bush might be naive, but he's danged sure morally correct. And I still believe that to put somebody down because they're fed up with the frequency of reading about grandmothers in their twenties or early thirties just strikes me as either cynical or stupid.

But Gratification Is All, right?

I was all for sex when I was young and unmarried (oops, I still am unmarried) and I'm not going to act like it was foolish of me.

I would do what I've done all over again. I knew what I was doing and I knew enough to do it safely and without high risk of negative consequences.

I ask why we think of teenage sex as inherently bad. I remember it as quite good.

[Frohickey]

You do get STDs from having sex. And these kids did lie about keeping abstinent. But it still indicates something Bush was wrong about: abstinence only education doesn't work.


Abstinence only education didn't work because the children didn't practice abstinence. How is that the fault of anyone except the horny oversex undersupervised children bombarded by images of sex in the media?

I think its time for chastity belts to make a comeback...
Hmm... iPod chastity belts with 250Gigs of storage, in custom colors. :D

[mactastic]

Abstinence only education didn't work because the children didn't practice abstinence. How is that the fault of anyone except the horny oversex undersupervised children bombarded by images of sex in the media?

I think its time for chastity belts to make a comeback...
Hmm... iPod chastity belts with 250Gigs of storage, in custom colors. :D

Nobody is disputing that the kids had sex. But would you rather they learn to use a $0.50 condom, or would you rather they went to the hospital and helped jack up our insurance rates by requiring treatment that would otherwise be unnecessary?

[pseudobrit]

Abstinence only education didn't work because the children didn't practice abstinence. How is that the fault of anyone except the horny oversex undersupervised children bombarded by images of sex in the media?

Why is there a high teenage birthrate in so many third-world nations that have no such media bombardment?

[zimv20]

Abstinence only education didn't work because the children didn't practice abstinence. How is that the fault of anyone except the horny oversex undersupervised children bombarded by images of sex in the media?


for 3 years i've been trying to teach my cat to fly. but he still won't! i blame the cat.

[Frohickey]

for 3 years i've been trying to teach my cat to fly. but he still won't! i blame the cat.

Did you try pixie dust? ;)

[Frohickey]

Why is there a high teenage birthrate in so many third-world nations that have no such media bombardment?

Because women in 3rd world nations are encouraged to have kids in order to provide for the family. Also, with not as advanced health care in 3rd world nations, mortality from childbirth complications necessitate younger mothers.

[zimv20]

Did you try pixie dust? ;)

several times. but it only made my dizzy.

[Neserk]

Nobody is disputing that the kids had sex. But would you rather they learn to use a $0.50 condom, or would you rather they went to the hospital and helped jack up our insurance rates by requiring treatment that would otherwise be unnecessary?


I'm still confused. Because the original post said that those who signed the abstinence pledge had the *same* rate of STD's as those who had the "use condomn" training which more so suggests that *neither* was helpful. The kids who had the "use condoms" traiining apparently didn't use them...

*waits for someone to address the point*

[Desertrat]

Jayb2000, I don't see the point in your rant about the northeast. I only mentioned it because the ABC News identified the woman's position in the local school system and the location. My point was that she didn't want abstinence ADDED to the SexEd curriculum.

Taft, I don't think I'm callused about the situation, so much as accepting what I can't change--and my dislike of the situation is of no importance to much of the rest of the world...

Solution? Damfino. Seems to me it's a family-by-family deal, and it's an issue of responsible parenting. Again, it's a problem that has always existed, but in today's world the problem has gotten much larger than in the past. Seems to me you look at those changes which affect behavior patterns.

Whence cometh advocacy of hedonism? Whence cometh the notion that life is easy and that if you just wish strongly enough and long enough you can "have it all"?

Yeah, pseudobrit, I surely agree with you about teenage sex feeling good. Trouble is that teenagers aren't commonly real swift about considering consequences. Physical maturity isn't the same as emotional maturity, and that's what the squabble is all about. They're old enough for physical performance but too young to put off instant gratification or to deal with the results.

That's why I commented earlier about "Gratification is All" as that seems to be the desired way of life for not just the teeny-boppers but even their parents. Which ties back somewhat to our balance of payments deficits threads, with folks wanting the gratification of "stuff" at low prices. :)

Question: People say that movies and TV portrayals of hedonistic lifestyles don't affect the audience's behavior; they merely reflect what people already do. Okay. Fine. My question is, then, why is there advertising?

'Rat

[zimv20]

Solution? Damfino. Seems to me it's a family-by-family deal, and it's an issue of responsible parenting.
i'd love it if parents could always be relied on, but i don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.

i've got a crazy solution -- let's tell kids the facts. sometimes i think we don't trust teenagers enough w/ the truth.

[mactastic]

I'm still confused. Because the original post said that those who signed the abstinence pledge had the *same* rate of STD's as those who had the "use condomn" training which more so suggests that *neither* was helpful. The kids who had the "use condoms" traiining apparently didn't use them...

*waits for someone to address the point*

Neserk, I don't know if I can really answer your question, since all I have access to is the same article that you presumably read as well as I did. My reading of it suggests to me that the kids who pledged abstinance had fewer sexual partners, yet the same rate of STDs. What that suggests to me is that they are having less sex, but riskier sex than their counterparts who contract STDs at a smilar rate, but have more partners and presumably have more sexual encounters. I hope I have sufficiently addressed your point.

[pseudobrit]

Yeah, pseudobrit, I surely agree with you about teenage sex feeling good. Trouble is that teenagers aren't commonly real swift about considering consequences. Physical maturity isn't the same as emotional maturity, and that's what the squabble is all about. They're old enough for physical performance but too young to put off instant gratification or to deal with the results.

Treat them like adults, give them adult information and let them make adult decisions like adults. We need to stop trying to delay the sexual maturation of high schoolers until we're ready and admit to ourselves it's going to happen when they're ready whether we like it or not. When that happens, they need to be able to be adult about it.

Which is why you're supposed to teach them all about sex, truthfully and without bias or shame, just as your doctor would talk to you about your own health.
Inject a little wisdom into them.
What's that called?

Oh, yeah, education!

[JamesDPS]

(On sex as an incentive to get married)

...i know a couple who did this. she would brag to me how they would have oral and anal sex, so they were still virgins (she was religious and had a holier-than-thou attitude). i sensed from him that he wanted the wedding so he could finally have vaginal sex.

I'm still reeling from the concept that a holier-than-thou type would be okay with the oral and anal, but wait for the vaginal.... AND that some guy would want to get married and probably give up the oral and anal ;) Did that guy just have awesome persuasion abilities or something? "I swear, baby -- you're still a virgin!" haha

[Desertrat]

zim, are you saying that today's SexEd classes don't tell the facts? (I don't know what percentage of highschools have SE, nor how many students in a school take the classes, nor the content.)

pseudobrit, at what age or in what grade do you see this transition from "child" to "adult"? Again, watching teenage behavior in general--and I once was one, plus I raised one--I'm pretty firm in believing that adult behavior as regards emotions is rare in any teenager. And sex is the strongest emotion of which I know, insofar as irrationality--even for adults.

James, there are actually kids who think that way. Some even believed (in my day) that "If you keep one foot on the floor, it doesn't count." and "If you don't get in the back seat, it doesn't count." For most it was a joke, but for a few it was rationalization...And a result of the Clinton/Monica thing is that "Oral sex isn't really sex."

'Rat

[mactastic]

zim, are you saying that today's SexEd classes don't tell the facts? (I don't know what percentage of highschools have SE, nor how many students in a school take the classes, nor the content.)


Well for one thing, if Dubya had his (the Christian Right's) way sex ed in school would be abstinance only education. Do you doubt that?

[Neserk]

(On sex as an incentive to get married)



I'm still reeling from the concept that a holier-than-thou type would be okay with the oral and anal, but wait for the vaginal.... AND that some guy would want to get married and probably give up the oral and anal ;) Did that guy just have awesome persuasion abilities or something? "I swear, baby -- you're still a virgin!" haha

It is amazing what person will do to talk another person into having sex! And yes, from what I understand, it is just as you describe it above!

[Desertrat]

mac, I just really doubt that Dubya's notions on the subject will make one danged bit of difference. He can harumph around a lot, and he'll get some lip service from the upper echelons, and it will all peter out to nothing. Teapot tempest...

How SexEd is taught, or what's in the curriculum, is probably most affected by local notions of what's proper and what's not. (SFAIK; all that's after my time, which is why I asked the question of pseudobrit...)

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, I just really doubt that Dubya's notions on the subject will make one danged bit of difference. He can harumph around a lot, and he'll get some lip service from the upper echelons, and it will all peter out to nothing. Teapot tempest...

So your feeling is that the president has little to no effect on policy?

[zimv20]

So your feeling is that the president has little to no effect on policy?

...or tone...

[tpjunkie]

probably not. Sex education, at least in the public school system I attended has been taught the same way (excepting "new" discoveries, like HIV in the early 80s, hepatitis B etc) since 1976, when my father began teaching phys ed and health. All methods of birth control are taught, and they do say that abstinence is the only way to be 100% sure of not contracting STD or pregnancies, however condom use, spermicidal jellies and sponges, diaphragms, the pill, hormonal patches and other methods are also discussed, and proper usage is explained.

George Bush could cut funding for programs that teach other than abstinence, and it wouldn't change the sex ed program at my high school, neither the teachers, administrators or board of ed would stand for it.

That being said, one girl in my graduating class went to graduation, two days after delivering a baby, and several other girls have since had (i assume, we graduated in 2002) unwanted children out of wedlock. Providing teens with ALL the facts is as much as anyone can do. At some point the responsiblity becomes that of the person choosing to engage in unprotected sex is ENTIRELY their own, not their educational system's. By promoting abstinence only programs, teens are not getting to whole picture, and thoose who are going to choose to have sex will be more likely to engage in protected sex.

[applebum]

for 3 years i've been trying to teach my cat to fly. but he still won't! i blame the cat.

Are you saying that it is impossible for teenagers to abstain. It is impossible for cats to fly...

Also - where is the outrage that parents are not teaching their own children about sex and it's results. Since when did it become necessary for the government to fund education that should be happening at home? I wonder what the STD rate is for teens that have parents that talk to them about sex in a mature responsible manner?

[Taft]

mac, I just really doubt that Dubya's notions on the subject will make one danged bit of difference. He can harumph around a lot, and he'll get some lip service from the upper echelons, and it will all peter out to nothing. Teapot tempest...

How SexEd is taught, or what's in the curriculum, is probably most affected by local notions of what's proper and what's not. (SFAIK; all that's after my time, which is why I asked the question of pseudobrit...)

'Rat

But Bush DOES affect how things are done across the nation. Right now, Bush is pouring money into studies which back his viewpoints, and attempting to pull money from studies which contradict them.

Do you feel comfortable funding a study run by a fundamentalist Christian group which purports to be finding the "best way" to prevent the spread of HIV? What if that study was proven to contain misrepresented data? What if that study was used as justification for some federal law limiting what teachers can teach on the subject of sexual education? What if that study was used as justification for pulling money away from OTHER studies which are researching EFFECTIVE ways to reduce STD contraction rates?

Rat, again you take the "what can I do?" approach to the situation. The problem is that the tactics which Bush is using (and many other politicians on both sides have used) is very distructive to the effectiveness of science in formation of policy. Bush is funding studies and service agencies which misrepresent data, lie to their patients, and oppose proven methods to stop the spread of STDs. While this might not effect me NOW, ten more years of this policy from the whitehouse and my kids might be effected.

Maybe it affects my kid because the government pulled funding from a study which would have found a breakthrough method of educating the mentally disabled on safe sex. Maybe its because they funded some fundamentalist organization which had crappy research and convinced politicians to pass an abstinence only standard for public schools. Maybe its because the government gets more permissive and allows districts to teach abstinance only sex ed if they choose, thereby forcing me to home school my kids or move to a different district.

I understand your "damifino" attitude, but you need to understand that this administration has shown that they WILL do things to subvert the position of real science in favor of the whims of the christian right. This attitude and line of action HAS CONSEQUENCES. Why would I want to sit idly by and let someone subvert the standing of legitimate scientific research to promote their own opinions when those actions could have real reprecussions on my kids?

Yes, kids and society have lost a lot of their "moral compass." And yes, maybe we can't do a lot about it other than teach our own children well. But that doesn't mean I have to stand idly by while some ***hole in the whitehouse tries to convince America that abstinence only education works while every repudible scientist who has studied the subject says otherwise.

If you can't agree with that last paragraph, I'm not sure we have much to talk about.

I'll give you something, 'rat. You have an uncanny nack for saying a lot without ever taking a position on the matter. Its very convenient to sit in the back of a discussion, interject wise musings into said discussion and never take a stand on a course of action. You can practically never get burned.

But the buck has to stop somewhere, right? If science proves one course is the more practical and effective and our commander in cheif takes another course of action, a person needs to decide whether that action is palatable. Faced with that situation, to say "Awww, it won't effect me anyway." is quite simply a cop out. You get out of having to disagree with the president and with his dissenters.

So I'll ask you point blank: do you agree with the president's actions in this case? I'm not asking if he is morally right, or if kids are having too much sex, or whether or not if kids stopped having so much sex they'd get pregnent less. I'm asking if you agree with pulling the plug on scientific research and programs promoting comprehensive sexual education in favor of abstinance only sexual education.

Yes or no will do, though justification is certainly acceptable.

Taft

[Frohickey]

But Bush DOES affect how things are done across the nation. Right now, Bush is pouring money into studies which back his viewpoints, and attempting to pull money from studies which contradict them.

Maybe the correct course of action would be that government doesn't have any say in grants for scientific studies or education.

Maybe the correct course of action would be To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Period. End of governmental involvment.

That way, you won't have a President Bush, or a President Heinz meddling into anything.

[zimv20]

Are you saying that it is impossible for teenagers to abstain. It is impossible for cats to fly...

no, i'm saying it's silly to blame the teenagers when studies say what they're being taught doesn't work. it doesn't work because it doesn't work. it's tautalogical.


Also - where is the outrage that parents are not teaching their own children about sex and it's results. Since when did it become necessary for the government to fund education that should be happening at home? I wonder what the STD rate is for teens that have parents that talk to them about sex in a mature responsible manner?
i would also like to see such a study. what's missing in your argument is that the kids who aren't being taught properly today are the parents of tomorrow.

[Desertrat]

Taft, I don't agree with the idea of "abstinence only" as THE solution. If Bush really thinks that has any value, he's dead-nuts wrong.

But I don't believe that most religious people think it's the only way. I strongly doubt Congress will seriously consider any legislation about "abstinence only". Bush appointees might run around harumphing appropriately, but whatever changes Bush might want will disappear in the bureaucracy. I think this is all a teapot tempest and will fade away. I think there is just a helluva lot more common sense at the local level than a lot of folks might believe.

'Rat

[Neserk]

How SexEd is taught, or what's in the curriculum, is probably most affected by local notions of what's proper and what's not. (SFAIK; all that's after my time, which is why I asked the question of pseudobrit...)

'Rat

I agree

[Neserk]

Are you saying that it is impossible for teenagers to abstain. It is impossible for cats to fly...



:confused: I was an abstinate teenager...

[jennyjennydz]

sex blah God blah abstain

Someday the Christian-right will put as much effort into helping the poor and the needy as they do into abstinence, abortion, and homosexuality.

1/5 American children went to sleep in poverty tonight.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, at what age or in what grade do you see this transition from "child" to "adult"? Again, watching teenage behavior in general--and I once was one, plus I raised one--I'm pretty firm in believing that adult behavior as regards emotions is rare in any teenager. And sex is the strongest emotion of which I know, insofar as irrationality--even for adults

I didn't mention age because there is no set age at which all children become sexually mature. Just because a child is not emotionally adult does not mean they're not physically adult. There's no purpose in hiding things from them and lying to them in order to attempt to satisfy our often unrealistic expectations.

Just because your child isn't old enough to drive a car doesn't mean you can't teach him the rules of the road and basic principles of driving before his sixteenth birthday. Same thing goes with gun safety.

And because (typically) unlike first driving a car or shooting a gun, parents will ultimately have no control over when their child becomes ready to have sex and little control over when they will first have sex, we need to make sure they know that they know how to protect themselves and understand all the facts in a medical literal context devoid of distracting moral trappings.

[Frohickey]

Someday the Christian-right will put as much effort into helping the poor and the needy as they do into abstinence, abortion, and homosexuality.

They used to. Until government got into the business of welfare. Its more efficient to have government do the collecting, they have guns and jails to force people to give to the 'poor box'. All the churches have are priests with wine goblets, maybe some sceptres, and funny looking hats... oh, don't forget about horny pedophile priests. :eek:

[mactastic]

They used to. Until government got into the business of welfare. Its more efficient to have government do the collecting, they have guns and jails to force people to give to the 'poor box'. All the churches have are priests with wine goblets, maybe some sceptres, and funny looking hats... oh, don't forget about horny pedophile priests. :eek:

Wait, are you saying the government is more efficient at something than a private enterprise? Oh heresy!

And if they were doing such a good job providing welfare why did the government have to deal with the problem? Or is it just a liberatarian fantasy that poverty was under control through private charities in the past?

[Taft]

Wait, are you saying the government is more efficient at something than a private enterprise? Oh heresy!

And if they were doing such a good job providing welfare why did the government have to deal with the problem? Or is it just a liberatarian fantasy that poverty was under control through private charities in the past?

I think an underlying assumption of many of Frohicky's opinions is that if the government is effecient at anything, that thing is stealing from and oppressing its own people. And of course the private sector is far too principled and has far too little power to ever do things like that, right?

Right? :(

Taft

[Frohickey]

I think an underlying assumption of many of Frohicky's opinions is that if the government is effecient at anything, that thing is stealing from and oppressing its own people. And of course the private sector is far too principled and has far too little power to ever do things like that, right?

Govt was pretty efficient in the incarceration of American citizens of Japanese decent during WW2.
Govt was pretty efficient in the killing of Jews and undesirables during WW2.
Govt was pretty efficient in the killing of political opponents of Stalin.

At least in the private sector, you can go to the competition if you think you are being reamed in the price of goods and services. Government doesn't have competition.

What is that saying? Its dangerous to be right when the Government is wrong.


BTW, the underlying assumptions of many of leftist posters here is that government can only do good things.

Ol' George and me think otherwise.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. -GW

[Frohickey]

Wait, are you saying the government is more efficient at something than a private enterprise? Oh heresy!

And if they were doing such a good job providing welfare why did the government have to deal with the problem? Or is it just a liberatarian fantasy that poverty was under control through private charities in the past?

There are things that government ought to not be in doing.
One of them is wealth redistribution.

[mactastic]

There are things that government ought to not be in doing.
One of them is wealth redistribution.

So then why do you advocate it?

[Taft]

Govt was pretty efficient in the incarceration of American citizens of Japanese decent during WW2.
Govt was pretty efficient in the killing of Jews and undesirables during WW2.
Govt was pretty efficient in the killing of political opponents of Stalin.

At least in the private sector, you can go to the competition if you think you are being reamed in the price of goods and services. Government doesn't have competition.

The problem with putting your full faith in the private sector is the same as putting your full faith in the government: when they get too big, powerful and ultimately corrupt, they are unable to be controlled and end up oppressing and stealing from the populace.

What about Microsoft? They used their monopoly power and unfair business practices to corner the market, grossly overcharge their customers and limit competing products and ultimately consumer choice. What punishment did they receive for this? You know, I'm not sure they were punished. Strange isn't it?

How about any other huge corporations who knowingly endanger, steal from or harm their customers? There have been countless cases of this over the last 100 years. What about the fact that many of these corporations pay off politicians to shape legislature in their favor? Go look up why marijuana was originally banned in this country. DuPont, the paper industry and their powerful lobby mounted a very successful campaign to demonize marijuana in the public eye and turn legislators against it. Why? Because hemp threatened their industry.

The fact is that the private sector is at least as corrupt as our current government. And while they may be more efficient in how they execute their various businesses, if they are efficiently screwing over the public, what good are their services to humanity?


Maybe, just maybe, the solution lies not in a total trust in the government, nor in a total trust of the private sector. You know, kind of like the US as it stands. *shock* *gasp* *horror* *he-can't-be-saying-that*

Corruption exists everywhere. Heck, our system of government was basically set up with that in mind (checks and balances, anyone). Why not try to eliminate and expose actual corruption rather than holding up the entire government, which demonstrates both good and bad qualities, as the problem? Face it, you put your faith in the private sector and let the giant monopolies and media monoliths run rampant, and you'd end up in a situation just as bad as if the government controlled every aspect of our lives.

Taft

[Frohickey]

The problem with putting your full faith in the private sector is the same as putting your full faith in the government: when they get too big, powerful and ultimately corrupt, they are unable to be controlled and end up oppressing and stealing from the populace.

Corruption exists everywhere. Heck, our system of government was basically set up with that in mind (checks and balances, anyone). Why not try to eliminate and expose actual corruption rather than holding up the entire government, which demonstrates both good and bad qualities, as the problem? Face it, you put your faith in the private sector and let the giant monopolies and media monoliths run rampant, and you'd end up in a situation just as bad as if the government controlled every aspect of our lives.


Good point.

So, the solution is to grow government as big as businesses are, in order to counteract any possible corruption from either group... Hmm... not a bad idea, except that big government costs a lot to keep around.

Small government to counteract small businesses, and tack on more businesses in order to counteract the other small businesses. Inexpensive small government, lots of businesses for jobs, lots of businesses of low prices. But how to achieve this without infringing on freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and property rights.

[Neserk]

There are things that government ought to not be in doing.
One of them is wealth redistribution.


You would feel differently if you were being discriminated against everytime you turn around. While the idea that you can do anything you want to in life makes for nice plaques and greeting cards, the reality is that for many of us there are barriers all over the place.

Oh, and your sentiment is not very Christian. Jesus was all about wealth redistribution. In fact, he commanded it!

[Frohickey]

You would feel differently if you were being discriminated against everytime you turn around. While the idea that you can do anything you want to in life makes for nice plaques and greeting cards, the reality is that for many of us there are barriers all over the place.

Oh, and your sentiment is not very Christian. Jesus was all about wealth redistribution. In fact, he commanded it!

Voluntary... as in giving to charities. I don't think Jesus espoused killing people if they did not give to the poor. I don't think Jesus espoused killing people if they did not join the religion. But wait, I thought that religion was anathema to leftists? Everywhere you turn, you see them trying to exorcise religion from everyday life.

Discriminated against, no, I guess not. But have you ever been beat up by a street thug because of they way you looked? When you were 14 years old? No, not discriminated against. :(

[zimv20]

I don't think Jesus espoused killing people if they did not give to the poor.
has anyone ever espoused that?

[Frohickey]

has anyone ever espoused that?

Don't pay your taxes.
Run away from the IRS cops.

[zimv20]

Don't pay your taxes.
Run away from the IRS cops.
i'll take that as a "no"

[pseudobrit]

Don't pay your taxes.
Run away from the IRS cops.

Running away from the cops is illegal.

From the flat tax thread:
What ever happened to the rule of law?

[pseudobrit]

But wait, I thought that religion was anathema to leftists? Everywhere you turn, you see them trying to exorcise religion from everyday life.

That's quite the stereotype brush you're using there. FWIW, I ate a vegetarian diet today (It's Friday, Lent, and I'm Catholic).

Discriminated against, no, I guess not. But have you ever been beat up by a street thug because of they way you looked? When you were 14 years old? No, not discriminated against. :(

When I was eight I was ridiculed "fisheater" because of the way I was dressed (walking home in my parochial school uniform)

[mactastic]

But wait, I thought that religion was anathema to leftists? Everywhere you turn, you see them trying to exorcise religion from everyday life.


So it would then follow that rightists are always trying to shove religion down my throat and into public life? Everywhere you turn you see them trying to force religion into society as long as we're using the broad-brush approach.

[Neserk]

Voluntary... as in giving to charities.



Actually, "if someone asks you for your coat give them your cloak too" doesn't sound like voluntarily to me...


But wait, I thought that religion was anathema to leftists? Everywhere you turn, you see them trying to exorcise religion from everyday life.


Hardly. It is fundamentalists that are an "anathema" to the left. Those darn squeaky wheels!

[musicpyrite]

Even if I did have a gf, I still couldn't get laid, even if she had to drag me away from the computer. NOBODY an my school wants to have sex with me because I'm too geeky. From 5 A.M. when I wake up to go to shcool to 6 P.M. I'm doing only school work, and form then on till I go to bed I'm on the computer.

BTW, I do think abstinence is a good way to prevent STDs, but kids (myself included, being only 15) still don't know enough about sex and the dangers of it. Kids at my school talk about sex like they would drugs, its o.k. if nobody does't find out. Goes back to the saying 'it's not illegal untill you get cought'

I hate it where I got to shcool. :(

[Neserk]

Even if I did have a gf, I still couldn't get laid, even if she had to drag me away from the computer. NOBODY an my school wants to have sex with me because I'm too geeky. From 5 A.M. when I wake up to go to shcool to 6 P.M. I'm doing only school work, and form then on till I go to bed I'm on the computer.

BTW, I do think abstinence is a good way to prevent STDs, but kids (myself included, being only 15) still don't know enough about sex and the dangers of it. Kids at my school talk about sex like they would drugs, its o.k. if nobody does't find out. Goes back to the saying 'it's not illegal untill you get cought'

I hate it where I got to shcool. :(


Wow, well, the probably are more talk than action, that is the way of a teenager ;)

Sex can wait. You have plenty of time.