|
|
|
BlueCollarScientist
New Member
23 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2008 : 19:10:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Obviously, the "safer sex" message has not produced the desired results or the government would not be looking into abstinence only programs for the schools. |
Er, what?
The only reason that the government could possibly be "looking into abstinence only programs" is that "safer sex" education doesn't work?
It could not possibly be that they are looking into it because a congressman is trying to do a favor for a donor/constituent who has put together such a program and wants to sell it?
It could not possibly be that some in the government have a cultural/ideological/religious reason to favor abstinence only education and are promoting it for that/those reasons?
It could not possibly be that some decisions in government are made for reasons other than efficacy?
Or, IMO more likely, could it be that the word "obviously" is a sign of a flawed cognitive process here? |
http://bluecollarscientist.com/ |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 06:08:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Specious reasoning. The "safer sex" message has only not produced the results that unrealistic religious prudes desire. |
So you don't have a concern with 16.6% of the SIXTH and SEVENTH graders studied reporting back to having sexual intercourse, after going through a safer sex program and knowing that many are not putting the safer education into practice? Safer Sex education or not I am alarmed by that number. I was 11 years old in the sixth grade.
And the same study showed that those who went through abstinence education reported a 20% sexually active rate in the sixth and seventh grades. |
So you finally agree that "Safe Sex" has actually produced better numbers than "abstinence only".
| Abstinence-only was instituted with the ludicrous and totally unrealistic idea that if you tell teenagers to not have sex, they won't have sex. |
In todays society I am afraid you are correct. I mean the mixed messages the kids get today ...
<snip>
...
... I mean they may get one or two speeches form boring mom and dad or a lame teacher about abstinence and the rest of their life they are being saturated with sex on the net, tv, music, movies etc.... |
By teaching Abstinence Only, what you're practically doing is telling your kids "Don't do this!" and guess what revolting teens will do? They will go for it, partly just because it's forbidden fruit. Testing the limits and exploring the unknown.
If the kids are "saturated" in school with safe sex education (and I'm not just talking about teaching about the failure rate of contraceptives, and how to properly use it) but also teach them how sex is used for emotional bonding, how to respect each other and why, and how being drunk reduces the enjoyment having sex. Prude Christian parents who create a taboo around sex for their children puts them in higher risk of screwing up.
Also, allowing girls to have the opportunity to get pills without their parents knowledge will also lower teen pregnancy. Just because a girl is on the pills doesn't necessarily mean she will have sex but that's beside the point. If she wants to have sex, it's better that she can get pills without her parents consent, than getting herself knocked up because she wouldn't dare ask her parents for them.
This was done in Sweden with good effect, so we know it works.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 06:57:25 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Abstinence-only is the only true path to completely avoid the pitfalls of teen sex. |
Except for rape. |
I am not sure If I follow. Are you saying no pitfalls for the rapist? Although I would say that getting caught by the athorites would be a pitfall. |
No, I'm saying that rape means that abstinence isn't 100% effective in preventing pregnancy or STDs. |
Although I would suspect the overall percent of American women being raped would be fairly low that is a valid point. So I guess it would only be logical then to give the kids the facts on abstinence, the facts on safer sex, the facts on unprotected sex, and the facts on rape. And then hopefully that will help them not put themselves in a dangerous situation.
| Specious reasoning. The "safer sex" message has only not produced the results that unrealistic religious prudes desire. |
So you don't have a concern with 16.6% of the SIXTH and SEVENTH graders studied reporting back to having sexual intercourse, after going through a safer sex program and knowing that many are not putting the safer education into practice? Safer Sex education or not I am alarmed by that number. I was 11 years old in the sixth grade. |
What the hell, Bill? "Don't have a concern?" Of course I do. |
That's my point. Sure, at 20% the abstinence only did not perform as well as safer sex statistically , but when16.6% of 6th and 7th graders report back to being sexually active, whether some are practicing safer sex or not, is way beyond the first alarming concern, which is that 16.6-20% of 6th & 7th graders are reporting that they are sexually active! I was 10 years old when I started the the 6th grade!
| After examining the numbers, yes, safer sex might be getting some better results then abstinence, for the reasons I mentioned above, but neither is producing numbers that are worth bragging about. |
The only way to really determine whether the numbers are good or bad is to look at rates of sexual activity, pregnancy and STDs in teenagers who have had no sex-ed at all. And such a study would now be considered highly unethical. So we're left with knowing that abstinence-only is worse than regular sex-ed, but we'll never really know how much better either one is compared to no sex-ed. |
Again, I get the impression that your position is that you can only teach one or the other. I don't agree. I would hope that you would agree that in todays world it would be insane to give the kids no sex-ed period. Do we really need a study to come to that conclusion? But when you got 16.6% of your 6th and 7th graders being sexually active you got a problem. Sure 20% is even worse, but that does not mean that 16.6% is now somehow an acceptable number, just because it wasn't the worst. That is why I lean toward abstinence plus education.
Give the kids the facts and figures on abstinence, safer sex, unprotected sex, and rape. I think this gives the kids more to work with then just giving them the abstinence message or the safer sex message, but not both.
Although in todays society I understand that abstinence goes completely against the grain of Hollywood, pop-culture music, magazines, teen retail stores at the mall, and most other media outlets that teens go to, as well as what many teens see from their own parents. So you can have a teacher give them an abstinence based message in school, and maybe just maybe mom and dad will promote this as well, but the teen will still be saturated and hard pressed with sexual imageries and activity from so many outside sources that it is an uphill battle, to say the least, for any teen who decides they want to remain abstinent. I believe it will take a culture shift before our young people will ever follow suit. They mostly will mimic the culture around them.
| That is why I mentioned that I would be in favor of the abstinence plus education method. Teach the kids the facts and risk factor that come with abstinence and encourage this route with mouth and deed. |
When I was in sixth and seventh grade (almost 30 years ago), our sex-ed was just that. "Here are the risks, here is what contraception can and can't do, but the safest method is simply to not have sex." If the school districts where abstinence-only has been implemented were anything like mine, then the kids have been robbed of actual education. |
Let me ask you this, Dave, personally, with your own son, do you believe that it is your responsibility or the governments to teach your son the birds and the bees if you will? Never mind the issue of whether parents actually take the call of this responsibility, but do you believe it is your responsibility or the governments to decide what information little johnny needs and when to give it to him?
Because I believe that it is totally the parents responsibility and for parents to give up this responsibility to the government is like playing Russian roulette with your child's future, IMO
| In todays society I don't think the answer is as black and white as simply teaching one method and completely ruling out the other. No matter what side of the fence you fall on. |
Never said it was. |
But I am not convinced that you don't believe it.
| My bolding. Glad you finally came around to reality. |
Which reality are you referring to? |
The reality in which a teenager who vehemently tries to maintain abstinence is not 100% safe, through no fault of their own. |
Yes, you are correct. I did leave out the percentage of rape victims |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 07:23:53 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: | I am not sure If I follow. Are you saying no pitfalls for the rapist? Although I would say that getting caught by the athorites would be a pitfall. |
Rape is one of the hardest crimes to convict for, particularly because most rapes are date rapes and it often boils down to his word verses her word.
| Although I would suspect the overall percent of American women being raped would be fairly low that is a valid point. |
Actually, it is pretty common, and younger, more innocent and inexperienced women and girls are most vulnerable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Rape_statistics
I personally know 7 women who were raped, and all were either in high school or freshmen and sophomores in college. One was raped by a random stranger outside her family's house when she was a teenager. One was in the beginning stages of developing schizophrenia. She was only 15 and had started to hear voices. Out of fear and confusion, she began coping with illegal drugs. At a party she got drunk and high and passed out, and she woke up the next day, raped and pregnant. The other women I know were date raped. One was dating a guy who she was seriously crushing on. I met him and he seemed really wonderful. They were making out at his place and he forced himself on her. His roommate showed up while she was struggling, and quietly left when he saw what was happening. There was nothing she could do afterward. How could she prove he had forced himself on her when she was over his apartment on a date?
From the Wikipedia article (bolding is mine): | In the United States, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%.[39] But other government surveys, such as the Sexual Victimization of College Women study, critique the NCVS on the basis it includes only those acts perceived as crimes by the victim, and report a higher victimization rate. |
One of my friends who was date raped has refused to call it “rape” because she had flirted and dressed sexy - even though she clearly told the guy “no” and started crying when he forced himself on her. She told me this whole story 2 years after the fact, and when I called it “rape” she turned red and forced a laugh, saying, “No, no, no.” Gotta wonder how many women with experiences like that are out there.
| So I guess it would only be logical then to give the kids the facts on abstinence, the facts on safer sex, the facts on unprotected sex, and the facts on rape. And then hopefully that will help them not put themselves in a dangerous situation. |
I totally agree. Especially considering that some form of safe sex are practically as good as abstinence, and even better when used in combination. After all, married and other committed couples have been using safe sex with huge amounts of success for decades now. Tweens and teens have a right to know the simple facts about it all. Unfortunately, education is never the same as experience, so young, hormone-raging teens are always going to make more mistakes than adults. You are right about hoping for the best.
I'm depressed now. 
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/07/2008 07:27:38 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 07:28:05 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
| So you finally agree that "Safe Sex" has actually produced better numbers than "abstinence only". |
I don't recall ever not agreeing.
| By teaching Abstinence Only, what you're practically doing is telling your kids "Don't do this!" and guess what revolting teens will do? They will go for it, partly just because it's forbidden fruit. Testing the limits and exploring the unknown. |
That is why I would lean toward a abstinence plus education approach. Have you been reading my posts?
| If the kids are "saturated" in school with safe sex education (and I'm not just talking about teaching about the failure rate of contraceptives, and how to properly use it) but also teach them how sex is used for emotional bonding, how to respect each other and why, and how being drunk reduces the enjoyment having sex. Prude Christian parents who create a taboo around sex for their children puts them in higher risk of screwing up. |
Yeah, that fact that our whole culture and pop-culture (USA) is so saturated with sexual activity of all kinds and that we have 17-20% of our 6th and 7th graders report to being sexually active can all be traced back to "Prude Christians." Give me a break!
| Also, allowing girls to have the opportunity to get pills without their parents knowledge will also lower teen pregnancy. Just because a girl is on the pills doesn't necessarily mean she will have sex but that's beside the point. If she wants to have sex, it's better that she can get pills without her parents consent, than getting herself knocked up because she wouldn't dare ask her parents for them. |
Don't take this personal, but I believe you to be insane if you suggest that the government, on any level, should be able to administer medications of any kind to my kids, without me knowing about it first. This ain't Nazi Germany here, pal. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 07:37:35 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by marfknox |
I totally agree. Especially considering that some form of safe sex are practically as good as abstinence, and even better when used in combination. After all, married and other committed couples have been using safe sex with huge amounts of success for decades now. Tweens and teens have a right to know the simple facts about it all. Unfortunately, education is never the same as experience, so young, hormone-raging teens are always going to make more mistakes than adults. You are right about hoping for the best.
I'm depressed now. |
Let me ask you, Marf, do you believe that it is the parents responsibility or the governments to teach a child about sex?
I understand that many will say it has become the governments responsability when parents fail to do so but that is not what I am asking. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 08:50:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Again, I get the impression that your position is that you can only teach one or the other. I don't agree. |
Because comprehensive sex-ed includes the teaching of the pros and cons of abstinence, then there really is only one or the other. There is "teach them everything they need to know" on the one hand, and "teach them less than they need to know" on the other. Abstinence-only is in the latter category. "Abstinece plus," as you called it, is the former. I never once argued for teaching only the "safer sex message," and you know it.| I would hope that you would agree that in todays world it would be insane to give the kids no sex-ed period. Do we really need a study to come to that conclusion? |
I'm saying that without such a study, we don't know how insane it would be.| Sure 20% is even worse, but that does not mean that 16.6% is now somehow an acceptable number, just because it wasn't the worst. |
Sexual activity isn't the problem, it's the pregnancies and STDs which are. And because we'll never stop teenagers from having sex, a 0% rate is impossible. So what would be acceptable? I would concentrate on lowering the rate of consequences.| ...but the teen will still be saturated and hard pressed with sexual imageries and activity from so many outside sources that it is an uphill battle, to say the least, for any teen who decides they want to remain abstinent. I believe it will take a culture shift before our young people will ever follow suit. They mostly will mimic the culture around them. |
Well, the cultural shift already occured, over the last couple centuries. We now consider 13-year-olds too immature to be having sex, but their biology says otherwise, and marrying young used to be quite common - at least for girls, who weren't expected to get educated or have a job. These cultural shifts have happened while ignoring the fact that kids' biology won't follow suit just because we want it to. Any public health policy needs to take the biology into account (and abstinence-only simply tried to deny the biology).| Let me ask you this, Dave, personally, with your own son, do you believe that it is your responsibility or the governments to teach your son the birds and the bees if you will? Never mind the issue of whether parents actually take the call of this responsibility, but do you believe it is your responsibility or the governments to decide what information little johnny needs and when to give it to him? |
Because it is a public health issue, the responsibility lies with both. Parents are responsible for ensuring that their government does an adequate job implementing whatever public health policy is chosen by The People.| Because I believe that it is totally the parents responsibility and for parents to give up this responsibility to the government is like playing Russian roulette with your child's future, IMO |
Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. What you say is only true if the government is completely divorced from the citizenry.| In todays society I don't think the answer is as black and white as simply teaching one method and completely ruling out the other. No matter what side of the fence you fall on. |
Never said it was. |
But I am not convinced that you don't believe it. |
Well, Bill, I've never had much luck disuading you from assuming things about what I think, even though you're usually wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 09:34:27 [Permalink]
|
| Good to see Godwin's law pop up here, was wondering when that was going to happen. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 09:49:25 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Let me ask you, Marf, do you believe that it is the parents responsibility or the governments to teach a child about sex?
I understand that many will say it has become the governments responsability when parents fail to do so but that is not what I am asking. |
I have to echo all of Dave's answers to these questions. Children are not the property of their parents. Parents are the guardians of their children until the children become autonomous adults. It is society's responsibility to ensure that children have adaquate guardians. And it is the guardians' responsibility to ensure that the children in their care are properly cared for - which includes educating them about sex. Different societies are going to structure this in different ways. American society tends to have parents and schools share the responsibillity. Most kids get a introductory talk about sex from their parents when they are 8-11 years old, and they also get another introduction to sex education around 4th grade. Often there is further, more mature conversations about specific sexual behavior and choices when the kids become adolescents. The information coming from parents and schools should compliment each other: parents and private schools can get into issues of ethics and morality since that is a personal/philosophical/religious area. Public schools should stick strictly to delivering specific facts. When kids and teens get information from multiple sources and perspectives, the issues will be more prominent in their minds and they are even better equipt to make their own choices.
So the short answer is: both. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/07/2008 09:54:54 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 09:54:34 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: | Don't take this personal, but I believe you to be insane if you suggest that the government, on any level, should be able to administer medications of any kind to my kids, without me knowing about it first. This ain't Nazi Germany here, pal. |
Then pleco wrote: | Good to see Godwin's law pop up here, was wondering when that was going to happen. |
From the wiki article: | Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form. |
Certainly this is the case here since Bill, the government doesn't give teenagers birth control pills - the private medical industry does! It is you who wants the government to stop this from happening. So your Nazi comparison is not only inflammatory, it is absurd! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 11:25:06 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Because comprehensive sex-ed includes the teaching of the pros and cons of abstinence, |
And the cons to abstinence for one who actually is abstinent would be?
| then there really is only one or the other. There is "teach them everything they need to know" on the one hand, and "teach them less than they need to know" on the other. Abstinence-only is in the latter category. "Abstinece plus," as you called it, is the former. I never once argued for teaching only the "safer sex message," and you know it. |
I guess we agree then.
| I would hope that you would agree that in todays world it would be insane to give the kids no sex-ed period. Do we really need a study to come to that conclusion? |
I'm saying that without such a study, we don't know how insane it would be. |
But it would be insane.
| Sure 20% is even worse, but that does not mean that 16.6% is now somehow an acceptable number, just because it wasn't the worst. |
Sexual activity isn't the problem, it's the pregnancies and STDs which are. |
Which makes sexual activity the problem.
And safer sex, even when practiced correctly, is not a 100% guarantee against pregnancies or STD's, by any stretch of the means.
And I would say a 16.6% -20% sexual activity rate among 10-12 year olds is a problem.
| And because we'll never stop teenagers from having sex, a 0% rate is impossible. |
Actually many teens will not have sex. Which is the safest and less damaging option by far. So I would push the abstinence thing and try to keep as many as we can on that path, knowing that not all will follow.
| So what would be acceptable? |
To encourage abstinence with the safer sex and unprotected sex facts and figures to follow.
| I would concentrate on lowering the rate of consequences. |
Which we be to push abstinence first as it results in the least amount of consdquences, by far.
| Well, the cultural shift already occured, over the last couple centuries. We now consider 13-year-olds too immature to be having sex, but their biology says otherwise, and marrying young used to be quite common - at least for girls, who weren't expected to get educated or have a job. |
Well many people didn't live much past forty a couple of centuries ago either.
| These cultural shifts have happened while ignoring the fact that kids' biology won't follow suit just because we want it to. |
That does seem to create a dilemma, physically mature to reproduce by age 12, yet socially immature until at least 18.
| Any public health policy needs to take the biology into account (and abstinence-only simply tried to deny the biology). |
I see your point. When dealing with the masses, it is just a fact that while some will be abstinent, on the average 50% will not.
| Because it is a public health issue, the responsibility lies with both. |
I suppose I can see where the government might have some responsibility, but I still see the overwhelming responsibility to be that of the parents.
| Parents are responsible for ensuring that their government does an adequate job implementing whatever public health policy is chosen by The People. |
That is my concern. How many times has the government not done an adequate job with a policy chosen by the people, no mater how much we dried to ensure it?
| Because I believe that it is totally the parents responsibility and for parents to give up this responsibility to the government is like playing Russian roulette with your child's future, IMO |
Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. What you say is only true if the government is completely divorced from the citizenry. |
In a perfect world where all parents took responsibility for educating their own child in sexual matters, they would be. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 11:30:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by marfknox |
| Certainly this is the case here since Bill, the government doesn't give teenagers birth control pills - the private medical industry does! |
But is the private medical industry allowed to give out birth control, or any other medication, to minor children without the parents even knowing about it? If they can then that is insane! When I was a school boy they could not even give you an aspirin without your parents approving of it first. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 12:56:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And the cons to abstinence for one who actually is abstinent would be? |
Not having sex. Possible social ostracism.| And safer sex, even when practiced correctly, is not a 100% guarantee against pregnancies or STD's, by any stretch of the means. |
And it never will be, either. A 0% rate of STDs and pregnancies isn't the goal, because such a goal is unreasonable.| And I would say a 16.6% -20% sexual activity rate among 10-12 year olds is a problem. |
Given the current rate of STDs and pregnancy, sure. In a nearly perfect world, where protection and education combined to result in a one-in-a-million chance of STDs or pregnancy among teens, then even if every teenager were sexually active we'd only have about 21 people facing "consequences" every year. With even a "large" 20% activity rate, that would fall to only four or five kids.| And because we'll never stop teenagers from having sex, a 0% rate is impossible. |
Actually many teens will not have sex. Which is the safest and less damaging option by far. So I would push the abstinence thing and try to keep as many as we can on that path, knowing that not all will follow. |
My point, again, is simply that a 0% rate is an impossible goal. Bad policies are created when the impossible is deemed to be possible.| So what would be acceptable? |
To encourage abstinence with the safer sex and unprotected sex facts and figures to follow. |
No, no, no. What rate of disease and pregnancy among teens would be acceptable? What do you think a reasonable goal should be for sex-ed policies (among schools and parents)?| I see your point. When dealing with the masses, it is just a fact that while some will be abstinent, on the average 50% will not. |
By your own numbers, it's only 18% or so who aren't. The vast majority of teens already practice abstinence, for whatever reason(s).| That is my concern. How many times has the government not done an adequate job with a policy chosen by the people, no mater how much we dried to ensure it? |
And We the People bear the brunt of the responsibility for those failures. It's interesting to see you demand the parents take responsibility for sex-ed but try to brush off responsibility for governmental failures.| Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. What you say is only true if the government is completely divorced from the citizenry. |
In a perfect world where all parents took responsibility for educating their own child in sexual matters, they would be. |
In a perfect world, every citizen would do what needs to be done for the benefit of all, and no government would be required for any reason. In a perfect world, not only would people know the exact right moment for them to become sexually active, but STDs would be non-existant, pregnancy would occur only when truly desired, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 14:23:31 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| And the cons to abstinence for one who actually is abstinent would be? |
Not having sex. |
I suppose.
| Possible social ostracism. |
Get some new friends.
| And safer sex, even when practiced correctly, is not a 100% guarantee against pregnancies or STD's, by any stretch of the means. |
And it never will be, either. A 0% rate of STDs and pregnancies isn't the goal, because such a goal is unreasonable. |
Never said that it was. I was merrily pointing out that teen sexual activity was the problem behind teen pregnancies and teen STD's
| And I would say a 16.6% -20% sexual activity rate among 10-12 year olds is a problem. |
Given the current rate of STDs and pregnancy, sure. |
Yet you said sexual activity was not the problem when certainly it is.
| In a nearly perfect world, where protection and education combined to result in a one-in-a-million chance of STDs or pregnancy among teens, then even if every teenager were sexually active we'd only have about 21 people facing "consequences" every year. With even a "large" 20% activity rate, that would fall to only four or five kids. |
But of course we don't live in a nearly perfect world and we don't have nearly perfect protection or education.
| And because we'll never stop teenagers from having sex, a 0% rate is impossible |
.
Actually many teens will not have sex. Which is the safest and less damaging option by far. So I would push the abstinence thing and try to keep as many as we can on that path, knowing that not all will follow. |
My point, again, is simply that a 0% rate is an impossible goal. Bad policies are created when the impossible is deemed to be possible. |
I agree, which is why I lean towards pushing abstinence first with the facts and figures on safer sex and unprotected sex to follow. 50% or more of the teens will be abstinent and avoid virtually all the pitfalls of teen sex. So why would you not push this message as hard as you can knowing that many will abide? If you had information that could save the lives of 100 people but you knew that only 50% of those people would utilize that information would you then not push the information due to the 50 who failed to utilize it? Of course not!
Again, not abstinence-only, but a high emphases on abstinence with safer sex and unprotected information and figures to follow. The debate is not which safest policy as that is clearly abstinence. The debate is which will effect the most kids. Considering abstinence is the safest policy by far and that at least 50% of the teens will remain abstinent then you must push this as the most desired result for their sake. You then next can come in and present the facts and figures for safer and unprotected sex for those who will reject the abstinence policy.
| So what would be acceptable? |
To encourage abstinence with the safer sex and unprotected sex facts and figures to follow. |
No, no, no. What rate of disease and pregnancy among teens would be acceptable? What do you think a reasonable goal should be for sex-ed policies (among schools and parents)? |
Yes, yes, yes. Abstinence is the only virtual 100% way to avoid the teen sex pitfalls and knowing 50% or more will walk this path you must push this on them. Just because 50% will not listen is no reason to not push this as 50% will. You then can give the facts and figures for teen sex so that those who reject abstinence at lest have real information on STD's teen pregnancies and so forth.
| I see your point. When dealing with the masses, it is just a fact that while some will be abstinent, on the average 50% will not. |
By your own numbers, it's only 18% or so who aren't. The vast majority of teens already practice abstinence, for whatever reason(s). |
Well the 18% was for 6th and 7th graders. I thought I read by the time they leave HS around 50% will have been active in one way or another. Maybe I didn't read that.
| That is my concern. How many times has the government not done an adequate job with a policy chosen by the people, no mater how much we dried to ensure it? |
And We the People bear the brunt of the responsibility for those failures. It's interesting to see you demand the parents take responsibility for sex-ed but try to brush off responsibility for governmental failures. |
What? I am just saying that the government is full of red tape, partisan politics driving issues, and is just all around very ineffective in many of it's endeavors. They get much more wrong then they ever get right, in a nutshell. So, IMO and as a parent, it is a crap shoot, at best, to leave sexual education strictly or even mostly up to the government and public schools. But hey, that is just me. Obviously millions of parents have no trouble at all leaving this up to uncle sam. Sad IMO.
| Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. What you say is only true if the government is completely divorced from the citizenry. |
In a perfect world where all parents took responsibility for educating their own child in sexual matters, they would be. |
In a perfect world, every citizen would do what needs to be done for the benefit of all, and no government would be required for any reason. In a perfect world, not only would people know the exact right moment for them to become sexually active, but STDs would be non-existant, pregnancy would occur only when truly desired, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. |
OK then I will revise it. In world that is better then the one we currently live in most or all parents would take on the responsibility to educate their own kid in such matters and the government would not be required to come in and perform their responsibility for them. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 14:55:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I agree, which is why I lean towards pushing abstinence first with the facts and figures on safer sex and unprotected sex to follow. 50% or more of the teens will be abstinent and avoid virtually all the pitfalls of teen sex. So why would you not push this message as hard as you can knowing that many will abide? |
Because those who will abide by it will abide by it anyway. The target of preventive measures are those who will not be abstinent.| If you had information that could save the lives of 100 people but you knew that only 50% of those people would utilize that information would you then not push the information due to the 50 who failed to utilize it? Of course not! |
No, I'd spend the majority of time "pushing" it on the 50% who wouldn't use it, because the other 50% are eager to learn and so won't take much effort. Preaching to the choir is a waste of time and resources.Why do I bother? You said that the current numbers are unacceptable. I asked you what numbers would be acceptable to you. "Push abstinence" is not a number, it's a method to reach a goal. But you won't say what your goal is.| What? I am just saying that the government is full of red tape, partisan politics driving issues, and is just all around very ineffective in many of it's endeavors. They get much more wrong then they ever get right, in a nutshell. |
And you should take your fair share of the responsibility for those failures of your government, just like everyone else.| Obviously millions of parents have no trouble at all leaving this up to uncle sam. Sad IMO. |
As do they for math and science.| OK then I will revise it. In world that is better then the one we currently live in most or all parents would take on the responsibility to educate their own kid in such matters and the government would not be required to come in and perform their responsibility for them. |
That's true of any subject. When a parent lacks the resources to teach a subject well, the parent should feel good about having society help out. There are plenty of parents with sub-par educations who are taking responsibility for their child's education simply by making sure the kid goes to school every day. The highest-risk kids (with regard to sex) are probably the underprivileged ones, and it's likely there that the parents aren't going to know any more about contraception and disease transmission than what their kids can learn on the street all by themselves.
A society has an obligation to give kids any necessary knowledge that their parents cannot provide, because otherwise that society makes itself collectively dumber. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The secrets of men: unbalanced homophobia
