Surprise, surprise . . . abstinence only ed sux

[sMiLeYz]

The point is here .--------------------------------------------------- <----- Daniel you're there.

"Abstinence only" based Sexual programs DON'T WORK. The regions with that program have the highest unwanted pregnecies, according to studies. It's NOT because Abstinence doesn't work... of course it works damn well. But people who want to have sex will do so anyway... so why not educate them in the proper methods of using condoms, or pills. This isn't about church bashing, this is about common sense. It's like abortion, people think making it illegal will make it go away. Ever heard of the prohibition? That worked out splendid.

This is why common sense and science > ideology.

Always.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
But people who want to have sex will do so anyway... so why not educate them in the proper methods of using condoms, or pills.

#1 because it gives a false sense of safety. #2 it doesn't teach them about the emotional consequences. These abstinence pledges are idiotic. The fact is we've never seen an abstinence only program. It would work very well if practical advice was given for adhering to abstinence. Kids need to be presented with options and should be advised to refrain from consciously putting themselves in tempting situations. They see the positive side of sex all the time, but need to also see that there are possible negative consequences. Condoms and pills apply not just to sex outside marriage but to monogomous couples as well, so teaching their use is fine. Thinking that teaching their use is all you have to do is foolish at best and promotes a morally-impoverished society at worst.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Maybe you misunderstood me, hero... but I stand with you on this almost 100%.

There ARE however, programs out there in Texas, South Carolina, Georgia that insist on teaching sex ed with only abstinence in mind, no contraceptives or any sort of preventive methods. These are the programs I was refering to. They sound ideal, but they would never work because our world is less than ideal.

 

[Jhhnn]

There ARE however, programs out there in Texas, South Carolina, Georgia that insist on teaching sex ed with only abstinence in mind, no contraceptives or any sort of preventive methods. These are the programs I was refering to. They sound ideal, but they would never work because our world is less than ideal.

Yep, and they'll be everywhere, if the Bushies have their way...

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_abstinence.htm

Spend twice as much to achieve inferior results- but the kids'll know it's wrong, so they'll want to do it more than ever...

Welcome to the pendejo factory, where they turn reasonably intelligent people into utter fools....

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

#1 because it gives a false sense of safety. #2 it doesn't teach them about the emotional consequences.

The rest of your post was quite reasonable but these two elements are ridiculous. Any program teaching children that barrier methods make sex risk free should be shut down immediately. A good sex ed program provides accurate information through an authority figure with a message that sex should wait until marriage BUT if you choose not to wait then here are your options for reducing your risks.

You can no more teach the "emotional consequences of sex" than you can teach compassionate conservatism. Arguably just like sex ed . . . teaching emotional consequences is a parent function. And if parents choose not to do so . . . children will just learn it on their own. Such folly is right up there with "character education" and other BS programs. If adults model appropriate behaviors children will adopt those behaviors.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best. Of course, you and the other anit-religion folks out there will find any excuse to blame churches for societal problems.

You must be in heaven, daniel, as ignorance is bliss:

Rare at best?

Bush's abstinence program:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/7943995.htm

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work

Notice the word used in that article... "proposing". That's right... it hasn't happened yet. Not to mention, this program would only add to the current sexual education that kids receive, it wouldn't replace the old condom on a banana talk.

So, like I said before: Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best.

 

[0roo0roo]

nothing new about conservatives ignoring science that doesn't fit their agenda
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best. Of course, you and the other anit-religion folks out there will find any excuse to blame churches for societal problems.

You must be in heaven, daniel, as ignorance is bliss:

Rare at best?

Bush's abstinence program:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/7943995.htm

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work

Notice the word used in that article... "proposing". That's right... it hasn't happened yet. Not to mention, this program would only add to the current sexual education that kids receive, it wouldn't replace the old condom on a banana talk.

So, like I said before: Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best.

Yep...it's **OFFICIAL** and **CONFIRMED**

daniel1113 is blissfully in heaven as he is VERY ignorant.

Ok, daniel, see those three words after the word "proposing"? They are (and I'll highlight them for you) "to double spending". See, daniel, these programs already exist. Bush is only proposing to double the spending on existing projects.

There...I hope I've made it clear this time.

What a maroon!

 

[Czesia]

I agree, abstinence is not easy for any person to adhere to, let alone pledge to remain abstinant until marriage. I agree that children need to see the negative effects of STDs and the psychological damage that having sex before one is ready can cause, because condoms can't protect you from all of these things.

As far as birth control goes, abstinence is the only foolproof method. The problem is sticking to it. Educate your kids for goodness sake!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Hahaha... this article is pointless.

Of course just about any group of people that participates in sexual intercourse will have a similar STD rate... they are all having sex whether or not they pledged abstinence or not.

However, I guarantee those that chose abstinence and stuck with it didn't have a single STD.

or at least so very low that it's not worth the mention.

but informed honest information about the safety of condoms as normally used, combined with free access to them, is a very good idea.

sex education should start w/ the dangers of sex even w/ condoms, middle up with proper use, and end with the virtues and benefits of abstinence.

conjur, how does bush proposing doubling spending translate to being against it?

 

[Tom]

What does abstinence have to do with sex education ?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

conjur, how does bush proposing doubling spending translate to being against it?

WTF are you talking about? Against what? Abstinence? Sex education?

Speak English, man!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
What does abstinence have to do with sex education ?

Utility. Educating people to be abstinent is as usefully as educating them to use condoms; in combination they will provide the most utility when educating people about how to best avoid STDs.

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

conjur, how does bush proposing doubling spending translate to being against it?

WTF are you talking about? Against what? Abstinence? Sex education?

Speak English, man!

Notice the word used in that article... "proposing". That's right... it hasn't happened yet. Not to mention, this program would only add to the current sexual education that kids receive, it wouldn't replace the old condom on a banana talk.

So, like I said before: Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best.

To this you called him ignorant? now i realize you are reading the article differently than I because of the code-words used to pull at your emotional bias in this report.

programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS

the fact is condoms don't; but the vast majority of these programs do mention condoms as a way to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy and aids; just not as a way to prevent such things.

see, the bias of the report has you all twisted around; bush is pushing for doubling funding that focuses on the socially-sound virtue of absence, the big-bold words are intended to be mis-understood by the reader as 'bars condoms in sex ed' when in fact it simply bars saying that condoms are as usefully as the progressive community would like to think they are.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
What does abstinence have to do with sex education ?

Utility. Educating people to be abstinent is as usefully as educating them to use condoms; in combination they will provide the most utility when educating people about how to best avoid STDs.

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

conjur, how does bush proposing doubling spending translate to being against it?

WTF are you talking about? Against what? Abstinence? Sex education?

Speak English, man!

Notice the word used in that article... "proposing". That's right... it hasn't happened yet. Not to mention, this program would only add to the current sexual education that kids receive, it wouldn't replace the old condom on a banana talk.

So, like I said before: Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best.

To this you called him ignorant? now i realize you are reading the article differently than I because of the code-words used to pull at your emotional bias in this report.

Again, LMK, speak English!

WTF are you talking about? My emotional bias? It's in PLAIN FREAKIN' TEXT!

Let's go over this...again:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work

You see...Bush's administration is proposing (wants to) double the spending (increase funding...not start funding...but increase funding) on sexual abstinence programs (these programs ALREADY exist) that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS (can't talk about the pill, condoms, etc.) despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.

There...did that get through your thick skull that time?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You cannot spearhead your sex ed program with "Sex is evil until marriage and it might kill you!" Children with cognitive skills comparable to the President . . . yeah I know . . . low floor . . . can understand that there must be SOMETHING good about sex and I'm not talking about kids or tax credits.

You can couch sex as something special that you should only share within the context of a loving, committed relationship. It's a clear, concise message of self-respect and respect for others but if the kids' families (and media viewing habits) contradict that message . . . there's little hope for success. In any case, the flipside is providing factual information about the risks involved with sex and how to mitigate those risks if children choose not to wait for a committed relationship.

Now the issue of alternatives to sex . . . I'm not so sure about that b/c as I note in a previous post I'm not convinced that heavy petting and certainly not oral sex are not morally equivalent to sex. Naturally, that last part is for people that make a moral case for abstinence.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS (can't talk about the pill, condoms, etc.)

They don't prevent pregnancy and AIDS; they just reduce the likely hood; programs that don't describe condoms as a way to prevent aids and pregnancy, but simply reduce the likelihood, are still being doubled, as long as they also have an abstinence view as well.

please be less haughty and more thoughtfully.

You cannot spearhead your sex ed program with "Sex is evil until marriage and it might kill you!"

you can spear head it with "extra-marital sex is dangerous, it might kill you or otherwise ruin your life, condom use can reduce the likelihood of this, but never eliminate it, one out of seven average couples using condoms will have a pregnancy; you are playing Russian roulette if you are extra-marital sexual active"; then explain "to get the most utility from a condom you..."; then "but the emotional and personal benefits, beyond not pulling that trigger on the gun, of not having extra martial sex include having a deeper more uniq relationship with your spouse, an assurance that you can never bring a negative disease to your partner because of your loving acts of sex, and the knowledge that their will be no pre-standing emotional baggage that might lead to major marital problems or even divorce"

spend as long on the middle part as needed, give out the info for the first and third parts as needed; over all it shouldn't take more than a class period; unless it's indoctrination-education.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS (can't talk about the pill, condoms, etc.)

They don't prevent pregnancy and AIDS; they just reduce the likely hood; programs that don't describe condoms as a way to prevent aids and pregnancy, but simply reduce the likelihood, are still being doubled, as long as they also have an abstinence view as well.

please be less haughty and more thoughtfull.

No wonder you believe in a Young Earth...your mind is incapable of thought.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

No wonder you believe in a Young Earth...your mind is incapable of thought.

i feel sorry for you brother, i hope you get better soon.

Condoms don't prevent pregnancy and AIDS; they just reduce the likely hood; programs that don't describe condoms as a way to prevent aids and pregnancy, but simply reduce the likelihood, are still proposed to have resources doubled, as long as they have an abstinence view as well.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

you can spear head it with "extra-marital sex is dangerous, it might kill you or otherwise ruin your life, condom use can reduce the likelihood of this, but never eliminate it, one out of seven average couples using condoms will have a pregnancy; you are playing Russian roulette if you are extra-marital sexual active";

Extra-marital sex is no more dangerous than a myriad of other activities that we do not regulate (or actively admonish children to delay). Per episode . . . sex is highly unlikely to kill or otherwise ruin your life. The statistic that 1in 7 average condom-using couples have a pregnancy is an argument for better sex ed not abstinence. Inappropriate use of condoms is the primary reason they fail to reach actual efficacy levels of 93% (efficacy refers to how often an intervention works if used appropriately). That's why you teach proper condom technique.

The leader of a sex ed class is there to provide facts . . . you let the kids provide opinion. And the time commitment is not a class period . . . it's a continuing dialogue where children feel comfortable about asking parents, teachers, and community leaders about sex. Virtually everything you cite is where ignorance is allowed to grow in fertile minds and nubile bodies. Explanations about the true fertility potential of adolescents will carry far more weight than hyperbole about Russian roulette.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

No wonder you believe in a Young Earth...your mind is incapable of thought.

i feel sorry for you brother, i hope you get better soon.

Condoms don't prevent pregnancy and AIDS; they just reduce the likely hood; programs that don't describe condoms as a way to prevent aids and pregnancy, but simply reduce the likelihood, are still proposed to have resources doubled, as long as they have an abstinence view as well.

No one ever said condoms prevent pregnancy.

Bush's abstinence-only programs would forbid even mentioning condoms and other birth control methods. It's turning a blind eye and is utterly foolish.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

any program teaching children that barrier methods make sex risk free should be shut down immediately.

i'm glad you are along with the bush admin on this one then

Explanations about the true fertility potential of adolescents will carry far more weight than hyperbole about Russian roulette.

I said support the information with the facts.

So because you think it's ignorance to inform children of the probability of outcomes when the choice to become sexual active is made we should ignore an aspect of teaching that would reduce STDs and teen-pregnancy? If this is your end-point it's no more well-informed or intelligent than the anti-condom people's view.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

...your mind is incapable of thought.

i feel sorry for you brother, i hope you get better soon.

Condoms don't prevent pregnancy and AIDS; they just reduce the likely hood; programs that don't describe condoms as a way to prevent aids and pregnancy, but simply reduce the likelihood, are still proposed to have resources doubled, as long as they have an abstinence view as well.

No one ever said condoms prevent pregnancy.

Bush's abstinence-only programs would forbid even mentioning condoms and other birth control methods. It's turning a blind eye and is utterly foolish.

read the article again:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work

see, the discussion of condoms to prevent pregnancy or aids is what's not being given added funding. The use of them as a way to reduce the likelihood of aids or pregnancy can still be part of a program that also has abstinence taught as well.

I know the words "bar any discussion" are emotionally-encoded words designed to get you to ignore the facts being reported, but please try to look past this libertine bias; be well brother.

 

[conjur]

I cannot control what that article writer wrote, literally, but you know that was not the intention.

Ok, fine, here are some more articles:

http://www.magicvalley.com/news/worldnation/index.asp?StoryID=7998

As President Bush seeks to double funding for abstinence-only education, skeptics are urging closer scrutiny of the grant recipients -- many of them religious and anti-abortion groups which in the past did not operate extensively in public schools.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=36144

But, instead of increasing support for this tried and true program, the Bush administration is increasing federal dollars for unproven, abstinence-only programs

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I said support the information with the facts.

So because you think it's ignorance to inform children of the probability of outcomes when the choice to become sexual active is made we should ignore an aspect of teaching that would reduce STDs and teen-pregnancy?

Maybe you are ESL so let me try again. You cannot support the information with the facts because the information provided is the facts. I repeat you let the children guide the editorializing and opinion. Let them debate the pros and cons. The instructor provides clear, concise facts and then facilitates discussion about sex and its societal context.

I didn't say your probability example was ignorance . . . just inaccurate. The truth is that condoms are a highly effective means of mitigating the risk of pregnancy and STD. After citing the discrepancy between efficacy (ideal use) and effectiveness (actual use), children are queried as to why the difference exists. It's the dialogue that teaches and provides a lasting impression . . . not some poo about the evils of extra-marital sex.

Or in the context of new studies like the abstinence-pledge I cited . . . a spirited discussion on what kids think. Let's pretend Britney Spears was a virgin before she married . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . . if she gets married, consummates the union, and then gets a divorce . . . most kids (and hopefully adults) would tell you that pledge didn't mean jack.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

you let the children guide the editorializing and opinion. Let them debate the pros and cons... Britney Spears

means that at-risk kids that need help with sex-ed that the parents should provide but aren't, don't need help with honest perspectives about the negative consequences of pre-marital sexual activity? i don't quite follow your logic there. or do you just dis-like that it poses facts that are contrary to what you belive to be good social behavior? I'm not judging you, but we've got a major problems with un-wed pregnancies and STDs and your value judgments shouldn't keep us from doing everything we can to help end the problem; nor should the anti-condom folk's.

Originally posted by: conjur
I cannot control what that article writer wrote, literally, but you know that was not the intention.

Ok, fine, here are some more articles:

http://www.magicvalley.com/news/worldnation/index.asp?StoryID=7998

As President Bush seeks to double funding for abstinence-only education, skeptics are urging closer scrutiny of the grant recipients -- many of them religious and anti-abortion groups which in the past did not operate extensively in public schools.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=36144

But, instead of increasing support for this tried and true program, the Bush administration is increasing federal dollars for unproven, abstinence-only programs

other articles, well that's fine, but that hardly means you have any right to insult people for reading what's written instead of what you wanted to read into it. Haughty behavior is never going to gain you anything but an ulcer.

that said, I know what the white-house actually says about it's proposal for AIDS reduction

We're looking at reducing the number of exposures, i.e., that's the abstinence and faithfulness component, and also reducing the risk of transmission during any particular exposure, which is the condom and eventually vaccine.

- whitehouse.gov

they belive in condoms along with abstinence, as do I.