Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on May 08, 2007, 07:09:20 AM
-
While six states have announced their intent to refuse federal funding for abstinence-only education, a new Zogby poll points to just how out of touch those state leaders are with the people they serve. Despite leftwing pressure to abandon abstinence-only education, a survey of over 1,000 parents found overwhelming support for the programs. When the differences between comprehensive and abstinence education were explained, moms and dads supported abstinence by a two-to-one margin. Not only do 83% of parents want their children to save sex until marriage, but a majority of families believe that programs should reinforce the abstinence message when broaching sex ed. Not surprisingly, two of three parents think the potency of the "waiting to have sex" message is lost when programs demonstrate contraceptive use. As FRC prepares to meet with Capitol Hill members and staff on May 22 for Abstinence Day, this poll is yet another reason why Congress should be persuaded to reauthorize funding for Title V abstinence education this June. Already, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and others have openly attacked abstinence programs and made clear their intentions of redirecting that money to groups like Planned Parenthood. Their push for birth control over self-control will be mightily challenged by FRC's vice president for government affairs, Tom McClusky, who was just named by The Hill newspaper as one of "The Greatest in Helping the Grassroots Grow." As Tom says, his voice would carry very little weight on the Hill without yours. Urge your congressmen to uphold the wishes of parents across America who believe in abstinence education as the way to promote healthy and happy futures for kids.
-
"Abstinence" should be taught right along side sexual health/contraception. Let parents rely on the effectiveness of their parenting skills for influencing the decisions made by their children with respect to handling the teen-age sexual impulse.
More choices in sex education, not less, is the answer.
-
"Abstinence" should be taught right along side sexual health/contraception. Let parents rely on the effectiveness of their parenting skills for influencing the decisions made by their children with respect to handling the teen-age sexual impulse.
More choices in sex education, not less, is the answer.
I'd prefer to see abstinence thought and nothing else. It wasn't until sex education was introduced that teen pregnancy numbers began to rise. Even with all of the sexual health/contraception that is provided today, we're still seeing an incredible increase in STD's. Plus, I believe this causes confusion for young people. Boundaries exist for a reason. The younger you are, the tighter your boundaries should be. This, imo, produces a more well-rounded adult who can make more mature decisions and encounter less mistakes.
-
It's the right idea, but perhaps the wrong execution of it. Real teaching begins at home, not in the class room. If you don't teach sex ed, where will they learn it? At home and where?
-
It's the right idea, but perhaps the wrong execution of it. Real teaching begins at home, not in the class room. If you don't teach sex ed, where will they learn it? At home and where?
I agree with you wholeheartedly, OzmO. It's up to the parents to teach our kids about sexuality. We shouldn't leave that up to the government.
-
I agree with you wholeheartedly, OzmO. It's up to the parents to teach our kids about sexuality. We shouldn't leave that up to the government.
Yeah, the bases of most of the best solutions are at home with parents. The problem however, is that the parents fall short in many cases.
I remember sex education when i was 14 in 1979 it was for 1 semester. It was really about learning the process of conception and the anatomy of the parts involved. I don't remember anything beyond that. But maybe that's changed.
-
I agree with you wholeheartedly, OzmO. It's up to the parents to teach our kids about sexuality. We shouldn't leave that up to the government.
Why should the academic subject of sexual health be treated any different than geography or math?
Isn't more knowledge better than any well-intentioned prophylactic measure?
Isn't it better to teach facts rather than order students to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend sexual health is out-of-bounds?
As for parents teaching anything, on the whole, parents are not experts in even remedial educational topics. They are a poor substitute for academic pursuits.
-
Why should the academic subject of sexual health be treated any different than geography or math?
Isn't more knowledge better than any well-intentioned prophylactic measure?
Isn't it better to teach facts rather than order students to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend sexual health is out-of-bounds?
As for parents teaching anything, on the whole, parents are not experts in even remedial educational topics. They are a poor substitute for academic pursuits.
Becuase if they screw up in math they don't get pregnant.
And yes, the parents aren't educated. They need to be. But we are 400 billion in debt so now we are screwed. ;D
-
Becuase if they screw up in math they don't get pregnant.
And yes, the parents aren't educated. They need to be.
Your observation is facile. How does screwing up in sexual health ed. result in pregnancy?
I am arguing that more facts about sexual health are better.
How does factual information about pregnancy and STDs cause teens to become more promiscuous?
I don't buy that at all.
To me, the 'abstinence only' crowd moralizes in a vacuum.
-
Your observation is facile. How does screwing up in sexual health ed. result in pregnancy?
I am arguing that more facts about sexual health is better.
How does factual information about pregnancy and STDs cause teens to become more promiscuous?
I don't buy that at all.
To me, the 'abstinence only' crowd moralizes in a vacuum.
Yeah, you have a point.
Parents should teach abstinence and where they fail, the schools should pick up the slack.
In theory, the best education begins at home. But in reality, it doesn't happen.
-
Your observation is facile. How does screwing up in sexual health ed. result in pregnancy?
I am arguing that more facts about sexual health are better.
How does factual information about pregnancy and STDs cause teens to become more promiscuous?
I don't buy that at all.
To me, the 'abstinence only' crowd moralizes in a vacuum.
I agree and excellent post. There seems to be a certain percentage of parents that are deathly afraid of their children learning anything in regards to sex. It's as if they believe education is a license to become sexually active. IMO the more knowledge (good and bad) a child has the less likely he is to do something rash. Isn't it a good thing for kids to know the dangers of being sexually active?
And let's not bury our heads in the sand, certain kids are going to be sexually active no matter what they know or don't know. It's the nature of the beast.
-
Its not the governments job..pure and simply. The government should not be involved. Uncle Sam wether on the local/state/ or federal level is way to involved in everything. And its generally stupid crap like a permit to have a yard sale.
-
Its not the governments job..pure and simply. The government should not be involved. Uncle Sam wether on the local/state/ or federal level is way to involved in everything. And its generally stupid crap like a permit to have a yard sale.
It is the government's job to educate its citizenry.
It is in the country's best interest to have an educated citizenry.
Why is sex ed. any different?
-
Its not the governments job..pure and simply. The government should not be involved. Uncle Sam wether on the local/state/ or federal level is way to involved in everything. And its generally stupid crap like a permit to have a yard sale.
Agreed.
Smack your kid in the back of the head and tell him to not fuck a chick without a rubber.
-
Agreed.
Smack your kid in the back of the head and tell him to not fuck a chick without a rubber.
In the heat of the moment it's easy to forget the smack and the rubber...... ;D
-
Don't be a pussy, BEAT YOUR KID!
And I don't blame your for forgetting the condom.
-
Not only do 83% of parents want their children to save sex until marriage, but a majority of families believe that programs should reinforce the abstinence message when broaching sex ed.
You mean the federal government wants to endorse an idea that an overwhelming majority of parents support?
It is obvious that the whole liberal condom emphasis has been a complete failure. They don't stop the spread of disease, they haven't slowed the pregnancy rates, and I doubt guys use them consistently. And you're absolutely right that abstinence and condoms/birth control send mixed messages to kids.
-
You mean the federal government wants to endorse an idea that an overwhelming majority of parents support?
It is obvious that the whole liberal condom emphasis has been a complete failure. They don't stop the spread of disease, they haven't slowed the pregnancy rates, and I doubt guys use them consistently. And you're absolutely right that abstinence and condoms/birth control send mixed messages to kids.
Have any studies, polls, or links on this?
-
Have any studies, polls, or links on this?
Not handy. Hedge posted a link once that showed STD rates have either remained constant or increased over the past 20 some odd years. I don't believe pregnancy rates have slowed. And re guys using condoms? C'mon. You know good and well that a man, particularly a young man, who experiences sex with and without a condom will quickly abandon condoms.
-
You mean the federal government wants to endorse an idea that an overwhelming majority of parents support?
It is obvious that the whole liberal condom emphasis has been a complete failure. They don't stop the spread of disease, they haven't slowed the pregnancy rates, and I doubt guys use them consistently. And you're absolutely right that abstinence and condoms/birth control send mixed messages to kids.
Condoms do what they are supposed to do: reduce the risk of pregnancy and of contracting/spreading STDs. They do that job quite well. http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf
"Abstinence only" is a laudable goal but in the real world it is highly impractical.
In short, your analogical worries about whether 'guys use them consistently' or sending 'mixed messages to kids' are unfounded and fall before real empirical evidence of the obvious success of condoms in america.
-
Condoms do what they are supposed to do: reduce the risk of pregnancy and of contracting/spreading STDs. They do that job quite well. http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf
"Abstinence only" is a laudable goal but in the real world it is highly impractical.
In short, your analogical worries about whether 'guys use them consistently' or sending 'mixed messages to kids' are unfounded and fall before real empirical evidence of the obvious success of condoms in america.
Guys don't use condoms. Have you ever spent time in a male locker room? College campuses? Unless there has a been a sea change since I was in those environments as a student and athlete (or athlete-student :)), there is no consistent, widespread use of condoms.
I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but Hedge posted an article once that showed STD rates have either remained constant or increased.
I am one who believes kids can actually exercise self control. They aren't animals. Throwing in the towel on sex is just a copout. As the story Colossus posted shows, the vast majority of parents want their kids to remain abstinent. That's where our focus should be.
-
Guys don't use condoms. Have you ever spent time in a male locker room? College campuses? Unless there has a been a sea change since I was in those environments as a student and athlete (or athlete-student :)), there is no consistent, widespread use of condoms.
I try not to hang out in locker rooms but I do like gladiator flicks...my goodness Scraps is a boy dog.
I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but Hedge posted an article once that showed STD rates have either remained constant or increased.
Even if that were true, it still does not change the fact that use of condoms can be a lifesaver--HIV, HPV.
I am one who believes kids can actually exercise self control. They aren't animals. Throwing in the towel on sex is just a copout. As the story Colossus posted shows, the vast majority of parents want their kids to remain abstinent. That's where our focus should be.
I understand your point. But children do act like animals. Hell, adults act like animals when it comes to sex--anyway, anyhow.
As far as the parents' wishes, well, if I had a daughter, I'd wish that she'd be a virgin forever.
That is wishful thinking and purposeful ignorance.
-
I try not to hang out in locker rooms but I do like gladiator flicks...my goodness Scraps is a boy dog.
Even if that were true, it still does not change the fact that use of condoms can be a lifesaver--HIV, HPV.
I understand your point. But children do act like animals. Hell, adults act like animals when it comes to sex--anyway, anyhow.
As far as the parents' wishes, well, if I had a daughter, I'd wish that she'd be a virgin forever.
That is wishful thinking and purposeful ignorance.
Condoms can be a lifesaver, but they don't, in reality, prevent STDs. And they really don't have much relevance to HIV. A while back, I posted excerpts from Tony Brown's book "Black Lies, White Lies," which argues non-IV drug using heterosexuals have little AIDS risk. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=95759.25
It isn't wishful thinking, nor is it ignorance. It's simply the right thing to do. Giving kids condoms, which they won't use anyway, as part of "sex education" actually encourages kids to have sex. We shouldn't be encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior.
-
Condoms can be a lifesaver, but they don't, in reality, prevent STDs. And they really don't have much relevance to HIV. A while back, I posted excerpts from Tony Brown's book "Black Lies, White Lies," which argues non-IV drug using heterosexuals have little AIDS risk. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=95759.25
It isn't wishful thinking, nor is it ignorance. It's simply the right thing to do. Giving kids condoms, which they won't use anyway, as part of "sex education" actually encourages kids to have sex. We shouldn't be encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior.
Of all the diseases affected by condoms, HIV is the posterchild for showing its's effectiveness. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/condoms/HQ00463
Here's an excerpt:
"Do condoms reduce the risk of STDs?
Yes. By blocking the exchange of body fluids that might contain infectious agents, latex condoms provide the best protection available against STDs. Used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)..."
How is educating teens about condoms and STDs/pregnancy "encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior"?
I know I used a condom my first time. How's that for analogical evidence?
The "right thing to do" is not expose your teens to contracting HIV from of a momentary weakness of the flesh simply b/c the parents want enacted some lofty ideals disconnected from the operations of the real world.
Knowledge trumps willful ignorance.
I believe in cultivating informed judgment. Anything less than that begs for scorn and ridicule.
-
Of all the diseases affected by condoms, HIV is the posterchild for showing its's effectiveness. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/condoms/HQ00463
Here's an excerpt:
"Do condoms reduce the risk of STDs?
Yes. By blocking the exchange of body fluids that might contain infectious agents, latex condoms provide the best protection available against STDs. Used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)..."
How is educating teens about condoms and STDs/pregnancy "encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior"?
I know I used a condom my first time. How's that for analogical evidence?
The "right thing to do" is not expose your teens to contracting HIV from of a momentary weakness of the flesh simply b/c the parents want enacted some lofty ideals disconnected from the operations of the real world.
Knowledge trumps willful ignorance.
I believe in cultivating informed judgment. Anything less than that begs for scorn and ridicule.
The problem is kids don't use them. You used a condom your first time? How about the 5th, 15th, 50th time? :) And I think you mean "anecdotal" evidence? My position is once a kid experiences sex with and without a condom that the condoms will be discarded, like they routinely are.
I think the HIV threat is a farce. Check out the link I posted with the excerpts to Tony Brown's book. The typical heterosexual isn't really at risk for HIV through normal heterosexual sex.
Telling a kid to abstain from sex while handing him a condom is essentially telling the kid to have sex. In other words, telling a kid that behavior is wrong, then showing the kid how to engage in that very behavior is a mixed message. At the end of the day, it makes no sense. Either you tell the kid to abstain or you tell the kid to get his freak on.
-
The problem is kids don't use them. You used a condom your first time? How about the 5th, 15th, 50th time? :) And I think you mean "anecdotal" evidence? My position is once a kid experiences sex with and without a condom that the condoms will be discarded, like they routinely are.
I think the HIV threat is a farce. Check out the link I posted with the excerpts to Tony Brown's book. The typical heterosexual isn't really at risk for HIV through normal heterosexual sex.
Telling a kid to abstain from sex while handing him a condom is essentially telling the kid to have sex. In other words, telling a kid that behavior is wrong, then showing the kid how to engage in that very behavior is a mixed message. At the end of the day, it makes no sense. Either you tell the kid to abstain or you tell the kid to get his freak on.
The Mayo Clinic, the Center for Disease Control and every other medical authority under the sun has concluded that condoms save lives, stave off the contracting of STDs and is effective birth control.
The heterosexual aids myth and the HIV doesn't cause AIDS myth are part of the same Urban Legends floating around the internet.
Science concludes otherwise. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
"In 2005, the largest estimated proportion of HIV/AIDS diagnoses were for men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by adults and adolescents infected through heterosexual contact."
"How Widespread is Condom Use Among Teens?
A survey in 2000 of teens aged 15 to 17 by The Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen magazine found that:
More than one-third of teens surveyed (38 percent) said they had had sexual intercourse.
Nine out of 10 teens who've had sex said they use birth control all, some, or part of the time.
Virtually all teens who have had intercourse (98 percent) have used condoms.
But half also admitted they'd had sex without a condom. (2)"
I don't know how you can still claim that condoms are not used.
I understand your assumption that sexual activity among teens is wrong. I think most parents feel that way.
But you are fighting millions of years of biology. The teen body is alive with sexual impulses. To fight that with abstinence only is to back a losing horse.
As Mick said in Rocky III, "You can't win Rock!" You can't win that battle BeachBum
-
The Mayo Clinic, the Center for Disease Control and every other medical authority under the sun has concluded that condoms save lives, stave off the contracting of STDs and is effective birth control.
The heterosexual aids myth and the HIV doesn't cause AIDS myth are part of the same Urban Legends floating around the internet.
Science concludes otherwise. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm
"In 2005, the largest estimated proportion of HIV/AIDS diagnoses were for men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by adults and adolescents infected through heterosexual contact."
"How Widespread is Condom Use Among Teens?
A survey in 2000 of teens aged 15 to 17 by The Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen magazine found that:
More than one-third of teens surveyed (38 percent) said they had had sexual intercourse.
Nine out of 10 teens who've had sex said they use birth control all, some, or part of the time.
Virtually all teens who have had intercourse (98 percent) have used condoms.
But half also admitted they'd had sex without a condom. (2)"
I don't know how you can still claim that condoms are not used.
I understand your assumption that sexual activity among teens is wrong. I think most parents feel that way.
But you are fighting millions of years of biology. The teen body is alive with sexual impulses. To fight that with abstinence only is to back a losing horse.
As Mick said in Rocky III, "You can't win Rock!" You can't win that battle BeachBum
"But half also admitted they'd had sex without a condom. (2)" I rest my case. :)
Here are the excerpts from the link I posted about HIV:
Okay. Got the Tony Brown book. Published in 1995. I was wrong about it not being a heterosexual disease. He posits that in the U.S. it is primarily spread through IV drug use and those who come into contact with people involved with IV drug users. Here are some excerpts from "Black Lies, White Lies" (kinda long):
"It has become abundantly clear, in spite of a great campaign of disinformation and reprehensible scare tactics, that 'AIDS' does not attack the general population. After fifteen years, it remains almost exclusively confined to IV-drug users (about 32 percent of the cases) and a subset of male homosexuals which accounted for about 60 percent of the total 140, 428 AIDS cases in the United States in 1991. The total number of homosexuals who have had 'AIDS' since it was discovered in 1981 was 217,012 as of December 1993."
"About 95 percent of those contract 'AIDS' have a history of drug use--according to Dr. Robert E. Willner in his book Deadly Deception. Willner quotes studies that claim it takes from '500 to 1,000 unprotected sexual encounters to transmit' HIV . . . ."
"The odds of a healthy non-drug-using heterosexual getting 'AIDS' are the same as for getting hit by lightening. And from a population of 255 million Americans, only 140, 428 were living with 'AIDS' as of 1994.
John Lauritsen and Hank Wilson, in their book Death Rush, accuse the CDC of fraud: 'The effect of the CDC's statistical trickery is to underreport IV-drug users as an AIDS group by at least 50 percent; the effect is to construe AIDS as a venereal disease, rather than a drug-induced condition."
One of the world's leading authorities on viruses and retroviruses, Dr. Peter Duesberg, "blames the rise of 'AIDS on the 'massive escalation in the consumption of recreational drugs' in the 1960s and 1970s. In a ten-year period alone, Americans increased their use of cocaine by 200 percent, while the use of amphetamines and poppers skyrocketed among homosexuals. Drug abuse, Duesberg says, resulted in the reemergence of old diseases such as tuberculosis--one of the 'AIDS' diseases--in the 1980s and 1990s."
"Duesberg's theory of how 'AIDS' spreads is simple to follow. He holds that 'AIDS' begins in those who are biologically most susceptible: people whose lifestyles make them perfect hosts for a 'benign' retrovirus (HIV). He says it that HIV hardly ever becomes active even in 'AIDS.' These 'thirdworldized' hosts, all of whom have ravaged their body in some way, include heterosexual drug addicts; and those drug-abusing homosexuals whose irresponsible 'bathhouse' sex behavior exposes them to lethal microbes and the spread of infections."
. . .
More:
"Michael Callen, one of the founders of the People with AIDS Coalition, lived twelve years with 'AIDS.' Just before his death, he offered a compelling confession in HEAL, a publication for alternative health therapies, that lends credence to Duesberg's 'DAIDS' theory [Drug Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome]:
By the age of 27, I estimate I had 3,000 different sex partners. I'd also had: hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B; herpes simplex types 1 and 2; shigella; entamoeba histolytica; Giardia; syphilis; gonorrhea; nonspecific urethritis; chlamydia; venereal warts; CMV; EBV reactivations; and finally cryptosporidiosis and AIDS. The question for me wasn't why I was sick with AIDS but rather how I had been able to remain standing on two feet for so long. If you blanked out my name and handed my medical chart, prior to AIDS, to a doctor, she/he might reasonable have guessed that it was the chart of a 65-year-old equatorial African living in squalor.
"Callen very likely put his finger on what is the probable link between the 'AIDS' outbreak among high-risk groups in the West and the malnourished heterosexual population in Africa: a Third World health status. This sort of ravaged immune system first developed in the West among a bathhouse culture of male bisexuals and homosexuals, as well as heterosexual injection-drug users and homosexual long-term recreational drug abusers. These subcultures were extremely vulnerable because of debilitated bodies and a Third World hygiene status."
"`Something other than homosexuality' causes 'AIDS,' says Duesberg. 'Your all-American homosexual neighbor will never get 'AIDS.' It's only the ones who have hundreds, or thousands, of sexual contacts a year. And how is that achieved? Almost exclusively by chemicals.
"Drug abuse is rampant among homosexuals who practice promiscuous sex. For multiple orgasms and as an anal relaxant, this bathhouse subculture routinely uses 'poppers' (amyl nitrite inhalants), and their 'recreational' regime consists of PCP, amphetamines, angel dust, cocaine, heroin, uppers and downers, Valium, and alcohol,' Duesberg explains."
"In my opinion, then, the illness we call 'AIDS' in the United States is not by any means a 'homosexual disease.' I believe it is precipitated by a chemical injury, but it is also triggered by a variety of microorganisms as cofactors that destroys the body's immune system. The process is a deadly synergistic combustion. High-risk 'AIDS' behavior in the West is primarily drug abuse, receptive anal intercourse, poor hygiene, malnutrition, and unprotected sex--especially if there is a history of sexually transmitted diseases."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=95759.25
-
I try not to hang out in locker rooms but I do like gladiator flicks...my goodness Scraps is a boy dog.
Even if that were true, it still does not change the fact that use of condoms can be a lifesaver--HIV, HPV.
I understand your point. But children do act like animals. Hell, adults act like animals when it comes to sex--anyway, anyhow.
As far as the parents' wishes, well, if I had a daughter, I'd wish that she'd be a virgin forever.
That is wishful thinking and purposeful ignorance.
What about the other STD's?
-
50% did not use condoms in subsequent acts of sex but 50% DID use them.
How does that even remotely permit you to rest your case? You claim that virtually no teen uses condoms. 98% use them on the maiden voyage and 50% use them subsequently.
That Tony Brown book is not only dated, it's also wrong.
"Through 2004, of all cases of HIV infection in the United States reported to CDC, 34% were attributed to male-male sexual contact, 14% to injection-drug use, and 20% to heterosexual contact "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5506a1.htm?s_cid=ss5506a1_e
Anyway, it is incontrovertible that condoms greatly reduce the risk of pregnancy & transmitting STDs.
Relying on a teen's judgment to do the right thing re sex is dicey. It's damn near immoral when potentially life threatening diseases can ravage your children just b/c of a sex romp (aids or hpv (cervical cancer in girls)) and the use of a condom may have prevented that.
-
15.3 million new sexually transmitted infections each year in the United States alone, and more than 200,000 deaths worldwide due to STDs.
-
What about the other STD's?
When used consistently and correctly, male latex condoms are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV infection (i.e., HIV-negative partners in heterosexual serodiscordant relationships in which condoms were consistently used were 80% less likely to become HIV-infected compared with persons in similar relationships in which condoms were not used) and can reduce the risk for other STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, and might reduce the risk of women developing pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) (13,14). Condom use might reduce the risk for transmission of herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2), although data for this effect are more limited (15,16). Condom use might reduce the risk for HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer [17]) and mitigate the adverse consequences of infection with HPV, as their use has been associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and clearance of HPV infection in women (18), and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men (19). A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on the acquisition of genital HPV; one recent prospective study among newly sexually active college women demonstrated that consistent condom use was associated with a 70% reduction in risk for HPV transmission (20).
http://www.cdc.gov/STD/treatment/2006/clinical.htm
-
Condoms and Abstinence: Separating Truth From Myth
The truth is, most teens are not sexually active
Q. Since most teens are sexually active, shouldn’t schools teach the majority how to protect themselves with condoms, rather than catering to the minority who abstain?
A. No. The truth is, most teens are not sexually active. The latest survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that teen sexual activity has been declining steadily over the last seven years (since about the time abstinence programs really took hold). The CDC’s 2001 Youth Risks Behavior Survey found that fewer than 43 percent of our nation’s teens had ever engaged in sexual intercourse, and just one-third said they are “currently sexually active.” Clearly, teens are capable of abstaining from sex; they just need the right motivation and support.
Q. But doesn’t abstinence-only education leave that one-third who are sexually active—which is still a sizeable minority—unprotected and vulnerable?
A. Granted, kids who engage in “unprotected” sex are vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unwanted pregnancies. But this raises another crucial question: How much protection do condoms provide? Studies have found condom failure rates in protecting against pregnancies for teens to be as high as 22.5 percent. As for protecting against STDs, in 2001 several government health agencies together released a report on condom effectiveness. The report found evidence that condoms are about 85 percent effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. (Is 85 percent good enough in protecting your child against a deadly and incurable virus?) The report also found condoms to be somewhat effective in protecting men (but not women) from gonorrhea. But the prominent scientists who prepared the report found no conclusive evidence that condoms protect against any other STD, including HPV, the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills more women than AIDS does. Sixty-eight million Americans now have an incurable STD. Many caught those incurable STDs while using condoms. No one has ever caught AIDS or any other STD from being abstinent. Who’s really more vulnerable, the teen taught to use condoms or the one who’s motivated to save sex for marriage?
Another crucial point to remember is that kids are notoriously spontaneous—and forgetful. (How many times have you reminded your teen to take his jacket to the football game as he rushed from the house?) The CDC has stated that for condoms to be effective they must be used “every time you have sex—100 percent of the time—no exceptions.” One study found that only about 13 percent of sexually active people always use a condom. That figure may be even worse for teens. In the heat of passion kids are likely to forget the eight-step process for proper condom use.
Q. But haven’t abstinence education programs been shown to be ineffective?
A. That’s a widely spread myth. The biggest and best government-funded study of abstinence programs will not be released until 2005. However, a report from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation found 10 proven abstinence programs. The study is available on the Internet at www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm)
-
15.3 million new sexually transmitted infections each year in the United States alone, and more than 200,000 deaths worldwide due to STDs.
That is awful.
Can you imagine how bad those numbers would be without condoms or sex ed.?
-
....www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm)
As a rule of thumb, I discount any research from THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
It produces pseudo-academic garbage. Just look at the huckster Dan Mitchell--THF resident scholar on taxes--he's a corporate shill.
I have a cousin whose a HF member and it's an embarrassment to my family.
The Heritage Foundation is a partisan shithole. Sorry for the highbrow commentary.
-
That is awful.
Can you imagine how bad those numbers would be without condoms or sex ed.?
Give up, Decker. ::)
The best possible answer to reduce HIV or STD's is abstinence. It's that cut and dry. No argument that you could conjure up for the use of condoms vs. abstinence is even worth debating. And even with 85% of parents agreeing with that fact, the gov't chooses to stick their head in the sand (along with others who believe condons are the next best solution). The gov't doesn't want to fund the abstinence programs because they know that sex sells, especially to teens and the early 20's,30's, maybe even 40's (I'm thinking of all the commercials like body wash, body spray/deodorants like Axe, Tag, etc). Now why would they want to stop that kind of money train when it keeps the economy flowing. It all comes down to the dollar bills. Abstinence costs virtually nothing. A six-pack of condoms costs money....see where I'm going?
-
As a rule of thumb, I discount any research from THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
It produces pseudo-academic garbage. Just look at the huckster Dan Mitchell--THF resident scholar on taxes--he's a corporate shill.
I have a cousin whose a HF member and it's an embarrassment to my family.
The Heritage Foundation is a partisan shithole. Sorry for the highbrow commentary.
No need for apologies. I expected such a response. That's usually the case around here.
-
Give up, Decker. ::)
The best possible answer to reduce HIV or STD's is abstinence. It's that cut and dry. No argument that you could conjure up for the use of condoms vs. abstinence is even worth debating. And even with 85% of parents agreeing with that fact, the gov't chooses to stick their head in the sand (along with others who believe condons are the next best solution). The gov't doesn't want to fund the abstinence programs because they know that sex sells, especially to teens and the early 20's,30's, maybe even 40's (I'm thinking of all the commercials like body wash, body spray/deodorants like Axe, Tag, etc). Now why would they want to stop that kind of money train when it keeps the economy flowing. It all comes down to the dollar bills. Abstinence costs virtually nothing. A six-pack of condoms costs money....see where I'm going?
Abstinence is 100% effective.
It is also unreliable.
Sex amongst teens does happen. THAT IS AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT OF LIFE.
In 2005, 47% of teens have had intercourse.
In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year.3
Each year, there are approximately 19 million new STD infections, and almost half of them are among youth aged 15 to 24.4
In 2000, 13% of all pregnancies, or 831,000, occurred among adolescents aged 15-19.5
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm
B/c of your position of abstinence only, you are denying education and access to our teens. Because of your prejudice and ideals, teens will be kept in the dark about the facts surround condoms.
-
50% did not use condoms in subsequent acts of sex but 50% DID use them.
How does that even remotely permit you to rest your case? You claim that virtually no teen uses condoms. 98% use them on the maiden voyage and 50% use them subsequently.
That Tony Brown book is not only dated, it's also wrong.
"Through 2004, of all cases of HIV infection in the United States reported to CDC, 34% were attributed to male-male sexual contact, 14% to injection-drug use, and 20% to heterosexual contact "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5506a1.htm?s_cid=ss5506a1_e
Anyway, it is incontrovertible that condoms greatly reduce the risk of pregnancy & transmitting STDs.
Relying on a teen's judgment to do the right thing re sex is dicey. It's damn near immoral when potentially life threatening diseases can ravage your children just b/c of a sex romp (aids or hpv (cervical cancer in girls)) and the use of a condom may have prevented that.
I don't believe the Kaiser Foundation study. But even if you accept it as fact, half of all teenagers don't use condoms. That's huge. My position is guys will not use them. Does that mean 100 percent will not use them? No. Overwhelming majority? Yes. I could probably find a study that confirms this and one that doesn't.
-
No need for apologies. I expected such a response. That's usually the case around here.
I was hoping that you'd take my admonition to heart. But I'll show you now why THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is bullshit.
First a word about "abstinence only" programs started by Bush in TX. How about "FAILURE"
During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.43 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.44
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html
Now onto the Heritage nonsense. In 2006, 47% (an increase from 2001) of today's teens have had sex. About half. If that's an endorsement for abstinence only programs, I'd hate to see countervailing evidence.
The twisted rhetoric of "gee, condoms are not 100% safeguard against STDs, so to hell with them and "hello abstinence only", is laughable if not sad.
Here's an unassailable fact: 47% (half) of all teenagers have sex.
Look at this again: In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year. http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm
Abstinence Only is not working.
Once again, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is shown to be nonsense.
-
Abstinence is 100% effective.
It is also unreliable.
Sex amongst teens does happen. THAT IS AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT OF LIFE.
In 2005, 47% of teens have had intercourse.
In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year.3
Each year, there are approximately 19 million new STD infections, and almost half of them are among youth aged 15 to 24.4
In 2000, 13% of all pregnancies, or 831,000, occurred among adolescents aged 15-19.5
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm
B/c of your position of abstinence only, you are denying education and access to our teens. Because of your prejudice and ideals, teens will be kept in the dark about the facts surround condoms.
So, if we go back...say 30-40 years ago (pre-sex ed), we'd see the same kind of numbers that we see now?
-
I was hoping that you'd take my admonition to heart. But I'll show you now why THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is bullshit.
First a word about "abstinence only" programs started by Bush in TX. How about "FAILURE"
During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.43 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.44
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html
Now onto the Heritage nonsense. In 2006, 47% (an increase from 2001) of today's teens have had sex. About half. If that's an endorsement for abstinence only programs, I'd hate to see countervailing evidence.
The twisted rhetoric of "gee, condoms are not 100% safeguard against STDs, so to hell with them and "hello abstinence only", is laughable if not sad.
Here's an unassailable fact: 47% (half) of all teenagers have sex.
Look at this again: In 2004, an estimated 4,883 young people aged 13-24 in the 33 states reporting to CDC were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, representing about 13% of the persons diagnosed that year. http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/index.htm
Abstinence Only is not working.
Once again, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION is shown to be nonsense.
How do we know Abstinence ONLY is not working when it's never been put to the test in the last 30-40 years? ???
-
How do we know Abstinence ONLY is not working when it's never been put to the test in the last 30-40 years? ???
Look at Texas' record under Bush's abstinence only program. The national numbers are getting worse under his program.
What on earth makes you think Abstinence Only is working?
-
How do we know Abstinence ONLY is not working when it's never been put to the test in the last 30-40 years? ???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html?nav=rss_nation
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs
The federal government spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants.
A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex.
"Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."
-
Beach Bum & Colossus_500 have a great night.
I gotta get home and do some landscaping with the wife.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html?nav=rss_nation
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs
The federal government spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants.
A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex.
"Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."
Says "An official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States," whose goal appears to be to attack anything related to abstinence training. They probably advocate giving condoms to 13-year-olds.
-
Beach Bum & Colossus_500 have a great night.
I gotta get home and do some landscaping with the wife.
Landscaping with the wife?? Somebody revive that "gayer than" thread. :D [Kidding] Adios. Enjoy the weed-pulling. ;D
-
The original post in this thread comes from the ultra-rightwing Christian group, the Family Research Council. There is no real research being reported here: Here's the actual start of what the poster copy and pasted from:
"To: Friends of Family Research Council
From: Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
May 7, 2007 - Monday
Please forward this to your Friends and Family!
Parents Throwing Their 'Wait' Behind Abstinence
While six states have announced their intent to refuse federal funding for abstinence-only education, a new Zogby poll"
What parents really want is for their kids to be safe, not necessarily abstinent. Of course parents want their kids to share their values (liberal, conservative, or otherwise), but at the end of the night, parents want their kids to come home safe. In the real world, safety comes from having good information regarding sex, drugs, and other potentially dangerous activities that kids will be exposed to. "Just say no" as a educational policy is no kind of education at all. Although it appeals to the conservative simpletons.
-
Landscaping with the wife?? Somebody revive that "gayer than" thread. :D [Kidding] Adios. Enjoy the weed-pulling. ;D
Oh yeah, me and my EARTHQUAKE rototiller would disagree with you.
hahahaha. Shit, I hate yardwork.
-
Oh yeah, me and my EARTHQUAKE rototiller would disagree with you.
hahahaha. Shit, I hate yardwork.
You need kids. I haven't cut the grass in years. :)
-
The original post in this thread comes from the ultra-rightwing Christian group, the Family Research Council. There is no real research being reported here: Here's the actual start of what the poster copy and pasted from:
"To: Friends of Family Research Council
From: Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
May 7, 2007 - Monday
Please forward this to your Friends and Family!
Parents Throwing Their 'Wait' Behind Abstinence
While six states have announced their intent to refuse federal funding for abstinence-only education, a new Zogby poll"
What parents really want is for their kids to be safe, not necessarily abstinent. Of course parents want their kids to share their values (liberal, conservative, or otherwise), but at the end of the night, parents want their kids to come home safe. In the real world, safety comes from having good information regarding sex, drugs, and other potentially dangerous activities that kids will be exposed to. "Just say no" as a educational policy is no kind of education at all. Although it appeals to the conservative simpletons.
Discredited again. Imagine that? ::) :P If it's got a Christian tag on it, it's all irrelevant, right? :P
-
Discredited again. Imagine that? ::) :P If it's got a Christian tag on it, it's all irrelevant, right? :P
It's relevant to conservative Christians. But its pitched as "research" that represents common Americans.
-
It's relevant to conservative Christians. But its pitched as "research" that represents common Americans.
Conservative Christians aren't "common Americans"? It's relevant to parents. And without even looking at the numbers I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of Americans are either Christian or at a minimum believe in God. Pretty large audience.
-
You mean the federal government wants to endorse an idea that an overwhelming majority of parents support?
It is obvious that the whole liberal condom emphasis has been a complete failure. They don't stop the spread of disease, they haven't slowed the pregnancy rates, and I doubt guys use them consistently. And you're absolutely right that abstinence and condoms/birth control send mixed messages to kids.
That's not true - when the AIDs scare came out in the eighties there was a government blitz in Australia about always wearing a condom. Prostitutes use them, they're in every pub and club. We have one the lowest levels of HIV and STD transmissions in the world. The government here would never consider an 'abstinence' approach - no one here would buy it.
-
The government here would never consider an 'abstinence' approach - no one here would buy it.
The people here being pitched to don't buy it either. But it makes the conservatives happy to see their values being taught as the only acceptable ones, despite the negative results.
-
That's not true - when the AIDs scare came out in the eighties there was a government blitz in Australia about always wearing a condom. Prostitutes use them, they're in every pub and club. We have one the lowest levels of HIV and STD transmissions in the world. The government here would never consider an 'abstinence' approach - no one here would buy it.
We're talking about 13-17 year-olds.
What is IV drug use like in Australia?
-
We're talking about 13-17 year-olds.
What is IV drug use like in Australia?
Don't know, I would hazard a guess that we don't have as many drug problems as the US. We have needle exchange programs too - people are encouraged not to share needles.
At 13 years of age most people know something about sex in Australia - I mean we used to tell dirty jokes about a man sticking his thingy in a woman in primary school.
-
No wonder I never come here anymore. What a stupid thread.
-
to your favor Beach Bum... seems to be less gay bashing articles you're producing on this board. Good on you.
-
Don't know, I would hazard a guess that we don't have as many drug problems as the US. We have needle exchange programs too - people are encouraged not to share needles.
At 13 years of age most people know something about sex in Australia - I mean we used to tell dirty jokes about a man sticking his thingy in a woman in primary school.
Check out the excerpts I posted earlier from "White Lies, Black Lies." There is a correlation between IV drug use and HIV. That might help explain why your HIV rates are much lower.
A kid better know a lot about sex by age 13. Some psychologists, child rearing "experts," etc. believe you should have the birds and bees talk at age 8. But teaching a kid about sex and a kid actually engaging in sex are completely different. We shouldn't be encouraging 13-year-olds to have sex.
-
to your favor Beach Bum... seems to be less gay bashing articles you're producing on this board. Good on you.
::)
-
Check out the excerpts I posted earlier from "White Lies, Black Lies." There is a correlation between IV drug use and HIV. That might help explain why your HIV rates are much lower.
A kid better know a lot about sex by age 13. Some psychologists, child rearing "experts," etc. believe you should have the birds and bees talk at age 8. But teaching a kid about sex and a kid actually engaging in sex are completely different. We shouldn't be encouraging 13-year-olds to have sex.
Yeah - we also knew about condoms at that age. I would have heard about sex in grade 3 or 4 I think.
-
::)
That's all you can come up with... rolling eyes. :-\ Face it, religious right people are obsessed... no OBSESSED with gay people, have no clue about what's going on in the world, read no newspapers, want to go back to the "romantic" 1950's because for some reason you think there was more order back then... when there wasn't... it was worse. For women, definately. Yeah okay, abstinence is "key" to bringing back some logic into the world. ::) When was there EVER abstinence from sex EVER??? There never has been, which is why the man-written bible is sooooo filled with references to it. It's just a guide to keep people from going over the top. ::)
-
That's all you can come up with... rolling eyes. :-\ Face it, religious right people are obsessed... no OBSESSED with gay people, have no clue about what's going on in the world, read no newspapers, want to go back to the "romantic" 1950's because for some reason you think there was more order back then... when there wasn't... it was worse. For women, definately. Yeah okay, abstinence is "key" to bringing back some logic into the world. ::) When was there EVER abstinence from sex EVER??? There never has been, which is why the man-written bible is sooooo filled with references to it. It's just a guide to keep people from going over the top. ::)
???
Yes, you make a dumb comment (which you don't usually do), you get the eyeroll.
::)
-
Reminds me of a documentary I saw on Van Gogh. When he was a preist they sent him to this little mining village. The men and women use to work in the mines together - his job was to help them resist the urge to indulge in the sexual desires. Makes me think - if it didn't work back then why is it going to work now.
-
Reminds me of a documentary I saw on Van Gogh. When he was a preist they sent him to this little mining village. The men and women use to work in the mines together - his job was to help them resist the urge to indulge in the sexual desires. Makes me think - if it didn't work back then why is it going to work now.
Because we're talking about kids, not adults?
-
Unfortunately once they hit puberty, they are effectively exposed to adult desires.
-
OMG! OMG! OMG!
Christianity has been trying to teach abstinence for a good few centuries....didn't work.
Teens are getting more sexually active and at a younger age.
Decker has been spot on all the time. You will never get rid of STD's, it's simply a matter of damage control and condoms are the cheapest easiest and safest way.
Keep believing you can teach abstinence, shut your eyes, it's the good ol' christian way. It's a dangerous fallacy and still continued by that new geezer in the vatican!
-
I'm a Catholic and never could understand why the Church would look at contraception as a sin. For godsakes it's the safe thing to do. Wrap it up and get your girl, (or hope the girl you are fucking) is on the pill....Bam your risk is reduced a great deal. We do not live in a vacuum here, there is a thing such as human nature...people will have sex. Period. Abstinence is a noble cause to persue, but you must teach it as only part of the solution. If X amount of teens take up the abstinence banner great, then you can add that to X amount of teens that will have sex but do it with protection and BAM you have just greatly reduced the risk.We should (parents and schools etc) teaching our kids all the ways to be safe and not just pushing some ideological garbage on something that doesn't account for our human side. Pushing one or the other is folly.
Oh and for the record, those who practice abstinence are fucking losers.....j/k!
-
???
Yes, you make a dumb comment (which you don't usually do), you get the eyeroll.
::)
When do I ever make a dumb comment? Don't insult me. You're a mod, yet you use rolley-eyed icons to illustrate your point? Over and over again. You don't have anything to say beyond how you're comfortable in your Hawaii dreamland, you know nothing about Canada which is close to you, nothing about Europa, nothing about anything except your religion, where you live, and the fact that you married your ha skool sweethart.
I'll say it again, with references, if you wish, which you never do, just rolley eyes. Abstinence doesn't work. Find me somewhere in history where it does. Most literature, music, any "drawring" caveman etching proves otherwise.
-
When do I ever make a dumb comment? Don't insult me. You're a mod, yet you use rolley-eyed icons to illustrate your point? Over and over again. You don't have anything to say beyond how you're comfortable in your Hawaii dreamland, you know nothing about Canada which is close to you, nothing about Europa, nothing about anything except your religion, where you live, and the fact that you married your ha skool sweethart.
I'll say it again, with references, if you wish, which you never do, just rolley eyes. Abstinence doesn't work. Find me somewhere in history where it does. Most literature, music, any "drawring" caveman etching proves otherwise.
I've obviously struck a nerve. :) You dropped into a thread dealing with abstience and, out of the blue, made the following comment to me:
Quote from: Deedee on May 10, 2007, 09:20:29 PM
to your favor Beach Bum... seems to be less gay bashing articles you're producing on this board. Good on you.
That wasn't a compliment. It was a dumb comment. That's what got you the eye roll. And if you don't like my use of the eye roll, or the way I express myself, all I can say is tough tittie.
And am I supposed to apologize for living in paradise? I'm just a very happy person and a very blessed person. I don't have a perfect life, but God has blessed me to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world and allowed me to have a beautiful family, a beautiful home, great friends, a great career, great volunteer opportunities, etc. I'll continue to talk about those things, and give credit where credit is due. In fact, I am making plans to spend some quality time this weekend with my very special hammock at my very own spot at one of the most beautiful beaches on the planet. I'm sorry if that bothers you. (Actually, no I'm not.) :)
But back to the point of this thread, you're not going to convince me that abstinence doesn't work. I've seen it work. It is an uphill battle, but it's the method that makes the most sense IMO. Thirteen-year-olds aren't old or mature enough to have sex, they cannot legally consent to sex, and they are unable to appreciate all of the consequences surrounding sex. So why encourage them to do so? I have no problem teaching a kid to do what makes the most sense. It won't always work, just like trying to get a guy to use condoms consistently won't hardly ever work, but it's the right approach.
-
carry on DD & BB . . . I'm just here to heartily endorse the abstinence movement.
As someone who was raised by parents who would have invented the movement had it not already been in existence, I have to say that it made my teenage years far more exciting than most people's teenage years . . . for me the thrill of violating a "taboo" heightened my pleasure to an intoxicating extent. I can't say that anything I've done recently rivals making it with Pastor _________'s daughter after Sunday night service, not 2 weeks after she'd pledged to be a virgin until she married.
Don't worry it all ended well. I still see her when i'm home, and she seems happy (married to a youth pastor, of course :P, and has two lovely kids. But, God, I would not exchange those mid '90s summers . . . making it on the bench seat of a Silverado, w her still in the lovely sundresses she wore to the evening service . . . still remember the fireflies too :D
-
After all, does n't the bible say stolen fruit tastes sweeter (maybe I'm forgetting the second part, in which it turns to bitterness or some other horrible thing in the stomach)
-
carry on DD & BB . . . I'm just here to heartily endorse the abstinence movement.
As someone who was raised by parents who would have invented the movement had it not already been in existence, I have to say that it made my teenage years far more exciting than most people's teenage years . . . for me the thrill of violating a "taboo" heightened my pleasure to an intoxicating extent. I can't say that anything I've done recently rivals making it with Pastor _________'s daughter after Sunday night service, not 2 weeks after she'd pledged to be a virgin until she married.
Don't worry it all ended well. I still see her when i'm home, and she seems happy (married to a youth pastor, of course :P, and has two lovely kids. But, God, I would not exchange those mid '90s summers . . . making it on the bench seat of a Silverado, w her still in the lovely sundresses she wore to the evening service . . . still remember the fireflies too :D
lol. :D I get that argument a lot. I've heard people say that like depriving your child of _____will only make them want it more. There may be some truth to that, but I think the way to handle it is to remove the mysteries, if any, surrounding the issue and ensure the kid understands why they're being taught to do or not do something. There should be explicit and open discussion.
And at the end of the day, as a parent, you have to decide what you think is right for you kid and teach them accordingly.
-
lol. :D I get that argument a lot. I've heard people say that like depriving your child of _____will only make them want it more. There may be some truth to that, but I think the way to handle it is to remove the mysteries, if any, surrounding the issue and ensure the kid understands why they're being taught to do or not do something. There should be explicit and open discussion.
And at the end of the day, as a parent, you have to decide what you think is right for you kid and teach them accordingly.
I actually agree, more or less. I believe that experience is life. but there are experiences that wind up in closing off parts of you that shouldn't be closed off . . . and you can't undo what's been done. the right way w kids is to help them walk the fine line b/w being narrow-minded and letting the capacity to experience some facets of love be washed away in a flood of hormones before they understand what's happening.
-
I actually agree, more or less. I believe that experience is life. but there are experiences that wind up in closing off parts of you that shouldn't be closed off . . . and you can't undo what's been done. the right way w kids is to help them walk the fine line b/w being narrow-minded and letting the capacity to experience some facets of love be washed away in a flood of hormones before they understand what's happening.
I agree.
-
After all, does n't the bible say stolen fruit tastes sweeter (maybe I'm forgetting the second part, in which it turns to bitterness or some other horrible thing in the stomach)
Go put a cold compress on your head and sit this one out. >:(
-
I've obviously struck a nerve. :) You dropped into a thread dealing with abstience and, out of the blue, made the following comment to me:
That wasn't a compliment. It was a dumb comment. That's what got you the eye roll. And if you don't like my use of the eye roll, or the way I express myself, all I can say is tough tittie.
And am I supposed to apologize for living in paradise? I'm just a very happy person and a very blessed person. I don't have a perfect life, but God has blessed me to live in one of the most beautiful places in the world and allowed me to have a beautiful family, a beautiful home, great friends, a great career, great volunteer opportunities, etc. I'll continue to talk about those things, and give credit where credit is due. In fact, I am making plans to spend some quality time this weekend with my very special hammock at my very own spot at one of the most beautiful beaches on the planet. I'm sorry if that bothers you. (Actually, no I'm not.) :)
But back to the point of this thread, you're not going to convince me that abstinence doesn't work. I've seen it work. It is an uphill battle, but it's the method that makes the most sense IMO. Thirteen-year-olds aren't old or mature enough to have sex, they cannot legally consent to sex, and they are unable to appreciate all of the consequences surrounding sex. So why encourage them to do so? I have no problem teaching a kid to do what makes the most sense. It won't always work, just like trying to get a guy to use condoms consistently won't hardly ever work, but it's the right approach.
Don't flatter yourself. As a mod you should make a tiny point of at least knowing SOMETHING about the people who are getting blown up in it.
I won't convince you about abstinence. ::) At least the world isn't driven by the religious right just yet so, guess at least some teens worldwide will get to know how to use a condom... you think you are a good person, but you aren't. :)
-
Go put a cold compress on your head and sit this one out. >:(
;D
so, it's b/w learning how to use a condom and "teaching" abstinence? Why not both? putting on a condom isn't that difficult to learn . . . it's the other shit that nobody warns you about.
-
Don't flatter yourself. As a mod you should make a tiny point of at least knowing SOMETHING about the people who are getting blown up in it.
I won't convince you about abstinence. ::) At least the world isn't driven by the religious right just yet so, guess at least some teens worldwide will get to know how to use a condom... you think you are a good person, but you aren't. :)
lol. Okay. I'm a bad person. :'( I'm not sure why you dropped into this thread to jump on my case, unprovoked, but I'm crushed.
::)
-
Here, we do not really have separation of 'church and state'. No, I am not joking; pornography, gambling and abortion are illegal, Sundays it is illegal to open stores w/o special permission, drive a truck, buy liquor etc. Some brave person [fool?] decided to fly in strippers, well after the police busted the show and hauled them into court they may have regretted that. Quite obviously the whole abstinence thing is favored over the safe sex thing. Not complaining at all, as it may sound weird to those that don't live in it, but imo my society is polite and respectful and I love it.
However...despite everything we have quite our share of teenage/out of wedlock births...speaking from a society that pushes the moralistic viewpoint, I can pretty much say it doesn't really work...people will do as they will do.