Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 117 (639728)
11-03-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
11-03-2011 9:37 AM


I don't consider that "conservative."
Why not? It's just the opposite of what liberals want today; by all available evidence that's your operating definition of "conservative."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2011 9:37 AM Coyote has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 117 (639777)
11-03-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Larni
11-03-2011 11:29 AM


I recall getting mechanical sex education when I was in priamry school (about 10 years old).
BEEP BEEEP YOU WILL NOW RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF YOUR GENITAL UNITS
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 11:29 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 11-04-2011 5:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 117 (639825)
11-04-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jon
11-04-2011 8:07 AM


Re: What's the Problem?
That's a common error: abstinence is only about 80% effective as a means of contraception.
Why? Recall that contraceptive failure rates include all failure modes, and one of those modes is "inconsistent use." Apples to apples!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 8:07 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 1:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 33 of 117 (639877)
11-04-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
11-04-2011 1:25 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
But, of course, I was talking about actual abstinence, not attempted abstinence.
Obviously the failure rate of a procedure excluding all failures is zero percent. By this definition, using condoms and excluding all condom failure modes also results in a success rate of 100%.
It has to be apples to apples. If you're going to talk about the failure rates of contraception - and, as you recall, that's what you were talking about - then we have to compare those rates using the same methodology. And when you examine abstinence using that methodology - including, among other modalities of failure, "pledged abstinence but had vaginal intercourse at least once" - the contraception rate is quite low. Condoms may have more failure modalities - there's only two ways to fail at abstinence - but those modalities are all much rarer.
It has to be apples to apples, Jon. Otherwise you're just lying. You wouldn't want to lie to people, would you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 1:25 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 117 (639914)
11-04-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
11-04-2011 5:38 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
What I said was that it is ridiculous to include in a study about the effectiveness of the use of 'X' incidents in which 'X' was never used.
No, again, it's no more ridiculous than the fact that condom failure rates include all the people who say they "use condoms" but then have sex without one; the fact that diaphragm failure rates include all the people who own a diaphragm but have sex without putting it in; the fact that hormonal contraception failure rates include all the people who have a prescription for the pill but don't manage to take it regularly.
Apples to apples, Jon. Pledging to practice abstinence and then having sex anyway is a failure modality of abstinence. Pledging abstinence and then getting raped by someone who doesn't care if you're trying to be abstinent or not is also a failure modality of abstinence. Apples to apples, Jon, otherwise you're being dishonest.
You simply cannot say you practiced abstinence but got pregnant/an STD anyway.
Well, you certainly can't say you successfully practiced it. But, again, the failure rate of only successful techniques is, by definition, zero. They're successful!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 5:38 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 9:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 117 (639915)
11-04-2011 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by frako
11-04-2011 5:46 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Well what he ment to say is that its harder for teens to practice abstinence then to put on a condom, in fact putting on a condom is wayyyy easier for teens then to practice abstinence
No, what I mean is that the percentage of abstinent teens who have sex anyway is much, much larger than the percentage of condoms that break, leak, aren't used, etc. There's more ways for a condom to fail than for abstinence to fail, but abstinence fails much, much more often which is why its failure rate is so much higher than all other forms of contraception.
Its not that hard to understand. Jon is playing a tautological game where he defines the technique only in its successful practice, and then tries to argue that because the technique (as he's defined it) is only ever successful, the failure rate is zero.
But that's a word-game. When we assess the failure rates of contraceptive methods, we include noncompliance. We always have. An apples to apples comparison means we have to include all the people who pledge to abstain from sex and then have sex anyway. They're using abstinence but are noncompliant with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 11-04-2011 5:46 PM frako has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 117 (639916)
11-04-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jon
11-04-2011 6:24 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
In fact, I think teaching abstinence only is stupid and that a sex ed course could easily be highly effective without ever mentioning abstinence at all.
I'll meet you halfway - I think it's incredibly important to teach teens how to resist peer-pressure to engage in undesired sexual activity - to be abstinent if that's what they want.
But the notion that a school can teach teens to want to abstain from sex is idiotic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 6:24 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 50 of 117 (639928)
11-04-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jon
11-04-2011 9:30 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
What you're talking about is a reporting error and has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the method in question.
No, that's not accurate. I'm simply explaining to you the standard methodology for collecting statistics on contraceptive effectiveness. Noncompliance is a modality of failure and as such, it's included in the failure rate. Always has been.
There's really good reason for that! You can frequently improve the effectiveness of contraception by improving the compliance rate. That's a big focus of public health research. If it was just a matter of "reporting errors" then there could be no public health gains. But there have been.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to compare failure rates - and you were - then you have to tabulate the failure rates the same way - either you have to include noncompliance rates for abstinence or you have to discard noncompliance rates for condoms, hormonal BC, etc. You can't include the noncompliance rate in one area and discard it in another; that's apples to oranges.
There's no apples to apples comparison where abstinence is more effective than other forms of birth control. There's only the apples to oranges comparison you tried to make when you thought the rest of us were so stupid we wouldn't notice. You were wrong, and it's time to admit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 9:30 PM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 117 (640031)
11-06-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002
11-05-2011 2:03 AM


Re: Serious question
Wait a minute...are you saying you can get pregnant even if you abstain from sexual intercourse?
Well, yeah. I mean, surely you can think for five seconds about some of the myriad ways a woman might get pregnant that don't involve voluntary vaginal intercourse. Surely you can take another five seconds to imagine ways in which STD's can - and have - spread that have nothing to do with having sexual intercourse. Remember all those kids with AIDS in the 80's, and how they got it?
If you tell kids the risks that go along with having sex, safe sex and the like, then tell them that the only way to absolutely avoid those problems is to abstain, you've not told a falsehood.
But you have told a falsehood - being abstinent won't "absolutely avoid" pregnancy or STD's. The failure rate of abstinence at preventing pregnancy and STD's is remarkably high - it's the least effective means to protect yourself from either.
Crashfrog has addressed Jon, whom has made points separate from mine.
No, I think you'll see that Jon was making the same mistake you were; that is, determining the failure rate of abstinence based only on the cases where abstinence didn't fail.
That's like determining if an airplane is safe based only on the cases where it didn't crash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 2:03 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:09 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 117 (640103)
11-07-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Serious question
No. I didn't consider those possibilities. I didn't even think about them.
Yes, I'm starting to get that impression.
So then whence your adamant position that "abstinence absolutely protects you from pregnancy and STD's"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:09 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 10:52 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 67 of 117 (640111)
11-07-2011 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 10:52 AM


Re: Serious question
Obviously, I've rethought that statement.
Fair enough, though there wasn't anything "obvious" about it.
But I'll take your word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 10:52 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2011 11:19 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 117 (640145)
11-07-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Serious question
No, I think you're quite correct - there's no plausible secular defense for "abstinence-only". It's a religiously-motivated moral panic, basically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 3:07 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 117 (640152)
11-07-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:28 PM


Re: Serious question
There is a secular reason to teach abstinence, where it is successfully implemented it is a fantastic way to minimise STDs and pregnancy.
I don't think there's any such thing as "teaching abstinence", no more than you can teach "liking jazz" or "wanting to travel to Europe." Teens will either want to have sex or they won't, and what we should be teaching them to is how to express those preferences and defend them against peer pressure.
The problem, of course, with abstinence is that while you're doing it you don't get to have sex. People for whom that sounds like a good thing need to re-examine their priorities. Why is it necessary to accept the "moral panic" position that sexual activity by teenagers and young adults is something to be avoided at any cost? Many teens can and do have fulfilling, exciting sex lives. Many other teens can't or don't want to. One thing of which we can be absolutely sure is that those preferences are going to have absolutely nothing to do with what their parents, teachers, and other authorities want.
Teens will decide on their own whether to have sex or abstain. We should be equipping them with the tools such that those choices are safe and respected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 117 (640160)
11-07-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:59 PM


Re: Serious question
Just that we explain openly and honestly what their options are.
Right, but I think we can generally assume that teens know that they can not have sex since the majority of them will have been not having sex since, oh, they were born.
They'll know about that option, believe me. (That's part of the ridiculousness of "teaching abstinence.") What they may not know about is how to avoid unwanted sexual activity in a situation where they're being pressured by someone they care about, or by an authority figure, to engage in sex that they don't want to engage in. But that's the same situation faced by a girl who wants her boyfriend to use a condom and he doesn't, or a guy who wants a monogamous relationship and his boyfriend doesn't.
But it's better that any decision they come to is a fully informed decision (or as fully as it is possible to be). Where they are advised that it is morally and socially acceptable to abstain as an aid against peer pressure etc (overt and otherwise).
I know you're trying to agree with me but I just keep getting this whiff of moral panic, I guess. But I think we can agree that a good sex ed program teaches teens how to demand respect for their choices and to respect the choices of others. If that's where you're at then, to me, you're in the right place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 6:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 117 (640167)
11-07-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
11-07-2011 6:10 PM


Re: Serious question
Obviously they understand that it is physically possible to abstain from sex, but some may feel it is not socially possible to abstain.
Oh, ok. That gives me a much clearer picture of what you were talking about, and I think we're on the same page.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 6:10 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024