abstinece-only sex education

You are making generalizations that simply don't apply to the reality of the situation. The reality is that there were TWO, count 'em, TWO, "venereal diseases" or STDs, known to humanity at large before the 60s -- or really the 70s and 80s which were when the fruit of the 60s seeds started to sprout. TWO. Syphilis and gonorrhea. The others that are now so common were UNKNOWN. I don't know that they were totally unknown to science, but they were unknown as far as anything the average person had to think about. You are acting as if Oh this is just evolution as usual. NO, this is a NEW THING since the 60s. Their very opportunity to "evolve" occurred with the huge increase in promiscuity. Why is this being denied? =Syphilis and gonorrhea were the ONLY STDs anybody ever thought about, for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. They were the ONLY ones known throughout the 50s and well into the 60s. The fact that after decades of concerted effort to control them they were finally suppressed is irrelevant to the point. It took massive work to get them suppressed. And now we've got NEW ONES that are going to take at least as much work IF it is even possible to control them by purely medical and chemical means. Your attempt to make all this sound like business-as-usual is out of touch with reality. You are making a false equivalence. See above. This optimism you express is out of touch with the historical facts.Edited by Faith, : corrected quote codes

I've been making the point that this whole attitude toward sex that you are expressing here is new, part of the 60s-initiated sea change, and it is variations on this attitude that have been driving the promiscuity that is the real reason for the increase in STDs. The whole thing is philosophically driven; it is NOT a matter of "biological force" or this increase would not have been happening.Amazing. You are blind to this increase. You ignore the fact that only syphilis and gonorrhea were health problems related to sex prior to the 60s. You pretend it's all business as usual. You ignore that the average person never thought of herpes or human papilloma virus or AIDS before the 60s bloomed in full. You pretend it's all just human biology as usual. The problem is a philosophical one, a problem of ideas that have changed the whole face of the culture. Abstinence-only is the obvious philosophical response to it. But this is derided as stupid because nobody wants to live by that philosophy any more really, though this is not honestly given as the reason.The truth is that everybody now accepts this sexual freedom philosophy. Everything you are saying implies your own acceptance of it. Except for your denial that it is new. But why not face it as the new thing it is? You are implicitly trying to solve it by addressing it mechanically, with condoms and other supposed protections.What happened in the sixties was the unleashing of a huge Pandora's box of cultural ills that can only get worse. You don't want to even think about the root cause, which is the culture-wide spread of the philosophy of sexual freedom. So good luck with your mechanical solutions. They are Band-aids on a festering wound.

quote:

---

The reality is that there were TWO, count 'em, TWO, "venereal diseases" or STDs, known to humanity at large before the 60s -- or really the 70s and 80s which were when the fruit of the 60s seeds started to sprout. TWO. Syphilis and gonorrhea.

---

Where do you get this idea from? What's your source?(hint: I already know but would like you to confirm it).Here a challenge for the rest of you - do a google for the idea that there were only two STDs per-1960s and see what sort of sites you get back.I bet the more psychic amongst you can already guess!Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : Challenge for others

You misrepresent what I said. Surprise surprise. I'm not even going to bother to read your link since you didn't bother to represent my point accurately.I repeated many times that I was talking about what the average person was aware of. No other STDs existed IN THE PUBLIC MIND before the Sexual Revolution, or had any impact on general public health concerns, only syphilis and gonorrhea. Edited by Faith, : grammar

No your point was that

quote:

---

. And now we've got NEW ONES that are going to take at least as much work IF it is even possible to control them by purely medical and chemical means.

---

I was going to show you that actually we don't have many new ones and in terms of infections we has 100s of them running around pre-1960s but since you have already said you will not read the link - what's the point?But your problem is two-fold -1) The public were not clearly aware of them therefore it didn't exist.2) I don't want to read your links!I honestly* don't understand why you have never been banned, you have never had the slightest interest in any form of real debate.It's not a productive use of my time to get into a long whinefest with you but I didn't want people to think I just didn't respond to you.* actually I do - what appears to be a 24hr posting addiction must be responsible for a fair percentage of the overall monthly stats. You are a sausage factory - it makes no difference that most of your answers are 1) I don't want to read this 2) I don't want to listen to this 3) I only want to be able to debate this if I can make up words and concepts - you still help generate good numbers.Edited by CK, : Changed title from "Faith - total waste of space".

I finally got some free time and decided to check back (lurk) at evc. I probably won't be reading or posting much in a regular way for quite a while, and I didn't expect to post anything this time, but your thread sort of jumped out at me...First of all I agree with your overall point: evidence shows abstinence ONLY education does not provide any benefits, most ironically the very benefits religious advocates desire... less sex.Second... I agree completely, though it is sort of sad that you left out the mechanics of pleasure humans derive from sex. Demystifying how the body works to drive us to sexual activity is just as important as what might result from such activity.However... I disagree completely with that. You are now adding a moral dimension which does not have anything to do with understanding sex and more importantly has nothing to do with preventing STDs nor unwanted pregnancy.No matter what anyone wants to believe for themself, sex is NOT synonymous with relationships. That is born out by sexual behavior in children and adults. Teaching about sex within that framework or in conjunction with it is likely to lead to more confusion for those who have little or no experience with sex or relationships. Confusion between the two can lead to a lot of bad decisions.And I am a bit puzzled what a program could discuss regarding love. Love is an amorphous and highly subjective quality. Are we going to teach that love is naturally for only one person at a time? That it will always coincide with sexual desire? That sex is less when it does not coincide with love? How about that love is only understood through commitment in marriage?As a matter of fact, some cultures have not even had a word for love and it is untranslatable. Your plan for teaching sex in connection with love to them, would be like me insisting best instruction on proper dietary health must include the concept of "gezellig" (a dutch concept which is untranslatable in English).Same goes for respect. How does one teach what sexual behaviors or lack of such behaviors count as respect for onesself or one's partners? This seems like an attempt to introduce moral dogma, whether classical antimale antisex feminism or Xian fundamentalism. Does using porn count as having less respect? Does enjoying many sexual partners count as less respect? Does selling one's sexuality count as less respect? How about sex with others of the same gender, or a different race? There are arguments for all of these as somehow indicating a lack of respect for onesself, one's partner, and one's children.Indeed it would seem like at some point such discussions will end up pitting teachers against specific parents. Or maybe I should say would involve having teachers pit children against their parents. Unless you know of an objective concept of respect with regard to sex? I almost agree. Abstinence is an option and is not discounted just because one teaches kids how to deal with protecting their sexual health.I wouldn't agree that it has "the very best track record" of prevention. There are enough repressed people dealing with physical and emotional consequences of NOT gaining sexual experiences. If you want the best track record, how about masturbation (including mutual)? It provides the sexual release people crave and will not result in STD transmission nor unwanted pregnancy.In the end I think mechanics ARE THE ONLY proper focus of sexual education. As far as emotional issues, kids should be referred to their parents for moral and social instruction regarding when and why people should engage in sex.But of course as you suggest, the results of abstinence ONLY education is problematic for everyone... even according to the stated standards of its advocates.Edited by holmes, : fixed quotation error

---

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

No such acusation! The point is that the more information they have, the better prepared they are to make good choices. In other word, the best that can be done is to trust them with the ALL the information, and let them make their own choices and mistakes. It's their lives afterall. Revert to answer above. The program is witholding information that would help them make better choices for their lives. By doing that, it reduces the chances that they will make good choices and, therefore, is hurting them. That makes the program an imoral thing

syphalis has been afflicting europeans since before the 1500s.

Teaching about love: to take an example from Denmark, children are taught at age 6 that there is this concept of love, that love has different forms (i.e "I love my mummy" vs. romantic love) and introduced to the concept that some people love people of their own sex.I don't see any relevance at all in your comments about the presence or absence of the word 'love' in other languages. Unless you're subscribing to linguistic determinism that is.Teaching about respect: that's pretty simple really, you shouldn't do things you don't want to do or try to get other people to do things they don't want to do.

how many must die for your "we'll wait and see?"

google for: "two std 1960"The Epidemic of Sexually Transmitted Diseases The only safe sex is no sex Also with articles such as:
Abortion ” Deadly Politics My boldCannibalism: Eyewitness accounts from inside the booming trade in fetal body parts
The End of Humanity?Links on the first page of results.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

The point is that Faith is not the only one reading your posts.

While promiscuity is obviously a factor in transmission rates, the mere 'opportunity for transmission' is not sufficient to account for the emergence of new diseases. And what makes you so sure they are so ”new’. Maybe what has increased is our ability to detect what previously passed unnoticed. Chlamydia might fit in this scenario. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest ”promiscuity’ only became rampant in the 70’s and 80’s. It has a history as old as humanity itself, as others have pointed out.
(i.e. at least 6,000 years, by your chronology )But I am still trying to absorb the implication of this statement.
Could it possibly be that you have accepted the concept that diseases can "evolve"?
I mean especially the ”new’ diseases you contend have arisen - wouldn’t these qualify as new ”species’?
I just can't believe I actually got you to use the word as a verb in a sentence, quotes notwithstanding. Apparently you found it a useful term, or even necessary to make your point. No, you’re missing the point. All diseases have cycles. They may become epidemic, but inevitably recede to become endemic. Human intervention may affect the magnitude and human impact of the disease cycle, or eventually eliminate some diseases entirely, but these cycles occur WITHOUT human intervention. They can be observed in animal populations. Ever hear of myxamytosis? If you had a better biology education you would know that disease cycles occur because (1) diseases have a tendency to evolve reduced virulence to their hosts, given long periods of association (it is ultimately in their interest to do so), and (2) because the host population gradually evolves immunity and/or tolerance. It’s like a continuing arms race, only there are payoffs for the disease to attenuate its impact and for the host to become more tolerant. Thus, the scale of the conflict is eventually reduced and host and disease co-evolve toward an equilibrium of coexistence. This might not be appropriate for us to wait for in the context of human STD’s, but that was my point - diseases are cyclical. Faith, diseases ARE business as usual in biology. They are a selective force on all animal populations, just like predation and parasitism. They aren’t going away and there will always be new ones emerging. You can view the latter as a punishment from god if you like - I view it simply as adaptive radiation in microorganisms. Really? And here I thought it was merely the entirely natural human desire for sex. Really? Have philosophers initiated any medical breakthroughs that I happened to miss? Or perhaps you believe if we all shared your philosophy, then god would be so pleased with us that all STD’s would just magically disappear? Sorry, but if that’s true, how did this ridiculous “abstinence only’ crap get as far as it has? Firstly, we have established that STD’s have been around as long as humanity itself (we can find them in insects, for crissakes), so they didn’t just take off in the 60’s. Secondly, ”sexual freedom’ is not some sort of philosophy. It is a natural, biological phenomenon and it has been with us, in one form or another, from the beginning of civilization. Don’t you know that women in ancient Egyptian experimented with particular plant extracts to try and both control their fertility and induce abortions?I can tell what is an ”unnatural philosophy’ - the idea that human beings should completely repress their sexual urges precisely at that time in their life when they are learning about how to enjoy them for the first time. THAT’s unnatural and runs counter to everything biological, and that’s why it won’t work.Edited by EZscience, : Sppellling

All that shows is that the general public was ignorant. that has nothing to do with morals, or STD's or reality except to show that the general public needed to be educated.We face the same issue today. Many people believe that Abstinence Only sex ed works or is a solution. It isn't, and the general public needs to be educated about the FACT that Abstinence Only is a total failure.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

http://www.pbs.org/...v2005/shelbyknox/special_overview.htmlIt appears that about 1/2 of US population supports "abstinence-plus" education, 1/3 supports comprehensive education and about 15% support abstinence only. That's good news.The study concludes that aspects of A-+ and CE do have a beneficial effect but that it is too soon to arrive at any conclusions about AO.