Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 306 (313186)
05-18-2006 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jar
05-18-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Public Ignorance?
You think they didn't knock themselves out educating people about syphilis and gonorrhea? Where were you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 05-18-2006 11:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 05-18-2006 12:37 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 137 of 306 (313189)
05-18-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by fallacycop
05-18-2006 8:15 AM


Re: MORALS
No such acusation! The point is that the more information they have, the better prepared they are to make good choices.
I am responding to the OP, sticking within the parameters laid down for the thread. Nobody said one word about the program itself except that it promotes abstinence only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by fallacycop, posted 05-18-2006 8:15 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by fallacycop, posted 05-18-2006 1:24 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 306 (313190)
05-18-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by macaroniandcheese
05-18-2006 8:35 AM


Re: More evidence of the Failure of Abstinence programs.
how many must die for your "we'll wait and see?"
Ask the anti-abstinence camp. They're the ones I was talking about. How long indeed before the pragmatic instrumentalist method is shown to be a huge mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 8:35 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 2:34 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 205 by nator, posted 05-19-2006 11:04 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 139 of 306 (313193)
05-18-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
05-18-2006 12:15 PM


Re: Public Ignorance?
Yet again, your response has nothing to do with what I said.
You said:
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.
I responded that all that said was that the general public was ignorant.
You now respond:
You think they didn't knock themselves out educating people about syphilis and gonorrhea? Where were you?
Certainly people were taught (usually over the violent objections of the Christian Fundies) about VD. But not about many of the other STDs. In fact, during the 60's we did not have the knowledgebase, the trained medical corps, the communications mediums and the point of view that educating the public was good policy. The 60's in many ways were still dominated by some of the more restrictive religious conservatives, and educating folk was not very high on the list.
That is very similar to the current position you've been proposing. What others have been suggesting is that the answer is better, more complete education of the public. Teach them what we now know about STDs, make available the tools and technology now available to minimize the impact of STDs, and do what we can to aliviate the problem.
There is another recdent study, a related study, on how kids learn about things they can't see. It's on How kids learn about God and Science
It points to the possibility that how parents and others teach about God and other invisible things such as germs influences how much kids believe. When you teach Abstinence Only, the results seem to show all it does is encourage kids to have sex. By teaching it as a Moral Absolute are you not infact simply encouraging kids to test the limits?
If, on the otherhand, abstinence is simply included within a comprehensive education the studies seem to show a far higher success rate.
Is your goal simply to demonize sex or to reduce the incidence of pre and extra marital sex?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 12:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 12:45 PM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 306 (313196)
05-18-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by EZscience
05-18-2006 9:48 AM


My view confirmed in spades
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.
Good grief, read what I've written. You keep repeating this absolutely irrelevant stuff. It doesn't matter if the new diseases were heard of somewhere, in some cultural pockets or in some science labs, I'm talking about a widespread phenomenon. And sheesh I've been very clear about that. And that link back in Message 36 said the same thing.
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’?
"Microevolution," o unhappy term, was well known before Darwin.
Faith, diseases ARE business as usual in biology.
I'm not talking about what biology does in the lab, I'm talking about what people are coping with in life. What is worked with in the lab is only what is produced by life. It can't give you a perspective on that, it gives you a skewed perspective.
Faith writes:
. it is variations on this attitude that have been driving the promiscuity
Really? And here I thought it was merely the entirely natural human desire for sex.
Yes, you did, and I've answered you thoroughly. That is NOT what is driving this whole scenario, it is the philosophy of sexual freedom not biology that is driving it. Your very view of it is part of that philosophy.
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.
Ha ha ha ha ha. THAT's the Sexual Freedom Mantra itself. Ha ha. There you have it. Why bother saying anything else? This is the crux of the matter. It's the driving force these days. The abstinence-only people are the only ones who see the handwriting on the wall and hope to head off the coming disaster but there are too few of them and their view is unpopular. {abe: Oh they may be going about it wrong, I don't know as I haven't studied the programs, but the goal is the only one that can save the culture in the long run}
So the forces of Sexual Freedom are driving the culture. And public health has to try to keep up.
Ha ha. Well, as I said, good luck there.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by EZscience, posted 05-18-2006 9:48 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by EZscience, posted 05-18-2006 1:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 180 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-19-2006 10:36 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 141 of 306 (313198)
05-18-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by jar
05-18-2006 12:37 PM


Re: Public Ignorance?
Is your goal simply to demonize sex or to reduce the incidence of pre and extra marital sex?
My interest is in holding together a viable culture that can avoid self-destruction. A lost cause obviously, judging by this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 05-18-2006 12:37 PM jar has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 142 of 306 (313201)
05-18-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
05-18-2006 12:42 PM


Re: My view confirmed in spades
Faith writes:
"Microevolution," o unhappy term, was well known before Darwin.
Actually, I am quite sure this particular term is post-Darwinian.
Faith writes:
The abstinence-only people are the only ones who see the handwriting on the wall and hope to head off the coming disaster...
Let me guess. Armageddon ?
Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 12:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 1:29 PM EZscience has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 143 of 306 (313210)
05-18-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
05-18-2006 12:22 PM


Re: MORALS
Faith writes:
I am responding to the OP, sticking within the parameters laid down for the thread. Nobody said one word about the program itself except that it promotes abstinence only.
I'll take from it then that you do not realize that abstinance only programs do indeed withold information (That IS the meaning of the word only in this context). I'm glad to be able to better inform you of that fact, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 12:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 1:36 PM fallacycop has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 306 (313213)
05-18-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by EZscience
05-18-2006 1:03 PM


Re: My view confirmed in spades
"Microevolution," o unhappy term, was well known before Darwin.
Actually, I am quite sure this particular term is post-Darwinian.
Drat, EZ, you're usually one of the more lucid ones here, but you're being ridiculously obtuse on this subject. Yeah, the TERM is post-Darwinian -- "O UNHAPPY TERM" I said for that reason -- it comes out of the evolution flap. But the REALITY was well known before Darwin. He made use of it in his investigations after all.
Faith writes:
The abstinence-only people are the only ones who see the handwriting on the wall and hope to head off the coming disaster...
Let me guess. Armageddon ?
More modest -- the death of the West. Perhaps a takeover by Islam when we're crippled by internal collapse. The sexual freedom philosophy would have a bit of a problem with that I imagine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by EZscience, posted 05-18-2006 1:03 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by EZscience, posted 05-18-2006 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 145 of 306 (313214)
05-18-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by fallacycop
05-18-2006 1:24 PM


The abstinence-only program
I'll take from it then that you do not realize that abstinance only programs do indeed withold information (That IS the meaning of the word only in this context). I'm glad to be able to better inform you of that fact, then.
It may be off topic considering the OP as defined, but if not please spell it out specifically. What interests me on this thread is the worldview that is behind the whole mess as defined in the OP, the fact that with one hand they are mixing up this toxic brew in massive cauldrons while with the other trying to cure people of its effects. I suspect that as long as the Sexual Freedom Philosophy is running the show, NO program is going to be able to cope with its effects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by fallacycop, posted 05-18-2006 1:24 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by fallacycop, posted 05-18-2006 1:48 PM Faith has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 146 of 306 (313218)
05-18-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
05-18-2006 1:29 PM


Re: My view confirmed in spades
Faith writes:
Drat, EZ, you're usually one of the more lucid ones here
Sorry. I'll try and remain that way. But you are right, the various theories of gradual change in species begain 'evolving' around the turn of the 18th century. Darwin cites 38 other authors as influencing his ideas in the preface to his first edition.
Faith writes:
Perhaps a takeover by Islam when we're crippled by internal collapse. The sexual freedom philosophy would have a bit of a problem with that I imagine.
My goodness Faith, for a Christian, you're such a pessimist.
Who else could bridge from the failure of abstinence-only sex education to the complete demise of western society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 1:29 PM Faith has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 147 of 306 (313220)
05-18-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
05-18-2006 1:36 PM


TRUST
Faith writes:
It may be off topic considering the OP as defined, but if not please spell it out specifically. What interests me on this thread is the worldview that is behind the whole mess as defined in the OP, the fact that with one hand they are mixing up this toxic brew in massive cauldrons while with the other trying to cure people of its effects. I suspect that as long as the Sexual Freedom Philosophy is running the show, NO program is going to be able to cope with its effects.
The whole thing is about trust, Faith. Only by trusting them and giving them the whole information, they will trust us back and actually take our opinions and points of view into cosideration. And that increases the chance that they will make better informed safer wiser decisions. The abstinence only programs break that chain of trust, and that's why they won't work

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 148 of 306 (313231)
05-18-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
05-18-2006 12:24 PM


Re: More evidence of the Failure of Abstinence programs.
well, you'd have to let us implement it to find out. and that will never happen.
not to mention earlier in the thread you owned the "we'll wait and see" as your own "wise" words.
flip... flop.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 12:24 PM Faith has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 149 of 306 (313241)
05-18-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
05-18-2006 2:10 AM


Re: MORALS
HOW the program is set up I really don't know. Nobody has bothered to give the outlines on this thread. All that's been said on this thread is that it doesn't work, therefore it's evil, and the way it doesn't work is by the kids doing the opposite of what the program advocates.
so you're just really frothing at the mouth waxing poetical about your grand morals and the utter depravity of the rest of us who would like to see real information provided to kids to prevent the spread of disease?
why don't you get off your soapbox and bother to do a little research. just a little google search. your opinions are not constructive or contributing in the slightest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 2:10 AM Faith has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 150 of 306 (313246)
05-18-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
05-15-2006 1:09 PM


the biggest problem with abstinence only education is the lies. i'll share a few anecdotes from my own experience.
i was taught in my state-mandated life management skills class with abstinence only bent that the pores in latex condoms are bigger than both the aids virus and sperm and there was no point in using one. no one discussed the dangers or oral or anal sex and the std transmissions associated with them. also, no one discussed with us how birth control pills work or any other methods.
one day this obnoxious kid in my anat phys class brought up anal sex and my teacher informed him that the anal tissue is non-lubricating and is more likely to tear during intercourse and thus will spread disease more easily. but this was not in a sex-ed class or under such curriculum. just a good teacher being honest with students instead of feeding them bullshit.
having grown up in abstinence-only education systems in a bleeding county in a red state, i can tell you that i was greatly disadvantaged in my sexual health. i was fortunate that i have massive social handicaps and was not involved in any relationships until college. however, i was ill-equipped to deal with emotional and sexual abuse from boyfriends and other men in my life. i was not prepared with sexual self-respect. i was not prepared with any real-life how to communicate knowledge. i was only given a vague "just don't do it" line. in spite of my own intelligence, it was difficult to obtain the proper sexual health information on my own. i was not informed on the emotional toll of mere petting nor was i prepared for the issues relating to oral sex. moreover, my 'wait for the one' education left me vulnerable to that first asshole who told me he'd marry me and whom everyone liked and approved of (or at least seemed to). the reluctance of my mother to discuss the subject of sex and interpersonal relations has left me the most unprepared. not to mention the fact that i still can't discuss my sex life with her...
my abstinence-only upbringing has left me shy about asking my doctor about sexual health as well. this is the absolute worst part of it all. i can't even talk to the one person sworn to secrecy.
fortunately, i've come a long way after having some very wise friends assist me with my issues. but i know that had i been provided with better knowledge, i would have been able to make wiser decisions and even further delay my sexual activity. see, what people like faith don't see is that most of us would love to see more teens delaying sexual activity. it's risky behavior, especially for people who are not fully emotionally prepared for it. but we don't feel that people can make such wise decisions with a meager moral instruction. people need all the facts. i can't know not to buy a car if i don't understand debt, and financing, and how expensive rent is, and how much utilities are and so forth, not to mention gas prices. moreover, i need to be educated so i can choose which car i want to buy and to wait for the right car instead of buying the first one with a shiny paint job. don't tell me not to buy a car because i will get into a wreck. tell me what is involved in car buying and car ownership. same deal with sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 05-15-2006 1:09 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Coragyps, posted 05-18-2006 4:52 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 5:28 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024