Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 9:47 AM
34 online now:
1.61803, DWIII, edge, FLRW, Heathen, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (8 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,144 Year: 5,181/19,786 Month: 1,303/873 Week: 199/460 Day: 15/29 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 306 (311999)
05-15-2006 1:09 PM


So, some more studies have come in, and it doesn't look good for abstinence-only programs.

It's not just that kids to take pledges to not have sex before marriage still have premarital sex (just a year or so later than those who do not take such pledges) and are more likely to not use any protection.

Now studies are showing that the pledge-takers are more likely to also engage in oral and anal sex, also with less liklihood of using protection.

In particular, the Latina, (very patriarchal and very Catholic) teen population) is most likely to engage in anal sex, which is an activity particularly likely to spread AIDS and other STD's when engaged in without condoms.

It looks as though all of these strict Christians who love to tell their kids "just say no" are stupidly steering them into, um, somewhat more exotic endeavors.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by EZscience, posted 05-15-2006 1:22 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 05-15-2006 1:51 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 2:03 PM nator has responded
 Message 150 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 4:20 PM nator has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3263 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 2 of 306 (312008)
05-15-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
05-15-2006 1:09 PM


Well you can't teach much about how to have safe sex when you limit your curriculum to 'just don't do it', can you?

Here is a relevant article on the Planned Parenthood site. I liked it.

quote:
Abstinence-only education is one of the religious right's greatest challenges to the nation's sexual health. But it is only one tactic in a broader, longer-term strategy. Since the early 1980s, the "family values" movement has won the collaboration of governments and public institutions, from Congress to local school boards, in abridging students' constitutional rights. Schools now block student access to sexual health information in class, at the school library, and through the public library's Internet portals. They violate students' free speech rights by censoring student publications of articles referring to sexuality. Abstinence-only programs often promote alarmist misinformation about sexual health and force-feed students religious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and contraception. In doing so, they endanger students' sexual health.

I know I have read some of those recent reports you are mentioning.
I'll see if I can dig one up.


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

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 3 of 306 (312016)
05-15-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
05-15-2006 1:09 PM


So, some more studies have come in, and it doesn't look good for abstinence-only programs.

We must be looking at different facts.

Here are the facts as I see them:

  • they (abstinence only advocates) control the White House;
  • they control congress;
  • they control the senate;
  • they have many news media intimidated to the extent that they are hesitant to criticize the program.


    Regime change in Washington, congressional elections Nov. 2006
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by nator, posted 05-15-2006 1:09 PM nator has not yet responded

  • Faith
    Member
    Posts: 30963
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 4 of 306 (312021)
    05-15-2006 2:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by nator
    05-15-2006 1:09 PM


    It may be true that the attempt to keep sin to a minimum in a culture only provokes worse sins. The Law is said in scripture to provoke violations of it. Just the way things are.

    But I also think that can't be the concern of leaders and teachers of youth. Their job has to be to stand for what's right and teach the kids what's wrong. I realize this is a very old-fashioned view. But you know what, until the sixties it pretty much was the status quo. There was always sin, there will always be sin, but there was never sin in this country before the sixties on the scale there has been since, with popular and political support yet, and partly this is because people take a practical view of it instead of a moral view.

    As I've been saying on the "Falwell" thread, if our national leaders support immoral behavior the nation will be exposed to God's punishment. This is the real reason for the health problems already created by the sexual freedom of the last few decades -- it's judgment, the kind of judgment that is built into the sin in this case, to echo Dr. Frost's comments on the other thread.

    So regarding this as a health problem instead of a moral problem IS the problem.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by nator, posted 05-15-2006 1:09 PM nator has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 4:31 PM Faith has responded
     Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-15-2006 6:40 PM Faith has responded
     Message 49 by fallacycop, posted 05-15-2006 10:02 PM Faith has not yet responded
     Message 93 by nator, posted 05-17-2006 12:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    CK
    Member (Idle past 2237 days)
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 07-04-2004


    Message 5 of 306 (312080)
    05-15-2006 4:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
    05-15-2006 2:03 PM


    Sigh - we went through this last time you harked on about the 1960s, when I produced a series of reports that demonstrated that there were more unmarried mothers in the 1950s. Do I really have to do all that stuff up again - your pre-1960s golden age never existed - it didn't happened.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 2:03 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2006 5:28 PM CK has not yet responded
     Message 7 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 5:32 PM CK has not yet responded
     Message 14 by subbie, posted 05-15-2006 6:48 PM CK has not yet responded

    Coragyps
    Member
    Posts: 5381
    From: Snyder, Texas, USA
    Joined: 11-12-2002
    Member Rating: 8.5


    Message 6 of 306 (312098)
    05-15-2006 5:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by CK
    05-15-2006 4:31 PM


    Same with "health issues" - syphilis and gonorrhea were rampant back before 1950. Those stats have been posted here, too.

    Abstinence-only ain't workin'! Five pregnant eighth-graders in the school my wife works at, of a class with a hundred or so girls, who've been through the show-'em-diseased-genitalia sort of abstinence-only sex ed, pretty much confirms it for me. And those five were just the ones who carried babies to term/didn't go off to live at Aunt Debbies' house.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 4:31 PM CK has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 128 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-18-2006 8:17 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 30963
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 7 of 306 (312099)
    05-15-2006 5:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by CK
    05-15-2006 4:31 PM


    yeah, do it again CK.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 4:31 PM CK has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 05-15-2006 5:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 306 (312103)
    05-15-2006 5:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
    05-15-2006 5:32 PM


    The Pill
    When did the pill come out? That might skew some statistics.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 5:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by jar, posted 05-15-2006 5:44 PM robinrohan has not yet responded
     Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2006 5:50 PM robinrohan has not yet responded
     Message 11 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 6:01 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30936
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 9 of 306 (312110)
    05-15-2006 5:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by robinrohan
    05-15-2006 5:38 PM


    Re: The Pill
    Actually, it probably skewed the pregnancy statistics, but I can assure you it had little effect on the preliminaries. ;)


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 05-15-2006 5:38 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

    Coragyps
    Member
    Posts: 5381
    From: Snyder, Texas, USA
    Joined: 11-12-2002
    Member Rating: 8.5


    Message 10 of 306 (312112)
    05-15-2006 5:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by robinrohan
    05-15-2006 5:38 PM


    Re: The Pill
    The Pill was early 60's.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 05-15-2006 5:38 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

      
    CK
    Member (Idle past 2237 days)
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 07-04-2004


    Message 11 of 306 (312119)
    05-15-2006 6:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by robinrohan
    05-15-2006 5:38 PM


    Re: The Pill
    All how we all go in circles - I'm still looking for the earlier earlier thread (about unmarried moms) but this is from a later one on some of the same subject.

    quote:
    quote:
    The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000. Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s;

    They were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.


    Boonstra, H. Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under grant FPR00072.

    quote:
    Behind the movement of the 1880s lay the agitation around the Contagious Diseases Acts as well as religious revivalism. The campaign for the repeal of these Acts of the 1860s which allowed compulsory examination of women suspected of working as prostitutes in garrison towns and ports, gave women the experience of thinking and speaking about previously tabooed topics. Women in the Ladies National Association inspired by Josephine Butler, were united in indignation against the double standard of sexual morality, men's use of prostitutes and the sexual abuse of children.

    But..but..it was the 1880s! It was better wanna it.. Those women were fighting against something that wasn't a problem until the 1960s.

    quote:
    Hopkins advised the Ladies Associations to set up Vigilance Associations in their towns, where they did not already exist, to concern themselves with indecent printed matter and shows, brothel-visiting, and prosecution of sex offenders.

    Sheila Jeffreys, 'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880-1914, Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 5, Issue 6, 1982, Pages 629-645.

    And yes people saw "traditional" marriage as a wonderful thing..oh wait...

    quote:
    Now this may very probably be a survival of the old evil doctrine of the subjection of women and the absolute supremacy of the head of the family over all members of it . In all nations of progressive civilization the history of their progress has consisted in the gradual emancipation of sons, servants, daughters and wives from their former subjection

    Fawcett. Millicent. 1892. On the amendments Required in the Criminal law. Amendment Act 1X85. Women's Printing Society.London.


    [/quote]

    www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1020&m=63#63 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1020&m=63#63">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1020&m=63#63


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 05-15-2006 5:38 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:43 PM CK has not yet responded

    SuperNintendo Chalmers
    Member (Idle past 3943 days)
    Posts: 772
    From: Bartlett, IL, USA
    Joined: 12-27-2005


    Message 12 of 306 (312129)
    05-15-2006 6:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
    05-15-2006 2:03 PM


    Since the 60s?s
    There was always sin, there will always be sin, but there was never sin in this country before the sixties on the scale there has been since, with popular and political support yet, and partly this is because people take a practical view of it instead of a moral view.

    Yeah, I can't believe how we actually treat black people like human beings now. I mean, we actually give women equal rights now also. There is oh so much sin now.

    Maybe you meant the 1860s, since slavery was abolished then


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 2:03 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 6:48 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
     Message 15 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 6:56 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    CK
    Member (Idle past 2237 days)
    Posts: 3221
    Joined: 07-04-2004


    Message 13 of 306 (312131)
    05-15-2006 6:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
    05-15-2006 6:40 PM


    Re: Since the 60s?s
    I was actually quite shocked to find out about this - 1967!!!!! :eek:

    quote:
    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    Edited by CK, : Typo.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-15-2006 6:40 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 7:14 PM CK has not yet responded

    subbie
    Member (Idle past 69 days)
    Posts: 3508
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 14 of 306 (312132)
    05-15-2006 6:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by CK
    05-15-2006 4:31 PM


    You've got to remember, Faith is from the old school. You know, the "I know what the truth is, don't try to confuse me with the facts" school.

    Doesn't matter what anyone else says or what statistics you can marshal, she's already made up her mind.


    Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by CK, posted 05-15-2006 4:31 PM CK has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 6:59 PM subbie has responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 30963
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 15 of 306 (312136)
    05-15-2006 6:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
    05-15-2006 6:40 PM


    Re: Since the 60s?s
    There was always sin, there will always be sin, but there was never sin in this country before the sixties on the scale there has been since, with popular and political support yet, and partly this is because people take a practical view of it instead of a moral view.

    Yeah, I can't believe how we actually treat black people like human beings now. I mean, we actually give women equal rights now also. There is oh so much sin now.

    Maybe you meant the 1860s, since slavery was abolished then

    Oh yeah, trot out the popular PC accusations -- racism, sexism, etc. -- spawned in those very 1960s if you want to smear your opponent -- who has said nothing on the subject -- just because you don't like the opinion she DID express. Clever. Subject change + misrepresentation/straw man + character assassination. Works great.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-15-2006 6:40 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019