remember those teenage abstinence pledges?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ah, nice to see an article futher confirm my case.



Devices don't guard against HPV, White House argues

Ah, but you forget that the White House is under fire for distorting science to fit their religious agenda.

[Ben Kenobi]

it is those in charge of the organisations who are the liars,

And are these organisations making their case in this thread?

So your solution to increase pre-marital abstinence is to outlaw abortion.

No. That's not my solution. I want to ban abortion because I believe unborn children are persons, who ought not to be killed.

For abstinence, I would say all one can do is provide support for those who pledge, and to demonstrate that it is indeed possible, and beneficial for one to wait until marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

che:

Ah, but you forget that the White House is under fire for distorting science to fit their religious agenda.

Even the condom manufacturers admit that condoms do not stop the spread of HPV.

People were waiting for marriage before the pledge movement. I'm willing to bet the pledge movement hadn't really changed anything except to make children more vulnerable to early pregnancy and stds.

You would need some figures that would show abstinence rates relative to the overall population in order to make this case.

I would say one of the problems with such an analysis is that those were different times, where premarital intercourse was discouraged, rather than actively promoted.

As such, it makes sense to have something like the pledge, because it counteracts those enticements, we see each and every day while growing up.

[Ben Kenobi]

with teenage pregnancy and REAL ex-education Versus no-sex-education and/or fairy tales.
( see the difference between US/GB and for example France/Holland )

Again, alva.

You say sex education does work. I say that it does not, and provide a case. You say, that's not 'true' sex education, which is simply the no-true scotsman fallacy.

Show me what you believe constitutes proper sex education, and why.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
che:

Even the condom manufacturers admit that condoms do not stop the spread of HPV.

I would believe them before I'd believe the Bush White House.

You would need some figures that would show abstinence rates relative to the overall population in order to make this case.

I realize that.

I would say one of the problems with such an analysis is that those were different times, where premarital intercourse was discouraged, rather than actively promoted.

Not so different. There was a lotta teen sex in the 70s and 80s. Some years up, some years down. I've seen numbers to suggest that teen sex is rising. At the same time, fundimentalist Christianity is also growing. If I were to make the same kinds of assumptsions you make, I would say there is a correlation. There may be, but I have no idea.

As such, it makes sense to have something like the pledge,

Pledgers are at a disadvantage in chosing the time and place when they engage in sexual intercourse. Since they aren't planning on having sex, they don't prepare for it, and thus aren't ready when they do have sex.

Bunnygrrl figured out a good way to keep her sister from having sex early. She simply told her that young men are no good at sex, so there's no point having sex early. It worked.

As far as I'm concerned, if we can keep people from having sex until they graduate high school, that's a good thing. Waiting 'till marriage? That's a bad thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

So... you concede that any method is tempered by the ability of people to use it properly.

Yes.

If 88% of people don't use abstinence "properly", why do you think that it will be a very meaningful method, if 9 out of every 10 people can't stick to it? Why would people suddenly be able to have radically more success than that with this method?

Because they are actively discouraged from doing so, in the society we live in today. With some support, you will see these rates go up drastically.

Incorrect. Certain behaviors are instinctive and inherant. E.G. An OCD subject can't stop repeating certain actions because he wants to. With non-emergent imperitives, its still just a matter of time.

I would argue that with proper treatment the OCD subject can bring his desires under control. Ergo, genes do not determine behavior.

Wanting sex is obviously an evolution approved trait... wouldn't you say... in fact... the genes of those that didn't would be discarded, from the evolutionary pool.

False analogy. The majority does not necessarily indicate a trait that evolution would favour. An emergent minority gaining numbers would also be possible.

As for ability to abstain, I don't see evidence of that having any natural selection effect. Couples who did or didn't abstain are seemingly just as able to produce children who can progeny more children.

Lower sterility rates BY FAR among those who successfully abstain. With HPV rates at around 25% you will start to see this have a significant effect.

Secondly, if those who have intercourse delay marriage, then they will have fewer children then those who marry young.

Some individuals are more predisposed to rape than others, where hereditary influences accounted for appropriate conditions. Heredity doesn't account for every rapist... because social and cultural perception account for some, but not all mental development. Bi-random gene selection can account for generational differences in predispositions.

Again, some rapists would get off. I find that a morally repugnant answer, that some rapists should get off because their 'genes made them do so.'

Justice is as imperfect as people. Culture has dained that a kleptomaniac still be prosecuted for theft. The only excuse the law allows is disassociation between right and wrong, which is also a mental defect.

So justice that believes all rapists should be held accountable for their actions is flawed?

Tell that to a woman who has been raped.

Statistically tiny... and irrelevant when you are generalizing.

Saying that 1% of people don't want sex proves that there isn't an inbuilt evolutionary trait of sexual desire in humans is laughable. They are definably "the margin of error" in evolutionary terms.

Not irrelevant.

Remember the argument is not only those who deny intercourse for their entire lives, but also those who wait until marriage.

Secondly, you would consider a priest to be 'defective'?



Finally, it is not sufficient to sweep your hands around and say that genes determine everything, and ignore the fact that people choose not to have intercourse. One is enough to disprove your theory.

As for why they exist social influences, and genetic variances... as has been mentioned above.

Interesting. So now you deny that everyone IS born with the desire to have intercourse.

Good to hear. That means we should encourage people to abstain, rather than pressuring them to go against their natural inclinations.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And are these organisations making their case in this thread?

Not themselves, but if anyone does think that these pledges are a good idea then they usually support these organisations and their tactics. That probably does include you, or at least you wouldn't condemn them.

No. That's not my solution. I want to ban abortion because I believe unborn children are persons, who ought not to be killed.

For abstinence, I would say all one can do is provide support for those who pledge, and to demonstrate that it is indeed possible, and beneficial for one to wait until marriage.

That's fine by me. Anyone who wants to pledge can do that, although making a promise to maintain a lifestyle when you could very well change your mind some time later, as 88% of pledgers do seems a very empty way of doing it. But at least you answered my question, although what form of support is required to help people keep their pledges? I can't see any such "support", beyond demonstrating that it can be done if the person really wants it, being anything but unhelpful to the teens' development. What can you do, separate the sexes? Protect them from the real world?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Because they are actively discouraged from doing so, in the society we live in today. With some support, you will see these rates go up drastically.

Prove it.

I'll stick with the argument that in fact these numbers won't improve, and that the reason for that is that the desire for sex over a significant period of time, is stronger than any social stigma over the same period of time, for 9 out of 10 people. Increase the time and increase the percentage.

I would argue that with proper treatment the OCD subject can bring his desires under control. Ergo, genes do not determine behavior.

Uh... you walked right into that one...

U.S. and Japanese researchers said on Thursday they had found a genetic mutation that causes obsessive-compulsive disorder and other mental illnesses, and said some patients had a second mutation that made their conditions worse.
The rare finding could make it easier to discover good treatments for the disorder, one of the top 10 leading causes of disability worldwide.
Dr. Norio Ozaki of Fujita Health University School of Medicine in Toyoake, Japan and colleagues at several U.S. institutions -- including the University of Pittsburgh and Yale University -- worked on the study, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.
The gene is called the human serotonin transporter gene, hSERT, and helps control how the body uses serotonin, a message-carrying chemical or neurotransmitter linked with mood.
Some anxiety drugs and antidepressants target serotonin, but the researchers said patients with the mutations are not helped by these drugs.
“In all of molecular medicine, there are few known instances where two variants within one gene have been found to alter the expression and regulation of the gene in a way that appears associated with symptoms of a disorder,” said Dr. Dennis Murphy of the National Institute of Mental
Health, who worked on the study.
The researchers analyzed DNA from 170 people, including 30 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), 30 with eating disorders such as
anorexia and 30 with seasonal affective disorder -- which can cause depression and other symptoms in dark winter months.
They also looked at the DNA of 80 healthy people.
A specific mutation in the hSERT gene was seen in two patients with OCD and their families, but not in other patients.
With such a rare mutation showing up, the researchers believe it is likely to be found in other families with OCD and related disorders.
They interviewed relatives of the patients and found 6 of the 7 people with the mutation had an obsessive-compulsive disorder; some also had anorexia, Asperger's syndrome -- which is a form of autism -- social phobia, or were abusers of alcohol.
A second mutation was found in hSERT in two patients, giving them a “double dose.” The patients and their siblings had especially difficult to treat versions of OCD, the researchers said.

"Treatment" of OCD involves serotonin reuptake inhibitor or SRI, which replaces a naturally occurring serotonin process, found in patients without the same congenital issue. Its not a choice... its a chemical insufficiency.

False analogy. The majority does not necessarily indicate a trait that evolution would favour. An emergent minority gaining numbers would also be possible.

*LAUGHING UNCONTROLLABLY*

99% (and the remainder being either physically incapable or socially abberant) doesn't indicate something???

Is sex natural, or an unnatural creation of society?

Lower sterility rates BY FAR among those who successfully abstain. With HPV rates at around 25% you will start to see this have a significant effect.

Totally unsubstantiated bull****. Prove with peer reviewed numbers... Yes... I really want you to provide these.

Again, some rapists would get off. I find that a morally repugnant answer, that some rapists should get off because their 'genes made them do so.'

Your moral repugnance has nothing to do with anything.

So justice that believes all rapists should be held accountable for their actions is flawed?

Tell that to a woman who has been raped.

No... I don't believe that a *predisposed* rapist should be convicted and sent to jail... I believe he should be sent to a mental institution. Courts are unable to judge the exact factors of why a rapist, raped, and therein lies its fallability.

Not irrelevant.

Remember the argument is not only those who deny intercourse for their entire lives, but also those who wait until marriage.

At which point they'd be having sex... so their sexual desires would be fulfilled... whats your point again?

Secondly, you would consider a priest to be 'defective'?

You mean the priests who don't rape little boys, or the ones that do?

/me chuckles.

Finally, it is not sufficient to sweep your hands around and say that genes determine everything, and ignore the fact that people choose not to have intercourse. One is enough to disprove your theory.

Bull**** once more... you're ignoring genetic varience.

A genetic abnormality where a person has no sex drive due to hormonal imbalance (present at birth... due to genetic influences) or impotence would account for these people.

Social factors might influence some normal people to abstain, but they'd need to be abnormally suggestive to that.

Interesting. So now you deny that everyone IS born with the desire to have intercourse.

Good to hear. That means we should encourage people to abstain, rather than pressuring them to go against their natural inclinations.

Nope... the point was that a few people might be genetically abberant, causing abnormally low sex drive due to hormonal deficiencies or impotence.

Some of them probably become priests.

Initial mental disposition is based on genetics. Later development includes cultural and societal factors.

[Spiffor]

Sorry to pop in this thread, but I just want to tell that my girlfriend definitely doesn't separate sex from love, and we had numerous discussions about it: she cannot imagine having sex with someone she doesn't love, and she strongly rejects the very idea I have sex to somebody I don't love.

Yet, we had sex before being married. Sorry to state the obvious, but you can be in love without knowing if you're ready for a lifelong commitment yet.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I answered this objection quite some time ago. There are plenty of people who are religious, who do not take a pledge, and engage in premarital intercourse. Therefore, it is not enough to say that one's religion provides adequate impetus to wait until marriage.

No, you think you answered it when you really just looked right past it. Let's try one more time, Ben:

If you are more inclined to wait until marriage because you are religious, and you are also more inclined to take the pledge if you are religious, then the obvious correlation is that for many people, the pledge itself it completely meaningless, just like my shooting a random person example. If you're not going to do it anyway, then the pledge is just a meaningless bunch of words.

You might (and I really want to stress might) have a point if 88% of people who took the pledge did in fact remain abstinent until marriage, but it's the complete opposite. The study showed that only 11% more remained abstinent after a pledge than without, and you're acting like the pledge is a major step in the right direction. The fact is, there is no data on what impact religion itself played. To me, it's entirely conceivable that the entire difference is wholly attributable to those people's religious proclivities to abstain in the first place. I mean, you're arguement is that there are "plenty of people who are religious, who do not take a pledge, and engage in premarital intercourse". It seems that any reasonable person (maybe even you) could see that perhaps 11% of religious people abstain from pre-marital sex irrespective of any pledge. And even if it's not 11%, it's certainly more than 0%, so your great 11% "success rate" is in reality even less.

[Bosh]

Because they are actively discouraged from doing so, in the society we live in today. With some support, you will see these rates go up drastically.

So to make abstinence-based sex education work you have to fundamentally alter the whole way that society deals with sex? Isn't that a bit of a tall order? At least in the short term when abstinence-based sex ed. is failing miserably (88% failure rate and those 12% probably would have remained abstinent in any case) isn't it better to teach about contraceptives to prevent spread of STDs since kids are going to be having plenty of sex for the forseeable future?

[Q Classic]

spiff, i see it in exactly the way that your gf does.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Within marriage, I would agree, Provost. I would agree wholeheartedly.

For have I not been accused of shrifting marriage, in encouraging people to marry young?

Why within marriage? After all, marriage is just an anachronistic concept that is meaningless. People should have sex with whom they want (assuming all parties are consenting of course ), irrelevent of marriage, irrelevent of sex.

Also, by intent, are you trying to eliminate gay sex (after all, you won't let them get married, and there is no sex before marriage).

Personally I would be more likely to take a 'no marriage before sex' line

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure, you can know that you risk catching an std, or conceiving a baby.

If you end up with either you will know which act caused that outcome.



Eh. A child should be killed so you can avoid the consequences of intercourse? No dice, whaleboy.



Sure. Even with protection, the risks remain.



Clever. Very clever, Whaleboy.

All actions have consequences.

However, I would say that if an action has foreseeable negative consequences, that one ought not to pursue the course of action, unless one can make the case for the good produced by the action would outweigh the bad.

Now, there are many ways looking at this, depending on your theory of the good.

Since you hate Kant, I'll take him up.

One should act as if your action, were to become a universal maxim.

Now, suppose one were to say that one should engage in premarital intercourse, what could we anticipate, if everyone engaged in the action?

First of all, we would see a rampant spread of both stds, and unplanned pregnancies.

While the latter is not negative, per se, the former would be.



No, altruism can have selfish benefits, assuming that a reputation for altruism encourages the assistance of others.



Neither assumption holds water.



Again, if everyone were to engage in premarital intercourse, one would have to deal with many children, as well as stds, both of which become a burden on the state.




Health consequences to women on the pill need to be considered.



Positive benefits of lack of std infection, plus formation of relationships.



Again, not everyone has this drive. Is it beneficial to a priest to have a positive value?



False dichotomy. Intercourse in marriage satisfies both desires.

Not only do you need to show that intercourse is positive, you have to make the comparision between premarital, and marital intercourse.

I would suggest the latter would be more beneficial than the former.

Abortion: The issues surrounding abortion are complex, and something of a red herring to this debate. Now relativism has some interesting consequences (and some contradictory so pick and mix on this matter), but speaking personally, I have no objection to the termination of a blasticist, as opposed to the termination of a 20 week old foetus, so we should make that distinction. In that contraceptive capacity, abortion would presumably occur very quickly (including morning-after pill) after conception. Nonetheless the proposition of “killing a baby to avoid the consequences of intercourse” is not going to cut ice in this debate. We have to regard the issue of abortion at this stage as analogous to Schrodingers cat, since if either wants to communicate a view we cannot run in with assumptions that are immediately going to draw fire by default from another. To make a reasoned position in a given context, such assumptions have to be more founded, otherwise we end with an “if” debate, which adds unnecessary complexity.

Risk prevention and possible problems (inc Pill): Now as for the issue of risk prevention, including contraceptives such as condoms and the pill. They are not perfect but especially when used in conjunction with each other, for all intents and purposes the risks are negligible. For example, consider a case of a man using a condom having intercourse with a woman on the pill. To make matters even safer, it is prudent for one to be aware of ones own sexual health, and make partners aware of that. Now the methods of prevention can have consequences of their own. Certain types of condoms reduce the pleasure to the male of sex (though this is subjective since the desensitising effects cause him to have a delayed, and thus intensified orgasm). The pill can have heath consequences for women, the most significant being infertility if she does not stop at least once during a given menstrual cycle. However, one assumes proper use, and if you are going to make a sociological argument, if that society deems the pill safe, then from that perspective it is. I would further say that the pill is a generally safe method of contraception anyway, again assuming proper use. In order to make a conceptual argument, one should always assume competence unless dealing with the issue of competence in itself, which we are not.

Consequences of sex: Now as for the consequences of sex. There is of course risk, but I would say that with the proper and extensive use of contraceptive techniques, the risk is reduced to an analogy of being hit by a car. Every time I cross a road, there is a risk that I will be run over, but since I take precautions such as watching out for cars and waiting for the road to clear, I do not consider the risk sufficient cause for me not to cross the road. Now you can respond by saying that crossing a road is necessary but sex is superfluous. However such a proposition won't hold much water because that is your view of another's actions, whereas I would say that casual sex is a necessary part of some people's forming relationships, which is necessary for a high quality of life. For others, a feeling of self-assurance, esteem, or even simply the satisfaction of libido increases the quality of their life and is necessary. Bare in mind that the notion of “need” is not objective. It is dependent upon our own states of minds, in an emotive sense. However, you must attack the notion of necessity, rather than purporting the notion that sex is superfluous. Since I have brought in emotivism (sic Stevenson and Ayer) and hence non-cognitivism, you must attack it from an objectivist view. In other words you must now find a reason that holds true for everybody that enjoys casual sex that what they are doing is superfluous and furthermore wrong. The situation as it stands is a subjective assessment of the consequences and a decision to proceed based upon ones own predisposition's and situational factors to which one is independent.

Now for a more pragmatic argument. Real life risks or consequences of sex:
Pregnancy. The big one. Adequately prevented by proper and extensive use of contraceptive techniques. There will be some exceptions naturally but methinks the state can easily cope with that. Couples outside of marriage may wish to engage in sex with the aim of producing children. Unless the state considers them unfit parents, I see no reason why they should not. Furthermore I see no reason why they should be married in order to have children. It is a case of necessary and sufficient conditions. Is the fact that they are objectively not married sufficient to prevent a couple who want subjectively to have children from doing so? There's a Hume gap there, that is not IMO filled.

Kant: You stated that if an action has foreseeable negative consequences one ought not to pursue that course of action unless positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences. If Plato could foresee Nazi Germany, would you say it was wrong of him to write the Republic? If Marx could see Stalin's Russia, would you say it was wrong of him to write Kapital? If More could see centuries of bad philosophy would you say it was wrong of him to write Utopia?

Your difficulty is that you have brought in the notion of consequences, good and bad. Who is to say that is good or bad, or that something that is bad for one, in one timeframe is not necessarily so for another person in another timeframe (consider things that were once bad having positive consequences, and those positive consequences having negative consequences etc., so we end up with a general value of 0 for them given a reasonable length of time). That means worthlessness, so taking actions on the basis of long term consequences is a fallacy. Direct consequences on the other hand are a different matter. These are things that are directly attributable to the action. In terms of sex, those include pregnancy and STI's. This has already been covered by my words on contraceptives, and thus if they want to have sex for the purposes of physical fun or whatever, I see no consequential reason why not.

And as for Kant, we should act as though everything were a universal maxim, so whether or not it would be good if all engaged in that action. Your predictions of rampant STI's and unplanned pregnancies would occur imo but in a far less apocalyptic manner than you prognosticate. Certainly insufficient imo to prevent two individuals engaging in that action. Nonetheless, Kant's idea is flawed. Relativism steps in again and questions the validity of a subjective taking an action from a necessarily objective standpoint, whereas when the two are opposed, they are both subjectively opposed . Furthermore, what if I, as an individual am affected by different circumstances than everyone else. My needs are not the same as everybody else's, and taking actions on the assumption that they are is a bit of a misnomer. All men are not equal, merely equally valid, which lends itself to my position.

My point about altruism is that it does not exist. There is no such thing as an entirely selfless action. Even taking actions that on the face of it appear selfless have selfish motivations, even if those be the fulfilment of some internal programming that causes to place ourselves in danger for the sake of others. You could extend this, controversially, by saying that our actions, while also being selfish are based entirely upon sex. I am not submitting that into this argument, rather making an interesting divergence.

Positive benefits of abstinence vs. positive benefits of non-abstinence: This is an entirely arbitrary and discretional idea. For some, abstinence may help, for example, like you said in relationships, whereas for others sex is beneficial for the same reasons, and those aforementioned. The point of my argument is to say that the positive benefits of abstinence do not necessarily outweigh those of sex, in other words, it's not always preferable. That seems to fly in the face of my previous statements, and perhaps that is the case. I was there merely exercising my own subjectivity whereas now I am making a stab at a more considered opinion, rather than a simple chain of reasoning.

Does everyone have sex drive and is that in relation to other contradictory things such as religion: I'm not going to make an objective statement but I would postulate that all humans and all biological organisms have a sex drive in one incarnation or another. A sexually beneficial value of >0 in someone for whom it is not beneficial brings in the notion of whether that which is sexually beneficial is generally beneficial. In the case of a priest, the answer is clearly no. Sex value is outweighed by doctrinal value. Human beings are most certainly not internally consistent.

Is religion a pre-requisite to abstinence?: Of course not! Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions are most certainly not representative here. Consider Tantric Buddhism for example. Would you say that one religions view on sex is more valid than another? If so, why?

“Not only do you need to show that intercourse is positive, you have to make the comparison between premarital, and marital intercourse. I would suggest the latter to be more beneficial than the former”:

I make no distinction between premarital and marital intercourse. Marriage to me is a relationship that has been stated as such in a contract, in the eyes of the state and or a religious institution. The question of their respective stability has been asked and contested on another thread and I won't go into it in great depth here, but I see no conceptual reason why marriage makes a better relationship and even if that was the case, why that should lead to preferable sex. In your statement on the matter you seemed to present your own subjectivity, so rather than telling us what to do, merely stating what you do. That's cool, I can't argue with that, just ask that different ways of doing things are respected and regarded as valid for the accounted beholder.

I'm not trying to ****e on your position here, you have a valid view and are debating it competently, concisely and respectfully. I think some people are getting frustrated because of that fact so keep it going . I may disagree with what you have to say but respect the fact that you are saying it and the manner in which you doing so.

[Gibsie]

Whoa. How long did that post take to write?