science says: abstinence is not an option, teen sex inevitable

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Fair enough, but every study and statistic I have ever seen shows that abstinence only education not only fails to reduce teenage sex, pregnancy, and STD rates, but in many cases, increases it. As far as I'm aware, the only people who dispute this are those with an axe to grind - ie, churches and Christian fundamentalists.

Both sides are at fault. Most of the media coverage goes to pointing out the failures of the religious -right though.

So are STDs. So is teen pregnancy.

Thats true, but not to the same degree as non-STI's.

I didn't mean to imply I wanted to debate the HPV vaccine issue - I can understand both POVs, but ultimately, there is little risk and lots to gain by requiring it. I don't see how requiring a HPV vaccination involves any more government intrusion than requiring a smallpox vaccination - in other words, if you support the one, it's not much of a leap to support the other.

All vaccines carry some element of risk. Usually that risk is very small, but the facts are that every year healthy children die from adverse responses to vaccines. A government mandate that requires someone take a vaccine in order to attend school for an infection that is completely avoidable by other means is overly intrusive IMO.

Yes, but so do parents who home school their kids. When you look at it, most home schoolers are parents who oppose the teaching of evolution and/or sex education in school, and would rather teach the failed doctrine of abstinence only and the scientifically silly doctrine of intelligent design. This also ignores the social aspects, as homeschooled children are very often very socially maladjusted.

What "small issues" are you talking about, and when did I imply that schools should be involved with "small issues"? Schools should simply educate children, from a curriculum standpoint. Moral and religious issues should best be left at home. Now, sex education seems to fall in both areas for many people, so my suggestion is to simply teach children the facts that are based on science and scientific studies. How can anyone argue with that?

You seem to have missed the point I was making. My comment was a single thought in a single paragraph. I'll try to re-phrase.

Schools are not "bastions of truth". In fact they teach all kinds of rubbish. By "small issues" I was refering to simple falsehoods taught as classroom facts. For example, my daughters have been taught that virus are not alive. Given that I'm much more qualified to discuss the issue than a highschool teacher I can provide them with the alternative (correct) viewpoint. My wife handles the numerous english and other language issues that crop up. These are "small issues" that do not require our attorneys attention.

The teaching of intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a "small issue" to me. It's teaching requires a policy decision by a school board and our opposition to it, as parents, requires more than our quiet correction at home of a factual error. I recognize that for some parents their opposition to sex-education is not a "small issue". Their concerns should not be dismissed, nor should their rights be mandated away by the very dubious umbrella of concerns for "public health".

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Larger issues of educational stupidity, though, have to be dealt with by confronting the school board. If we ignore the issues that some parents have with teaching sex-education then how can we oppose the teaching of "intelligent design"without being hypocrites?

The difference is that by including homosexuality in age-appropriate cirriculum in sex education courses, we have a chance to undo the harmful stereotypes and dehumanizing views of gays and lesbians. Whereas with intelligent design cirriculum, it is based on blatant misinformation and distortion of science and how science works.

I do not see any hypocrisy in opposing intelligent design while arguing against those who would oppose including gays and lesbians as human beings in sex education courses.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Are you saying it's ok to sleep around when you are an adult?

yep

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Condoms are more like airbags. They are there, but I don't know anybody who deliberately crashes because they know they have airbags.

I don't consider someone who crashes their car expecting an airbag to save them as responsible. Same with sleeping around. You are taking a massive chance with your own health and relying on a quarter inch of latex to shield you.

This is a stupid post.

[Kuciwalker]

Sleeping around

Condoms

[Alinestra Covelia]

^ QFT

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Sleeping around

Condoms

. . . and without bragging about your tricks at Five Guys.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun


The difference is that by including homosexuality in age-appropriate cirriculum in sex education courses, we have a chance to undo the harmful stereotypes and dehumanizing views of gays and lesbians. Whereas with intelligent design cirriculum, it is based on blatant misinformation and distortion of science and how science works.

I do not see any hypocrisy in opposing intelligent design while arguing against those who would oppose including gays and lesbians as human beings in sex education courses.

You appear to be implying that there are only good effects to sex-education and only bad effects to teaching intelligent design. Therefore, its not hypocrisy to oppose one but not the other.

If that was your meaning, then I have to disagree. There are plenty of meaningful caveats with respect to the teaching of sex-education. OTOH, while "intelligent design" is not science, per ce, it is an alternative to the "evolution belief system" and therefore provides a useful function as a source of discussion about the theory of evolution.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH


You appear to be implying that there are only good effects to sex-education and only bad effects to teaching intelligent design. Therefore, its not hypocrisy to oppose one but not the other.

If that was your meaning, then I have to disagree. There are plenty of meaningful caveats with respect to the teaching of sex-education. OTOH, while "intelligent design" is not science, per ce, it is an alternative to the "evolution belief system" and therefore provides a useful function as a source of discussion about the theory of evolution.

The only useful function intelligent design has in discussion, is as an illustrative example of disingenious misinformation.

One way there can be bad effects with sex education is when you use/introduce material to an inappropriate age group. But I was making my point on the basis of approprate material and instruction in sex education. My claim was not that stupid teachers can never **** up the good intentions/purpose of sex education.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun

yep

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia

^ QFT

Originally posted by Kuciwalke

Sleeping around

Condoms

Unlike BK, I have no moral axe to grind. This attitude is, however, a recipe for disaster and it might be argued (and I'm sure it will later today) that such foolishness arises from inappropriate sex-education.

OTOH, such misconceived attitudes are what enable me to earn my paycheck. Maybe I should quit shooting myself in the foot.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Sleeping around

Condoms

Sleeping around

Condoms

Comprehensive sex ed

[David Floyd]

All vaccines carry some element of risk. Usually that risk is very small, but the facts are that every year healthy children die from adverse responses to vaccines. A government mandate that requires someone take a vaccine in order to attend school for an infection that is completely avoidable by other means is overly intrusive IMO.

I think the point, though, is that the "other means" of avoiding HPV is typically not being taken. Rather than write off those women, the decision was made to vaccinate for HPV early in life. Yes, there is a small element of risk, but as you stated, there is a small element of risk with any vaccine. IMO, good public policy balances risk/benefit, and while it may be a bit intrusive, sometimes that's the tradeoff for taking advantage of government services (in this case, free public education).

You seem to have missed the point I was making. My comment was a single thought in a single paragraph. I'll try to re-phrase.

Schools are not "bastions of truth". In fact they teach all kinds of rubbish. By "small issues" I was refering to simple falsehoods taught as classroom facts. For example, my daughters have been taught that virus are not alive. Given that I'm much more qualified to discuss the issue than a highschool teacher I can provide them with the alternative (correct) viewpoint. My wife handles the numerous english and other language issues that crop up. These are "small issues" that do not require our attorneys attention.

Ah, yes, I see your point. I often knew more than my high school teachers about military history. This branches off to an entirely different course of debate - with my argument being that in order to increase the quality of education we need to break the teachers unions.

The teaching of intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a "small issue" to me. It's teaching requires a policy decision by a school board and our opposition to it, as parents, requires more than our quiet correction at home of a factual error. I recognize that for some parents their opposition to sex-education is not a "small issue". Their concerns should not be dismissed, nor should their rights be mandated away by the very dubious umbrella of concerns for "public health".

Well, the problem is that there is a major objective difference between the teaching of intelligent design vs. evolution, and the teaching of sex ed. If the point of schools is to educate children, then schools cannot fulfill that mandate by teaching intelligent design. Period. However, the "concerns" of parents regarding sexual education are usually two things - either a moral concern (either homosexuality or non-abstinence only education) or a concern that sex ed shouldn't be taught at all.

That's two different arguments. The second argument - that sexual education is best left to parents - is somewhat defensible. However, the first argument against sex ed - that it should not include aspects of homosexuality nor should it teach anything but abstinence only - is indefensible, if the point of schools is education. What these Christian right wingers are asking schools to do is to both teach a certain moral/religious point of view, AND withhold certain info that could literally save the lives of children.

Since the studies show abstinence-only education doesn't work, assuming the mandate of schools is education, it logically follows that schools should focus their curricula around what DOES work, and I think the best balance is a combination of teaching abstinence and safe sex, as I've mentioned several times. If parents still want to dispute this, I think it is perfectly appropriate to dismiss their "concerns" out of hand, because by and large, their only concerns are religious and moral ones, which should be addressed at the home, but not at school.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Unlike BK, I have no moral axe to grind. This attitude is, however, a recipe for disaster and it might be argued (and I'm sure it will later today) that such foolishness arises from inappropriate sex-education.

OTOH, such misconceived attitudes are what enable me to earn my paycheck. Maybe I should quit shooting myself in the foot.

Sleeping around with use of condoms is a recipe for disaster?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun

Sleeping around with use of condoms is a recipe for disaster?

Its a question of statistical probability. Based on large populations, we know that condoms are 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. I'd guess that people using condoms in order to prevent STI have the same risk for condom failure. Therefore, within a large population, a person having sex with 50 random people while using a condom 100% of the time will have exposed themselves to a STI once.

Your question about my comment illustrates the problem. People think that condom use makes them invulnerable, and they are not. The take home message, if you **** around you increase your risk of acquiring an STI, even with condom use.

[Ben Kenobi]

The facts are that abstinence-only education doesn't reduce STDs or teen pregnancy, because by your own admission, at least 50% of high school students are having sex, and many more are having sex between high school and marriage.

This would be true if they were all being taught abstinence only, but that's not the case. The fact is that they are getting sex education and rates of both pregnancy and std transmission are not falling, instead they are rising.

Something then is wrong with the status quo.

That isn't obvious at all. Condoms, used correctly and consistently, are highly effective. That is something that should be taught. I also agree that abstinence is highly effective, and that should be taught as well. Why can't you do both?

No reason you cannot do both, but the problem is that the component of behaviour is never brought up. You say they are going to be having sex anyways, that negates the argument that it's a real choice and a decision for each and everyone of us who we sleep with and when. It's just common sense. The easiest way to lower your risk factor is the abc approach where condoms are a last resort.

Obviously sex education is failing when young folks think they are bulletproof and can sleep around just because they use condoms.

Also, I am saying that when the STD was contracted, a condom probably was not being used. If it had been, that particular sexual encounter likely would not have resulted in a STD.

Here's the problem. If we assume that everyone sleeps around as much as we do, then your risk jumps up exponentially with every partner. Granted, condoms are effective, but if you are quadrupling your risk, that drastically lowers their effectiveness.

Suppose for the sake of argument, they are 99 percent effective.

If you sleep with one partner that makes them just that, 99 percent effective.

Now if both of you sleep with someone else, what are the odds going to be? It will double, to around 96 percent chance that you will be ok. Now, that is just for every encounter. Each time you have sex that will increase the likelihood of contracting an STD.

Say you have sex with both partners 5 times, which isn't a whole lot. You now have a one in 4 chance of contracting an STD, assuming that condoms are 99 percent effective.

Sure people have control over their desires, but I don't see your point.

You seem to think that it's a forelone conclusion that a particular student is going to be having sex. That's false. It is very much a decision, and we shouldn't be telling you that you are going to be having sex anyways. That's a crap argument. We should be telling them that it is entirely up to them if they want to have sex or not.

Condoms are a very effective method of both meeting our desires and staying safe.

Not really, no. Again, as condoms have become prevalent, so have STDs.

Well, guess what? For many millions of people, sex and/or the pursuit of such is a part of our daily lives, and I would rather sacrifice a minute amount of safety in order to enjoy my life. Most people would make the same decision, just as you likely do, too, regarding something other than sex.

I see sex differently, as a union between a man and woman. It's not a recreational activity. Honestly the whole issue for 'safety' is irrelevant to me. Say I'm driving a car, I know that there are some things I cannot control, and that I am risking whenever I'm on the road.

Sex is different. I have complete control over whether I catch an std or not.

Well, first off, the means (condoms) are NOT there in many parts of the world, in large part because those means are prohibited by YOUR church.

I'm not talking about those places. I'm talking about right here. Why are we exporting our own garbage? Again, STD transmission has gone up hand in hand with condom use. Why on earth are we exporting them around the world unless it's for eugenic principles?

Secondly, you're right - drilling condom use probably won't cause sex to go down. In fact, the opposite is likely to happen. But so what? Condoms, if used correctly, are largely effective. Even if more people have sex, less people will contract STDs or pregnancies because condoms prevent both of those things.

If you increase the prevalence of risky behaviours, you increase the odds that negative outcomes arise.

You're adding something different into the equation, now. I'm not proposing handing out condoms in schools. I'm simply advocating teaching students ALL means of reducing/eliminating STDs and pregnancies.

Ok. Then you and I both agree that the current sex education programs are crap.

Remember, in an earlier post I said that schools should stay away from moral judgments and the like - that is, schools shouldn't tell students they shouldn't be having sex, they should just educate students about the potential consequences and the different avenues for mitigating those consequences.

It's not really the responsibility of the schools to take over the job of the parents. Sex education is taking instruction time from topics which they should have otherwise been taught.

My experiences with it in public school made me wonder what happened to the folks who weren't taught by their parents.

Since clearly you believe (correctly) that abstinence is 100% effective, just as clearly you also do not believe that condoms are effective at reducing STDs and pregnancy. True or false?

I would argue they are effective only if you don't sleep around. If you sleep around, all bets are off.

Not necessarily. You are far less likely to get an STD than you otherwise would be.

That's true, but your risks go up drastically if you sleep around.

Should I keep going? I can keep Googling relevant and well regarded sources all night long, if you keep spouting the nonsense that condoms do not reduce STDs.

You'd do better to actually read my argument. All I said is that condoms are ineffective against some stds, which also happen to be the most prevalent.

All those other numbers were made up. Give me some sources about those numbers, then we can talk.

On HPV infection? I'll get you some, but it's up around 25 percent for those who are teens and sexually active.

However, I can personally tell you that condoms have been 100% effective for me. No kids, no STDs, and I've had over 30 sexual partners, including one that I found out after the fact had herpes. Yet I'm clean. Go figure.

Assuming condoms are about 99 percent effective, you've given yourself a 1 in 9 chance of not contracting an std. Bravo.

The part about "massive chance" is, at best, misleading. The rest is designed to mislead.

The argument is logical. Of course, it's assuming that everyone sleeps around with 30 other people, and that the pool of people that sleep with each other doesn't intersect.

If I assume that each additional partner adds about 5 percent to the total, then it's a more reasonable 2:3 chance of not contracting an std.

If we're talking about prayer, then teaching your kids about condoms is much more effective than praying with them and for them about not having sex before marriage. If we're talking about changing behavior, then good luck with that. Here in the real world, I'd rather focus on practical solutions.

In the real world you've beaten the odds, so good luck in the future.