Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd be pretty tough to change the culture to embrace chastity (sex sells and we live in a capitalist society). I wouldn't object to such a cultural sea change, but I don't see a practical non-fascist way to get there.I kinda think there's something else going on there.
I mean,.....Europe has all that sex cells going on but I don't believe that they have our teen pregnancy rates.
Yeah...they have non-abstinence based sex ed, lots of PP style assistance available, and more accessible abortions. ;-)
I speak as one who remained abstinent until my 23rd year. And remain monogamous to this day. Sadly, I am a minority.My wife sometimes makes me practice it. hehe
Apologies, couldn't resist.
It's sadder yet that some would look down upon you for that. Kudos.
I'm all for abstinence being included as part of sex education. There's just not substanti evidence that abstinence only programs work that well by themselves.
It'd be pretty tough to change the culture to embrace chastity (sex sells and we live in a capitalist society). I wouldn't object to such a cultural sea change, but I don't see a practical non-fascist way to get there.
Agreed. It's a societal problem. But the fact that we, as a people, find the only truly effective and nondestructive way to be inconvenient to our instant gratification obsessed selves, doesn't mean it isn't still the only truly effective and nondestructive way. It just means that we are generally weak willed and self indulgent to practice it.
And, on that note, I think I'll carry the lessons of abstinence to new facets of life, and abstain from further participation in this thread. Good luck y'all...
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I think I'm done here as well. This ground done be trod on before...
I speak as one who remained abstinent until my 23rd year. And remain monogamous to this day. Sadly, I am a minority.
Thirty and counting, unless five fingers and a fantasy counts. But not having sex or having huge piles of consensual, anonymous but protected sex are morally identical to me.
I appreciate the irony.
study of teaching abstinence....and it's SCIENCY!!!
Good catch Heathansson. Those that claim to value science should be careful about making declarations that any things is completely effective or ineffective.
I speak as one who remained abstinent until my 23rd year. And remain monogamous to this day. Sadly, I am a minority.My wife sometimes makes me practice it. hehe
Apologies, couldn't resist.
you are still with your very first lover?
I'm a bit torn on that. Reasonably, I accept that other people have different sexual values. Emotionally, I am disappointed at people that have multiple partners. It's something I'm still working through.
Indeed, this is something to work on.
FACT. If nothing goes in, nothing comes out. And that has nothing to do with any testament or my interpretation thereof.Well. I know of one case in the last 2000 years, but God's really of a one woman kind of guy, so I'm not expecting any repeats.So before we go farther... are we basing this argument on actual real-world facts and statistics, or just interpreting quotes from Wolfthulhu's version of the Old and New Testament?
OK then, you'll probably be more persuasive than bringing your interpretation of your deity of choice into the conversation (even if you mean it in jest).
***
Despite abstinence education's dismal lack of effectiveness in the past, I agree it seemingly could provide some measure of effectiveness in the future if we decide to provide real sexual education and preventive services.
- Abstinence is only one part, which would also include real factual information on the effectiveness of differing forms of birth control (like using both condoms and birth control pills).
- We should also provide real ready access to birth control without shame and judgment.
- We should provide information and examples to educate people how to avoid situations where their ability to make decisions with possible reproductive consequences are impaired.
- We need to repeatedly drill it into heads that No does in fact mean No, and inability to give consent (due to drugs, alcohol, and/or unconsciousness) equals rape.
- We need to follow that up with making sure that all rape charges are investigated and all rape kits/evidence are processed.
- And follow that up with real legal penalties for those convicted of rape and sexual violence.
- We need to end the double standard that men that enjoy sex are "studs" but women are "sluts," and teach that sex is not to be used as a currency or as pressure to achieve "popularity."
- Parents should play an active open role in discussing healthy human sexuality with their children. But schools should operate under the assumption that kids will get no education at home, and teach the facts, responsibilities, and consequences of healthy human sexuality regardless.
- We need legislators willing to discuss these issues as reasonable adults and make decisions for the best of public health, even when that runs against pandering to sexually repressive elements. This includes not demonizing and defunding Planned Parenthood, who out of all their services, only 3% of which are abortions. This includes not making repeated attempts to redefine rape and backdooring it into bills.
Right now, Planned Parenthood is one of the few things that actually works, even if it isn't perfect.
study of teaching abstinence....and it's SCIENCY!!!Good catch Heathansson. Those that claim to value science should be careful about making declarations that any things is completely effective or ineffective.
The Jermott study is radically different from what the abstinence only movement wants on just about every level:
Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
Facts, eh?
study of teaching abstinence....and it's SCIENCY!!!Good catch Heathansson. Those that claim to value science should be careful about making declarations that any things is completely effective or ineffective.The Jermott study is radically different from what the abstinence only movement wants on just about every level:
Facts, eh?
Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
Your point is a bit meaningless. The argument was all abstinence-only approaches were failures and in fact caused more harm. Not that only those that took a moralistic tone did.
Your point is a bit meaningless. The argument was all abstinence-only approaches were failures and in fact caused more harm. Not that only those that took a moralistic tone did.
That's what the abstinence only crazies push, pres man. I didn't break legs until they rolled over and insisted on deliberately imperiling the health and well-being of children. They wrote the rules themselves.
It is important to note that the study provides no data in support of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs of the Bush era. The abstinence-only program in this study would not have been eligible for federal funding during the Bush years because it did not fit the “8 point definition.” The program goal was to help early teens avoid sex until they are ready—a totally different objective than the federally funded abstinence programs already proven ineffective by the long-term Mathematica study “which showed no impact on teen behavior.”
In the Jemmotts’ own words: “It [the abstinence-only intervention] was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected.”
Your point is a bit meaningless. The argument was all abstinence-only approaches were failures and in fact caused more harm. Not that only those that took a moralistic tone did.That's what the abstinence only crazies push, pres man. I didn't break legs until they rolled over and insisted on deliberately imperiling the health and well-being of children. They wrote the rules themselves.
It is important to note that the study provides no data in support of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs of the Bush era. The abstinence-only program in this study would not have been eligible for federal funding during the Bush years because it did not fit the “8 point definition.” The program goal was to help early teens avoid sex until they are ready—a totally different objective than the federally funded abstinence programs already proven ineffective by the long-term Mathematica study “which showed no impact on teen behavior.”
In the Jemmotts’ own words: “It [the abstinence-only intervention] was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected.”
And again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not talking about what "the abstinence only crazies push" or what the Bush era government programs support. We are discussing all possible measures, not just what some individuals want.
EDIT:
I know you don't mean abstinence, because there's a mountain of evidence that it doesn't work to prevent pregnancy (at least by itself).
Which is why it's ridiculed. Not working is a pretty big problem.
When you read statements like this, this just proves that some are as close-minded as those "abstinence only crazies". The rational among us must look at all tools and methods. Perhaps the program cited by the wolfie would work for some people while other programs would work for others. Maybe eventually we might find a way to match the right program to the right person. But if we take things off the table without consideration, then we just lose options.
And again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not talking about what "the abstinence only crazies push" or what the Bush era government programs support. We are discussing all possible measures, not just what some individuals want.
That's what the phrase means in normal discourse. If you want to go natter at Sebastian for not dotting all the is and crossing all the ts, go right ahead. I'm sure he'll be deeply interested. I've played the game often enough to just not care about the semantic gamesmanship.
Director of Narrative
|
One of the things Planned Parenthood provides, in addition to all its birthin’/not birthin’ services, is cheap women’s health services for those who can’t afford to go to an expensive gynecologist. I’ve known plenty of women who went to Planned Parenthood for pap smears and the like.
There was a pretty good article in a recent Austin Chronicle talking about Planned Parenthood here in the state of Texas.
That's what the phrase means in normal discourse. If you want to go natter at Sebastian for not dotting all the is and crossing all the ts, go right ahead. I'm sure he'll be deeply interested. I've played the game often enough to just not care about the semantic gamesmanship.
And again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not talking about what "the abstinence only crazies push" or what the Bush era government programs support. We are discussing all possible measures, not just what some individuals want.
That may be true. I just hope that some will leave this discussion realizing that, that is not the only definition of the phrase. And that perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss options that may actually be effective, merely because other versions of it are not. Or it does not fit for their personally worldview.
|
That may be true. I just hope that some will leave this discussion realizing that, that is not the only definition of the phrase. And that perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss options that may actually be effective, merely because other versions of it are not. Or it does not fit for their personally worldview.That's what the phrase means in normal discourse. If you want to go natter at Sebastian for not dotting all the is and crossing all the ts, go right ahead. I'm sure he'll be deeply interested. I've played the game often enough to just not care about the semantic gamesmanship.
And again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not talking about what "the abstinence only crazies push" or what the Bush era government programs support. We are discussing all possible measures, not just what some individuals want.
The problem is they are less effective than other means.
You can move your car by hitching a team of horses to it. It will move the car.
But gasoline is more effective.
That may be true. I just hope that some will leave this discussion realizing that, that is not the only definition of the phrase. And that perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss options that may actually be effective, merely because other versions of it are not. Or it does not fit for their personally worldview.That's what the phrase means in normal discourse. If you want to go natter at Sebastian for not dotting all the is and crossing all the ts, go right ahead. I'm sure he'll be deeply interested. I've played the game often enough to just not care about the semantic gamesmanship.
And again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not talking about what "the abstinence only crazies push" or what the Bush era government programs support. We are discussing all possible measures, not just what some individuals want.The problem is they are less effective than other means.
You can move your car by hitching a team of horses to it. It will move the car.
But gasoline is more effective.
We'll see in a hundred years if that is true.
|
|
Yeah, a title that says, "The War on Women's Health" tells me it's a biased source of info. However, that's typical of news sources that comes out of Austin.One of the things Planned Parenthood provides, in addition to all its birthin’/not birthin’ services, is cheap women’s health services for those who can’t afford to go to an expensive gynecologist. I’ve known plenty of women who went to Planned Parenthood for pap smears and the like.
There was a pretty good article in a recent Austin Chronicle talking about Planned Parenthood here in the state of Texas.
Horses mouth?
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
Or Jon Kyl's correction?
The only thing i would add, fair Ambrosia, is that there should be a serious discussion of the fact that accusing someone of rape falsely is a crime, no more, no less.
|
|
Actually it is an incredibly small test group that stopped evaluation right as puberty got rolling.
FAIL!
Wow. I wish they'd come up with some kind of statistical analyses and rigorous peer review mechanisms that I could have confidence in, so I wouldn't have to feel it necessary to refute this completely baseless statement somehow.
The only thing i would add, fair Ambrosia, is that there should be a serious discussion of the fact that accusing someone of rape falsely is a crime, no more, no less.
Yeah, I meant that too. Notepad crashed (WTF?! Notepad?!) while I was composing the first draft, and I accidentally excluded that wording in amongst the "investigations" part that got posted. Human sexuality should be healthy, not used as a weapon against the other partner(s).
***
Anecdote: I took Health (mandatory) -- including "sex ed" -- and Driver's Ed (elective) in high school. Both were taught by the same PE teacher. If you polled kids in both classes, we got much much more useful education out of Driver's Ed than Sex Ed. Partially I'd put that to roughly 20% on a teacher who seemed very uncomfortable and ill-suited to teaching the subject, and easily 80% on the puritanical local- and state-dictated curriculum. It was nearly useless: basically say "No to drugs and sex; there are no other options" (and LGBTIQ people are "aberrant pervs").
I imagine my experience was far from unique.
I'm trying to understand what it is that some people seem to have against this organization.
Basically, Planned Parenthood is an organization that performs some abortions. Abortion is a very contentious issue.
Although no federal funds are used to perform abortions (which is 3% of what PP does according to this link http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/08/jon-kyl-90-percent-planned-parenthood-a bortion/), some people want to punish PP by cutting off the federal funds to PP that are used to perform other services.
No, it doesn't make much sense to eliminate funding for pap smears and cervical cancer screenings as punishment for other people getting abortions, but abortion is a very emotional issue for many people. Logic and emotions don't go well together.
For more information on this subject, just check Google.
Um...we have had a world wide organization pushing(at times) the abstinance policy for 2000 years about yet...alot of record show that there were alot of what is called in some parts shot gun weddings. So it is not like it is failing recently...it has always failed in a way.
Though on another note I have been abstinance all my life...never got anybody pregant...and never got or spread a STD...so it does work. Though I admitt I have the 'benefit' of being terribly shy around the fairer sex...so it was not 'hard'.
Anyway it should be part of PP...saying it should not be is akin to saying that birth control and safe sex optionbs should not be explored. Both are solutions...both should be offered to thinking people.
|
|
Wow. I wish they'd come up with some kind of statistical analyses and rigorous peer review mechanisms that I could have confidence in, so I wouldn't have to feel it necessary to refute this completely baseless statement somehow.Actually it is an incredibly small test group that stopped evaluation right as puberty got rolling.
FAIL!
They did. I posted it above.
Your study is this study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education#Effectiveness
Which is refuted in the wikipedia article itself.
Any sex ed study starting with 6th graders and ending before they hit high school isn't a real sex ed study.
Cherry pick as much as you like, but the studies say they are less effective than comprehensive sex education.
And if we're gonna push for only methods that are "100% effective" in preventing conception, we should teach pro-gay and pro-lesbian sex... so far, neither is capable of conceiving a child without medical intervention.
Edit: Added the [sarcasm] tag to prevent some posters' heads from a'sploding.
|
And if we're gonna push for only methods that "100% effective" in preventing conception, we should teach pro-gay and pro-lesbian sex... so far, neither is capable of conceiving a child without medical intervention.
And if we're gonna push for only methods that "100% effective" in preventing conception, we should teach pro-gay and pro-lesbian sex... so far, neither is capable of conceiving a child without medical intervention.** spoiler omitted **
|
Director of Narrative
|
** spoiler omitted **And if we're gonna push for only methods that "100% effective" in preventing conception, we should teach pro-gay and pro-lesbian sex... so far, neither is capable of conceiving a child without medical intervention.** spoiler omitted **
If he had to specify, then yes, your health class really did suck. ;)
Edit: Or....(looks from side to side) You're....an....alien.
And if we're gonna push for only methods that are "100% effective" in preventing conception, we should teach pro-gay and pro-lesbian sex... so far, neither is capable of conceiving a child without medical intervention.
Edit: Added the [sarcasm] tag to prevent some posters' heads from a'sploding.
That reminds of the solution in Haldeman's The Forever War.
** spoiler omitted **And if we're gonna push for only methods that "100% effective" in preventing conception, we should teach pro-gay and pro-lesbian sex... so far, neither is capable of conceiving a child without medical intervention.** spoiler omitted **If he had to specify, then yes, your health class really did suck. ;)
Edit: Or....(looks from side to side) You're....an....alien.
Spoiler:Or his comment could be taken as a call to not let women into the military, even homosexual women, as even these could become pregnant. Not exactly an open-minded position to take.Spoiler:I'm not sure how you got 'women shouldn't be in the military' from 'homosexuals are infinitely less likely to become nondeployable'.And yes, I tend to ignore gender differences between soldiers.
Cherry pick as much as you like, but the studies say they are less effective than comprehensive sex education.*sigh*
it's refuted in....the Wikipedia article?Wow.
Uh,....you win I guess.
Uh, you do know that the Wiki article has several cited articles/links at the bottom of the page? It's not like the Wiki authors pulled the whole thing outta their asses.
Uh, you do know that the Wiki article has several cited articles/links at the bottom of the page? It's not like the Wiki authors pulled the whole thing outta their asses.Cherry pick as much as you like, but the studies say they are less effective than comprehensive sex education.*sigh*
it's refuted in....the Wikipedia article?Wow.
Uh,....you win I guess.
No, but it's been my experience since returning to school that due to its mutability and tampering potential, using wikipedia as a source tends to be frowned upon for the purpose of citation.
Just a general FYI and the main reason why the warwoolf (and others) may react in kind.
|
It's not like the Wiki authors pulled the whole thing outta their asses.
I saw them roll that Handle Animal check.
His buddy asks, 'How will I recognize him?'
'That's easy; he's a dwarf with a speech impediment.'
So, the dwarf shows up, and the guy asks him if he's looking for a male or female horse.
'A female horth.'
So he shows him a prized filly.
'Nith lookin horth. Can I thee her eyeth?'
So the guy picks up the dwarf and he gives the horse's eyes the once over.
'Nith eyeth, can I thee her earzth?'
So he picks the little fella up again, and shows him the horse's ears.
'Nith earzth, can I thee her mouf?'
The rancher is getting pretty ticked off by this point, but he picks him up again and shows him the horse's mouth.
'Nice mouf, can I see her twot?'
Totally mad at this point, the rancher grabs him under his arms and rams the dwarf's head up the horse's fanny, pulls him out and slams him on the ground.
The midget gets up, sputtering and coughing.
'Perhapth I thould rephrathe that. Can I thee her wun awound a widdlebit?'
Uh, you do know that the Wiki article has several cited articles/links at the bottom of the page? It's not like the Wiki authors pulled the whole thing outta their asses.No, but it's been my experience since returning to school that due to its mutability and tampering potential, using wikipedia as a source tends to be frowned upon for the purpose of citation.
Just a general FYI and the main reason why the warwoolf (and others) may react in kind.
For anything requiring hard facts, statistics, official positions, etc, I generally use Wikipedia as a filter/extension of Google... look up the article, then use the cited links at the bottom to start the real searching. Yeah, Wiki is pretty easy to tamper/vandalize, but the cites are there for a reason.
It's not like the Wiki authors pulled the whole thing outta their asses.I saw them roll that Handle Animal check.
** spoiler omitted **
I feel like impregnating someone right now!
More animal sex jokes:
As the cows go to it, Little Johnny gets more and more excited. Finally, unable to control himself, he bashfully looks at Little Lizzie and sez: "Gee whiz, I wish I could be doing that."
Little Lizzie, the brazen strumpet, replies, "Well, Johnny, I'm not going to stop you. After all, it's your cow."
Ba-dum bump!
|
|
I'm going to separate Planned Parenthood for a minute.
Basically I approve of it. The abortion thing aside (of which it is a very minor part ... also the part I'm separating for now) they provide a wide range of helpful services to some people that might not be able to get it anywhere else. Screening for cancers? Awesome. Counseling? Awesome. Testing for diseases? Still awesome. Even educating people when it actually comes to more adult activities, fine enough for those who need it. It SHOULD fall on the parents to educate their children but sometimes it doesn't.
As for abortions ... man thats a weird area to discuss. The only times I don't have much of any issue with it is in cases it was forced on a girl, health reasons, or things of that nature. Outside of that, I honestly think it's a debate for women. I have a daughter and can't imagine not having her in my life. However, it's the women who are the ones who have to carry the child in their own bodies. We can throw around the argument of the rights of a father but its still another woman's body and I can't in any better conscious begin to tell them what they can and can't do with it so that's where my opinion on that side of Planned Parenthood ends.
As for the background of my opinion should it matter, I'm not too religious (used to be a reluctant Christian and now I'm really just floating around in "I believe there's SOMETHING out there"'s ville). Still though I've only had one lover and I'm married to her and have been for almost 9 years now come June. I'm actually happy I've never had more experiences with other women before her (outside of kissing) and to me it felt special and right.
Once again though, it was special and right for me. To assume everyone should be like me (they really shouldn't ... it gets weird O_O ) is silly. In general Planned Parenthood does a lot of good for a lot of people who might not have anywhere else to go. I can't really see a problem with that (once again, not counting the abortion side ... soooo staying out of that).
|
|
Cherry pick as much as you like, but the studies say they are less effective than comprehensive sex education.*sigh*
it's refuted in....the Wikipedia article?Wow.
Uh,....you win I guess.
You found one small study that stopped after two years that was not a standard abstinence only program that showed modest results.
I cited a series of studies that showed better results in non-abstinence only programs, and a series of studies that showed abstinence only programs to be generally ineffective.
So...yeah, I did win.