From the "Can't make this Shit up" Category...

[dilloduck]

Who said anything about rape? I thought we were talking about consensual sex. And for that to be consensual, BOTH parties have to give the okay. Men have equal responsibility.

Or is it just the big bad hussies are tempting the poor weak men? I certainly don't think so.

Yes--It's the hussies !!

 

[007]

Slut ware for toddlers. What will they think of next?

http://theedge.bostonherald.com/lifeNews/view.bg?articleid=137636&format=text

This is sick. The Godless crowd, spreading it's message from satan.

 

[Dr Grump]

The point is they shouldnt be engaging in activities to begin with!

Of course they should. It's human nature...Sex education is the key IMO...

 

[Hobbit]

Of course they should. It's human nature...Sex education is the key IMO...

Eating is human nature, too, but that doesn't excuse fat people.

Some people are kleptos. It is their nature to steal, but that doesn't mean they won't go to jail for theft.

Lots of stuff is just 'our nature,' but the fact that we can tell our nature to lie the f*** down is what seperates us from animals.

 

[Dr Grump]

Eating is human nature, too, but that doesn't excuse fat people.

Some people are kleptos. It is their nature to steal, but that doesn't mean they won't go to jail for theft.

Lots of stuff is just 'our nature,' but the fact that we can tell our nature to lie the f*** down is what seperates us from animals.

Kleptos are doing things to harm others. Fat people get diabetes and other diseases that end up costing society (however 1. Nobody tells tubbies to stop eating 2. They generally die younger so therefore the cost is negated to a degree). There is nothing wrong with having sex with somebody as long as they are of legal age and is consensual. Being informed of the consequences of these acts and how to avoid STDs and getting pregnant should be taught.

 

[Hobbit]

And sex doesn't harm others as kleptos do? Weren't we just talking about how the consequences of sex can cost you lots of money, even your life? Think about it. Every time you have sex, you risk giving or recieving AIDS, a disease that WILL kill both of you, not to mention the risk of many other STDs and getting a girl pregnant. Compared to how sex harms others, a klepto's consequences are a drop in the ocean. I'd be willing to bet there's nothing you can shoplift from a Wal-Mart that could possibly add up to 18 years of child care expenses or child support and few things that add up to the cost of an abortion.

Then there's how much the child is hurt from most likely having to grow up in a single parent household or even being dismembered and killed prior to birth.

 

[insein]

This is all in the women's hands. Guys will have sex with ANY willing woman. Most of the degenrate guys that these women are having sex with and having kids have at least 1 other women they have done the same thing to already. These women have the power to close their legs. A man can not forcefully stick his dick inside a woman unless its rape.

Women need to wake up an realize that abortions and the government are not going to save them.

 

[jillian]

Perhaps Jillian can't "conceive" of people abstaining.

:teeth:

If people were abstaining, there wouldn't be so many single mothers around. Abstinence only training has been proven to be ineffectual.

 

[007]

If people were abstaining, there wouldn't be so many single mothers around. Abstinence only training has been proven to be ineffectual.

Oooohhh no... of course it isn't. Especially when you have fine, upstanding, ultra moral examples like slick willie telling the entire world that a blow job isn't sex.

 

[Dr Grump]

And sex doesn't harm others as kleptos do? Weren't we just talking about how the consequences of sex can cost you lots of money, even your life? Think about it. Every time you have sex, you risk giving or recieving AIDS, a disease that WILL kill both of you, not to mention the risk of many other STDs and getting a girl pregnant. Compared to how sex harms others, a klepto's consequences are a drop in the ocean. I'd be willing to bet there's nothing you can shoplift from a Wal-Mart that could possibly add up to 18 years of child care expenses or child support and few things that add up to the cost of an abortion.

Then there's how much the child is hurt from most likely having to grow up in a single parent household or even being dismembered and killed prior to birth.

All the more reason to teach sex ed....

 

[jillian]

Oooohhh no... of course it isn't. Especially when you have fine, upstanding, ultra moral examples like slick willie telling the entire world that a blow job isn't sex.

And you think *that's* why abstinence only training is a failure? Because of someone who hasn't been president for the last six years?

Somehow...I don't think that's quiiiiiiiiiiiiiite right.

 

[insein]

where has it been proven that abstinence only training is a failure? I would think that those that follow the program won't get ANY diseases and won't get pregnant. Those that don't follow the program run the chance that they will. Seems pretty straightfoward. You cant call a program a failure if people don't follow the guidelines.

Now im a realist. People and especially kids are going to have sex. Its been going on since the begining of man. What needs to happen is parents taking a more active role in a childs life to help prevent these things (disease, prenancy, etc) from occuring through sex with multiple partners and with multiple idiots.

Mothers need to teach their daughters not to be sluts basically. Dads need to teach their daughters not to be sluts. Dads also need to teach their sons that a condom isnt the only answer. They have to instill some personal repsonsibility into their sons in order to keep them from getting into those situations. The problem is that most of the guys having sex with these women and getting them pregnant are coming from homes that only have a mother. So there is no father figure telling them what is right and wrong. They get a girl pregnant and the cycle repeats itself.

The way to stop this is to stop all funding that goes to women after they have 1 kid. You have 1 kid and make X amount of money, then the government can have a minimal safety net to give you a chance to bounce back. Any more kids, your SOL. Then you have to stop punishing these guys for not paying child support. Its not helping the women and especially the kids when the dad goes to jail for missing a payment. The women still dont get the money and the kids dont get a father. So who is winning? If women realize that there will be ZERO government help if they get pregnant, then maybe they will think twice about unprotected sex or sex with multiple partners.

 

[007]

And you think *that's* why abstinence only training is a failure? Because of someone who hasn't been president for the last six years?

Somehow...I don't think that's quiiiiiiiiiiiiiite right.

It didn't help. Face it. The atheist liberal view point on sex is hey, the goofy kids are all going to be banging each other anyway, so lets tell them all how to do it and pass out free condoms.

The Christian conservative view point is just the opposite. But when you have to fight the godless liberals who run the education system, the task can be dauntless.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Obviously, both parties must be held responsible for their choices. I do not buy into the "boys will be boys" attitude, but girls really do need to be the "gatekeepers" when it comes to sex. Fair or not, they ultimately have the most to lose.

As for abstinence-only programs not working, whether they do or not, do you require 100% success rate for a program to be worthwhile? How about 75%? 45%? 25%? Even if only one teenaged girl per school decides to abstain and doesn't get pregnant, it's worthwhile.

Sex Ed is not anywhere near 100% successful, so perhaps that should be tossed out as not working?

 

[Dr Grump]

Obviously, both parties must be held responsible for their choices. I do not buy into the "boys will be boys" attitude, but girls really do need to be the "gatekeepers" when it comes to sex. Fair or not, they ultimately have the most to lose.

As for abstinence-only programs not working, whether they do or not, do you require 100% success rate for a program to be worthwhile? How about 75%? 45%? 25%? Even if only one teenaged girl per school decides to abstain and doesn't get pregnant, it's worthwhile.

Sex Ed is not anywhere near 100% successful, so perhaps that should be tossed out as not working?

I think they all should be taught. Not just sex ed and not just abstinence.

 

[jillian]

Obviously, both parties must be held responsible for their choices. I do not buy into the "boys will be boys" attitude, but girls really do need to be the "gatekeepers" when it comes to sex. Fair or not, they ultimately have the most to lose.

As for abstinence-only programs not working, whether they do or not, do you require 100% success rate for a program to be worthwhile? How about 75%? 45%? 25%? Even if only one teenaged girl per school decides to abstain and doesn't get pregnant, it's worthwhile.

Sex Ed is not anywhere near 100% successful, so perhaps that should be tossed out as not working?

Actually absintence only programs have a pretty abysmal record. While I'm sure you wouldn't mind sex education being tossed, there are far more positive benefits from such education than has ever been proven to be the case from abstinence programs that this administration is tossing money at.

Humans are sexual beings. Self esteem is a huge component in discouraging adolescent sex, but so is education.

http://advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

 

[MissileMan]

As for abstinence-only programs not working, whether they do or not, do you require 100% success rate for a program to be worthwhile? How about 75%? 45%? 25%? Even if only one teenaged girl per school decides to abstain and doesn't get pregnant, it's worthwhile.

Not if the other 30 girls in her class wind up pregnant or diseased. Pitching abstinence in conjunction with meaningful education in contraception and consequences would seem to be the best path to follow.

 

[jillian]

Teen Pledges Barely Cut STD Rates, Study Says

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A03

Teenagers who take virginity pledges -- public declarations to abstain from sex -- are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found.

Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities.

"The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," said lead author Peter S. Bearman, a professor at Columbia's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs."

Rates of Disease

The findings are based on the federally funded National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a survey begun in 1995 that tracked 20,000 young people from high school to young adulthood. At the start of the project, the students were 12 to 18 years old and agreed to detailed, sexually explicit interviews. They were re-interviewed in 1997 and again in 2002, when 11,500 also provided urine samples.

Virginity pledges emerged in the early 1990s based on the theory that young people would remain chaste if they had stronger community support -- or pressure -- to remain abstinent. Programs vary, but in most cases teenagers voluntarily sign a pledge or publicly announce their intention to abstain from sex. Often pledgers receive a pin or ring to symbolize the promise and team up with an "accountability partner."

Since it was founded in 1993, the virginity group True Love Waits claims 2.4 million youths have signed a card stating: "Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, those I date, and my future mate to be sexually pure until the day I enter marriage."

The study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that 20 percent of those surveyed said they had taken a virginity pledge. Bearman and co-author Hannah Bruckner broke them into two categories -- "inconsistent pledgers" and "consistent pledgers" -- to reflect the fact that some changed their status or their responses between interviews. Among those youngsters, 61 percent of the consistent pledgers and 79 percent of the inconsistent pledgers reported having intercourse before marrying or prior to 2002 interviews.

Almost 7 percent of the students who did not make a pledge were diagnosed with an STD, compared with 6.4 percent of the "inconsistent pledgers" and 4.6 percent of the "consistent pledgers." Bearman said those differences were not "statistically significant," although Robert Rector, who studies domestic policy issues at the conservative Heritage Institute, said he interpreted the data to mean that young people committed to the abstinence pledge were less likely to become infected.

The study did not detect major geographic differences but found that minorities were far more likely to have an STD. About one quarter of African American girls in the survey tested positive for at least one STD in 2002.

In terms of high-risk behavior, the raw numbers were small, but the gap was statistically significant, Bearman said. Just 2 percent of youth who never took a pledge said they had had anal or oral sex but not intercourse, compared with 13 percent of "consistent pledgers."

Debate on Abstinence

The report sparked an immediate, bitter debate over the wisdom of teaching premarital abstinence.

Deborah Roffman, an educator and author of "Sex and Sensibility: The Thinking Parent's Guide to Talking Sense About Sex," said youths who take virginity pledges are often undereducated about sexual health. "Kids who are engaging in oral sex or anal sex will tell you they are practicing abstinence because they haven't had 'real sex' yet," she said.

Ralph DiClemente, a professor at Emory University's School of Public Health in Atlanta, compared virginity pledges to adults' efforts to make New Year's resolutions.

"I wish it was that easy. We'd all be a lot healthier," he said. "If we can't do it as adults, why would we expect kids to be able to handle those issues?"

But Joe S. McIlhaney Jr., chairman of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, said the study offers an incomplete picture because it could not say whether sexually active teens who did not take a pledge had been pregnant or treated for an STD before the 2002 testing. The analysis "doesn't prove or disprove" assertions that virginity pledges are flawed, he said.

On the other hand, Bill Smith, public policy vice president for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said, "Not only do virginity pledges not work to keep our young people safe, they are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception and medical treatment."

Conservative academics said the paper overlooked earlier important findings about adolescents who take virginity pledges, most notably that they have fewer pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births.

"It's hugely successful on those variables," Rector said. "Bearman has focused in on the one variable he thinks can show they [pledgers] don't do better."

President Bush has requested $206 million in federal funding for abstinence-only programs this year.

Several True Love Waits officials were unavailable Friday, according to a receptionist. Telephone calls to another virginity group, the Silver Ring Thing, were not returned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48509-2005Mar18.html

 

[jillian]

Many Teens Who Take 'Virginity Pledges' Substitute Other High-Risk Behavior for Intercourse, Study Says

Main Category: Sexual Health / STDs News
Article Date: 21 Mar 2005 - 21:00pm (PDT)

Although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" begin engaging in vaginal intercourse later than teens who have not committed to remain abstinent until marriage, they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active, according to a study published in the April issue of the... Journal of Adolescent Health, the Washington Post reports. The findings could explain why pledgers have similar rates of sexually transmitted diseases as nonpledging teens (Connolly, Washington Post, 3/19). Study co-authors Peter Bearman, sociology department chair at Columbia University, and Hannah Bruckner of Yale University used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and CDC, the AP/Long Island Newsday reports. The national study surveyed students nationwide in grades seven through 12 and followed up with interviews one, two and six years later. The Yale and Columbia report looked at data from 12,000 teenagers (Apuzzo, AP/Long Island Newsday, 3/18).
STD Findings

Bearman and Bruckner in March 2004 at the 2004 National STD Prevention Conference in Philadelphia presented their findings that teens who make abstinence pledges have similar rates of STDs as teens who have not made pledges. The study -- also based on data from the NLSAH -- found that, although teens who made the pledges had sexual intercourse an average of 18 months later than teens who did not take a pledge and averaged fewer sexual partners overall, they had similar rates of STDs. In addition, the study found that pledgers were much less likely to use contraception the first time they had sex and also were less likely than other teens to have undergone STD testing and know their STD status, which could increase their risk of STD transmission to sexual partners (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 3/10/04). Of the 777 teens who reported being virginity pledgers throughout the course of the study, 4.6% had trichomoniasis, chlamydia or gonorrhea. Of the 1,622 who reported pledge to remain abstinent at some point during the study, 6.4% had one of the STDs. Of the 9,072 teens who did not ever make a virginity pledge, 6.9% had one of the STDs (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 3/19). The study did not reveal significant geographical differences but did show that minorities were "far more likely" to have an STD, according to the Post. About 25% of African-American girls had at least one STD in 2002, the study found (Washington Post, 3/19).

Details
Because pledgers typically delayed sexual activity, had fewer sexual partners and married earlier than nonpledgers, the researchers "looked for explanations" as to why the differences in STD rates were not statistically significant, Bearman said, the Times reports (Washington Times, 3/19). The gap between pledgers and nonpledgers for high-risk behavior was statistically significant, with 2% of virgins who did not pledge reporting engaging in anal or oral sex, compared with 13% of those who did pledge (Washington Post, 3/19). According to Bruckner, the pledgers' increased likelihood of substituting oral or anal sex for vaginal intercourse puts them at risk of contracting STDs, according to Bruckner. Among virgins, boys who had pledged abstinence were four times as likely to have engaged in anal sex as those who did not pledge, and pledgers overall were six times as likely to have engaged in oral sex as teens who were virgins but did not take a pledge, the study found. In addition, teens who made virginity pledges were less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience and were less likely to get tested for STDs, the study found (Detroit Free Press, 3/19).

Conclusions
"Advocates for abstinence-only education assert that premarital abstinence and post-marital sex are necessary and sufficient for avoiding negative consequences of sexual activity, such as STDs," the study says, adding, "This assertion collides with the realities of adolescents' and young adults' lives." As a result, abstinence-only education is insufficient to prevent teens from contracting STDs, Bruckner said, according to the Toronto Globe and Mail. "It can't be enough because eventually, even the most abstinent adolescents, the great majority of them will have sex. ... We need to provide education that helps in dealing with it when they do it," Bruckner said (Mahoney, Globe and Mail, 3/19). "The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," Bearman said, adding, "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs" (Washington Post, 3/19).

Reaction
"Not only do virginity pledges not work to keep our young people safe, they are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception and medical treatment," William Smith, policy director at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said (Washington Times, 3/19). Deborah Roffman, an educator and author, said that teens who take virginity pledges "are often undereducated about sexual health" and will engage in oral or anal sex because they do not consider it "real sex," according to the Post (Washington Post, 3/19). However, Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, called the study "bogus" and said that the supposed pledgers had not pledged true abstinence, which forbids oral and anal sex (AP/Long Island Newsday, 3/18). Robert Rector, an analyst at the Heritage Institute, said that the study overlooked previous findings about teens who take virginity pledges -- including that they usually have fewer pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births -- adding that the programs are "hugely successful" in those areas (Washington Post, 3/19).

Chicago Tribune Examines Virginity Pledges
The Chicago Tribune on Sunday examined virginity pledges and the recent "craze" of "purity rings" that many teenagers wear to proclaim their abstinence-until-marriage pledge. Despite the recent surge in purity rings and abstinence programs -- some of which receive federal funding under the Bush administration -- teen health experts say that most teens will break their pledges before they are married. In addition, these health experts also say there is no "reliable evidence" that the programs reduce teen pregnancy or the spread of STDs, according to the Tribune (Bario, Chicago Tribune, 3/20). The complete article is available online

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21606

 

[Abbey Normal]

Not if the other 30 girls in her class wind up pregnant or diseased. Pitching abstinence in conjunction with meaningful education in contraception and consequences would seem to be the best path to follow.

Although I think it would be ideal if parents would teach their own children about sex and morals, I wasn't arguing mutual exclusivity. It seems to me that it is those who are strongly pro Sex Ed., to the point of handing out condoms, etc., who love to continually argue that abstinence doesn't work. As we have seen right in this thread.