Keep It In Your Pants Until You're Married

[jillian]

Its not that simple.

Misconceptions about sex and AIDS are widespread in Africa.

In parts of Africa, it is widely believed that having sex with a virgin rids oneself of the HIV virus. The next leader of the ANC and thus President of South Africa stated not to long ago that one could shower and expunge the virus from your body.

In many of these countries, the girls believe this to be the case as well. And in dirt poor countries, condoms can be expensive. So by educating that abstinence is the best way to not catch HIV, you present another option to people in dealing with a disease that is utterly rampant.

To me, those opposing the teaching of abstinence are as ideologically rigid as those who say it is the only option. IMHO, they are putting their own morality ahead of saving lives.

I was responding to Shattered's particular point which is that she doesn't want to pay for the babies of girls who get knocked up.

Now, to address your point... I don't think I ever said that abstinence shouldn't be taught as the most effective means of avoiding disease. But the cost of a condom is certainly no reason to tell them it's the ONLY way.

Nor do I believe for a second that cost is the reason for not teaching people safe sex.

Did you know that one of the first Executive Orders that Bush signed after he became president was to take away funding from any organization that worked outside of this country and taught about reproductive choice ... even as ONE OPTION among many.

And I'm familiar with the misconceptions about AIDS in Africa. There are even some with a racial component.

Either way, education seems to be key, doesn't it? Not partial education. Not education which comports with some Christian Dogma... but full, complete, honest education.

 

[Gunny]

But where did I say that?

It's that teaching ABSTINENCE ONLY is a sham. They should teach that abstinence is the BEST method... while teaching SAFE SEX.

Where does it say "abstinence only"?

And I disagree with the "safe sex" thing. I'm less concerned with the "marriage" thing than I am schoolkids can't even support themselves, much less an "accident."

I realize it's an antiquated idea with the left, but how about teaching personal responsibility and accountablity for one's actions? Nobody should be having sex if they can't afford to pay the consequences for their actions.

 

[jillian]

Where does it say "abstinence only"?

And I disagree with the "safe sex" thing. I'm less concerned with the "marriage" thing than I am schoolkids can't even support themselves, much less an "accident."

I realize it's an antiquated idea with the left, but how about teaching personal responsibility and accountablity for one's actions? Nobody should be having sex if they can't afford to pay the consequences for their actions.

This is why:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

 

[Diuretic]

I agree. I think anyone arguing that abstinence is not by far the most sound method of avoiding contracting HIV/AIDS IS rather pathetic.

Of course it's not sound. It won't work because it goes against normal human sexual impulses.

People will have sex. People who are not married to one another will have sex.

It's probably true that people who are monogamous will not easily contract HIV/AIDS through sex.

It's probably true that people who are inclined to have multiple sex partners are in greater danger of contracting HIV/AIDS and other STDs.

And it's probably true that barrier protection (eg condoms) will provide more protection against HIV/AIDS and STDs than unprotected sex.

Now, given that sex is often impulsive (anyone agree with me that non-impulsive sex is really, really boring???? ) it would seem to me that getting it into people's heads that barrier protection (only takes a few seconds and it's easier with practice) is more effective than filling their heads with the bullshit of abstinence. When the blood heats up it's too late for abstinence.

 

[pegwinn]

The bottom line is that people will get laid. It really doesn't matter the age groups or genders. There will always be teen pregnancies and STD's.

I am all for education within the USA that encompasses the biology of the act.

I am all for education within the USA that teaches safe sex at an appropriate age. That does not mean that I want my 14 y/o kid taught about s&m, glbt issues, oral/anal, etc. Simple disease prevention, and pregnancy protection will suffice.

All of that should be wrapped in a mantle of "abstinence is best" and a serious dose of reality. It would not hurt to show the pictures of advanced VD cases. It would not hurt to show the pictures of kids thrown into dumpsters. It would not hurt to interview the stellar performers derailed because life happened.

 

[Diuretic]

This is where it gets complex because now we're fixing the discussion on children and adolescent education and I'm not qualified in those areas.....but what the hell, here goes...

Children should be taught at an appropriate age about sex. At a guess I'd say just before puberty (if it's still possible to pin an age range down). No, they don't need to know about the outer reaches of sex at that age but I do think that at an appropriate age (late adolescence/early adulthood, whenever that is) they should know about the wide range of human sexuality, the good, the bad, the plain weird. But no doubt that's another thread.

I think aversion training isn't that good an idea. Heck some of those old VD slides could ruin the future sex lives of some of the more sensitive young people.

They can learn that not doing it is definitely the way not to get pregnant or contract a disease; but they can also learn that they're not evil or a failure as a human being to give in to their sexual impulse.

They can learn that if they do give in to that natural impulse that condoms are best for protection against pregnancy AND limiting the chances of STDs (inc HIV/AIDS).

I'm all for giving them a range of information, not relying just on one approach.

In fact I'm all for teaching youngsters all about how to have a positive, productive, happy life - heck why limit it to sex education, we should be teaching them what we've learned from our own mistakes (and we'd better be quick, before they get to the age where they look at you with a so-droll look and tell you they know it all anyway).

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sex wouldn't feel as great as it does if it were only intended to pro-create.

I refuse to believe that a man and woman's insatiable desire to feel the physical gratification of sex was only originally intended to benefit pro-creation. It's one of the most powerful driving forces in the world.

Even before there were such suggestive things as TV, advertisements, porn, all the "sex sells" things, what have you, there were people working JUST AS HARD to achieve the joys of physical sexual gratification, so THAT argument doesn't hold much weight either.

And when 1 out of 2 marriages ends up in divorce these days anyway, what's the point of waiting until marriage?

actually pleasure from sex is an evolutionary necessity in humans.

think about it a human child is much more defenseless that the young of any other species the fact that pleasure of sex made the man stick around longer increased the survival rate of infants and grew the population.

in fact the move from sex from behind as in ALL other species to face to face sex in humans was another important evolutionary process. think about it whenever another mammal (especially primates) is in estrus what part of the body do they display.? the rump. baboon females butts turn red when they are in heat to attract the males. the evolution of the human female body and the relatively larger breasts as compared to other primates effectively placed the object of earlier primates sexual attraction , the butt, on the front side of human females thereby encouraging face to face intimacy. when a male associates a particular face with the pleasure of sex he is more likely to stick around longer which increases the survival odds of the species.

and if you take a look at divorce stats most divorces seem to occur not when the children are very young but when they are older and in evolutionary terms able to fend for themselves. so in relationships as in all things we are still beholden to our biology and evolution as a species.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I see.. So, WE should support the babies that you all choose to make, simply because it "feels good", and nobody should have to "do without"?

Who the hell do you think pays for all the welfare programs that feed, proovide healthcare, and yes, even provide education, on preventative measures?

My guess, is if you don't know how to PREVENT pregnancy, and need education on such, you probably SHOULD be abstaining.

What babies, the women just go murder them by having an abortion.

 

[rayboyusmc]

So it is your argument that just because YOU did it, it's okay? And that makes it less the most foolproof way to reduce contracting HIV/AIDS?

You are beginning to sound like Retired.

First, I never said I did it. I actually believed all that crap Sister Mary Third Grade and Father O'Leary taught me.

I made a statement that dealt with the unreality of relying primarily on abstinence to prevent aids.. And that is what they are PREACHING. They don't want condoms or any other "non-christian" approach used even if they used them. It's also about some hypocrisy.

How many of those who now tell the young to abstain, did themself? That is not justifukfying it, it is a statement that to use this as the primary approach is totally unrealistic.

Seems a lot more like common sense than religion. Sounds like you're fabricating excuses to make personal attacks.

Sounds to me that you are denying reality to push your point of view. Common sense to rely primarily on abstinece to make the hard grow fonder? The religious right is pushing as RELIGION not as common sense.

The reason Chistianity has it undies in a knot over sex.

The first Christians were Catholics. The other branches came later. The theologians, could have been some gay guys there, started the whole crap about celebacy for priests. What the hell else would expect to control the populace but to make sex a no-no. I am no expert, just six years in a Catholic Seminary.

 

[bennylava]

The way I heard it, the reason they made celibacy mandatory in the priesthood was because they didn't want the priests to have to support families financially, and they didn't want any of the priest's or church's property to be passed down to the priest's children.

 

[Diuretic]

Since many other Christian denominations work fine with married priests maybe the Vatican would............naaahhhh.....too conservative.

 

[CrpRavens30]

Why is it our responsiblity to worry about AIDS in Africa? Who made us responsible for educating them?

 

[mattskramer]

I support school choice. That way parents can decide if they want to have their children attend a school that focuses on abstinence or attend a school that focuses on comprehensive sex education.

If that is not going to happen, then I support giving students as much information as is practical. Tell them that the best way to avoid STD is to not have sex. Also teach them that beyond that, the less best way to avoid STD is ……. Second to that is …… . If, after being warned, you insist on taking risks and having sex, then …… etc.

 

[jillian]

I support school choice. That way parents can decide if they want to have their children attend a school that focuses on abstinence or attend a school that focuses on comprehensive sex education.

If that is not going to happen, then I support giving students as much information as is practical. Tell them that the best way to avoid STD is to not have sex. Also teach them that beyond that, the less best way to avoid STD is ……. Second to that is …… . If, after being warned, you insist on taking risks and having sex, then …… etc.

"school choice" is a way to divest public education of funding and put it into parochial school education. and, i'm afraid I have to disagree about parents focusing on abstinence only. If they want to do that, the're free to send their kids to parochial school. there's no excuse for a public school not giving kids the information they need.

 

[mattskramer]

"school choice" is a way to divest public education of funding and put it into parochial school education. and, i'm afraid I have to disagree about parents focusing on abstinence only. If they want to do that, the're free to send their kids to parochial school. there's no excuse for a public school not giving kids the information they need.

Oh well. I guess that we won’t agree on everything. “School choice” will divert public education funding only if public schools are not as good as private schools. Perhaps some private secular schools will come up. Perhaps there will be some atheist schools or some secular private schools.

Certainly parents can send their children to parochial schools or other private schools but don’t you see the lack of fairness in that? Parents who do so would still be required to pay public school tuition.

I know that it is not perfect but neither is the system we have now. After I considered things such as the “Fist Amendment”, I still think that school choice would do more good than harm to this great nation.

 

[jillian]

Oh well. I guess that we won’t agree on everything. “School choice” will divert public education funding only if public schools are not as good as private schools. Perhaps some private secular schools will come up. Perhaps there will be some atheist schools or some secular private schools.

Certainly parents can send their children to parochial schools or other private schools but don’t you see the lack of fairness in that? Parents who do so would still be required to pay public school tuition.

I know that it is not perfect but neither is the system we have now. After I considered things such as the “Fist Amendment”, I still think that school choice would do more good than harm to this great nation.

Not true. Because the religious right doesn't care about the quality of schools. They only care if creationism is being taught as science and that their kids get taught abstinence only and get to pray in school. I don't know if you have kids, but to me, living in a city where not all schools are created equal, also a city where approximately 68% of the population is Catholic, that's a big issue.

No. I don't think it's unfair at all for the reasons expressed above. We're not in the business of funding religious institutions. Doing it via vouchers is just a back door means of getting around the Constitution.

I understand where you are on this. But I can tell you that I'd fight any attempt to implement school vouchers vigorously.

 

[mattskramer]

Not true. Because the religious right doesn't care about the quality of schools. They only care if creationism is being taught as science and that their kids get taught abstinence only and get to pray in school. I don't know if you have kids, but to me, living in a city where not all schools are created equal, also a city where approximately 68% of the population is Catholic, that's a big issue.

“The proof is in the pudding.” Today, if parents want to send their children to private schools (parochial or otherwise) they still have to pay pubic school tax. Why would hardworking parents with children spend expensive private school tuition if private schools don’t care – if private schools don’t seem to be doing a better job?

Why is there so much Catholicism? Perhaps Catholicism works. If parochial schools don’t work, the parents can simply send their kids to the old “public” schools. Let’s hold public schools accountable. The best way is to give parents an equal choice.

Liberals often argue about being pro-choice. This would be an excellent issue in which to ask that they be pro-choice.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Why is it our responsiblity to worry about AIDS in Africa? Who made us responsible for educating them?

Because today what happens in Africa, or any other country, doesn't stay there. We live in a global community where people are crossing boundaries evevry day. And with that movement they share things they may have picked up in Africa, Hong Kong, Margate Florida, etc.

 

[Gunny]

Of course it's not sound. It won't work because it goes against normal human sexual impulses.

People will have sex. People who are not married to one another will have sex.

It's probably true that people who are monogamous will not easily contract HIV/AIDS through sex.

It's probably true that people who are inclined to have multiple sex partners are in greater danger of contracting HIV/AIDS and other STDs.

And it's probably true that barrier protection (eg condoms) will provide more protection against HIV/AIDS and STDs than unprotected sex.

Now, given that sex is often impulsive (anyone agree with me that non-impulsive sex is really, really boring???? ) it would seem to me that getting it into people's heads that barrier protection (only takes a few seconds and it's easier with practice) is more effective than filling their heads with the bullshit of abstinence. When the blood heats up it's too late for abstinence.

You are arguing what what you presume people are going to do. That in no way changes the fact that abstinence is the most sound method of not contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

All I see you really saying is you are excusing a lack of self control as "human nature." Regardless your reasoning and/or its validity, you cannot deny the sumple fact that not engaging in sexual conduct GREATLY diminishes the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

 

[Gunny]

You are beginning to sound like Retired. /QUOTE]

And you sound like a combination of Michael Moore and Stuart Smalley.

Sounds to me that you are denying reality to push your point of view. Common sense to rely primarily on abstinece to make the hard grow fonder? The religious right is pushing as RELIGION not as common sense.

My point of view is that it is a simple fact that not engaging in sexual activity decreases greatly the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease. That doesn't have a DAMNED thing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with logic and common sense.

The reason Chistianity has it undies in a knot over sex.

Looks to me like a case fo the pot calling the kettle black. You originated this thread because of the knot in YOUR panties over Christians and the mythical, religious right.

The first Christians were Catholics. The other branches came later. The theologians, could have been some gay guys there, started the whole crap about celebacy for priests. What the hell else would expect to control the populace but to make sex a no-no. I am no expert, just six years in a Catholic Seminary.

None of your railing changes the facts as I presented them. I could care less about your, or anyone else's religous hangups. I made a statement of obvious fact that you can't do anything but dance around.