Getting rid of religious superstition in abstinence-only programs
| May 23rd, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
121 Responses to “Getting rid of religious superstition in abstinence-only programs”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
May 23rd, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Wonder if the federal government would back a Muslim-based organization? Or Hindu? Or Wiccan?
This comment was written by Kat.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
This silver ring thing dealy only seems to support my theory. I have a theoretical proof that shows that preists, or those males who have sworn celebacy to devote themselves to God, are gay, further proving that christianity actually condones homosexuality.
That said, this whole abstinence thing has got some merit, though like all things, should be taught truthfully, not smearing other sexual preferences.
-Luke, lost virginity at age 16, and thinks most of the loudest evangelicals lost theirs around the same age!
This comment was written by Luke.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:24 pm
They never heard of archive.org?
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
We’re trying to get them to back The Church of the Mouse and the Disco Ball, but no luck so far. It might help if I put together a sex ed curriculum about abstinence. We Mousediscoballians believe in abstaining from sex until you want to have sex or a mercy fuck is in order, whichever comes first.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:30 pm
I can’t be in Amanda’s church, as I consider Toshiko Akiyoshi’s band much holier than the Ramones. But I’ll throw a few (full) Dorito bags in the collection plate, anyway. I’m very broad-minded that way.
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:53 pm
I hope the ACLU wins. I have a silver ring collection that goes way back to the late ’80s and has nothing to do with abstinence programs. Now, every time I wear them, I must wear my most low-cut jeans and skimpy top lest I be mistaken for a fanatical Christianist. / snark /
This comment was written by sara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:18 pm
I took a look at their website (on a browser I rarely use, so it doesn’t show up in my history file every time I type in an address starting with S) and had myself a nice laugh. Typical abstainance-till-marriage stuff of the sort that made me regard abstinence (forced or not) as a bad thing, best avoided, for most of my life. Took me years to figure out that whatever worked for me given the circumstances was right and that I should be proud of doing what I wanted, even if it occasionally coincided with what the abstinence police wanted—no more being ashamed of not having sex when the reason I wasn’t having sex was because there was nobody around that I was interested in having sex with.
I noticed that Silver Ring Thing is operating in my local big city. Maybe I’ll walk by there sometime, so that when one of them asks me if I know that God has a plan for my sexuality, I can say, “Yes, Her plan is whatever I want,” and enjoy the shocked look on their face at my referring to God in the feminine gender.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 12:08 am
Took me years to figure out that whatever worked for me given the circumstances was right and that I should be proud of doing what I wanted
Wow. Rarely is it stated so artlessly and proudly.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 6:18 am
Herpes or pregnant? Well, seeing as both the US government and the religious right are undoubtedly male, that would make them gay, so they’d really better be careful.
This comment was written by mutant cat.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 6:24 am
Yes, Robert, people should be ashamed of thinking about their decisions instead of following authority.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 6:37 am
Amanda, people should not be ashamed of thinking about their decisions instead of following authority.
But individual human desires are not the final arbiter.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 7:02 am
Amanda,
Took me years to figure out that whatever worked for me given the circumstances was right and that I should be proud of doing what I wanted
Wow, wonderfully put hon … thank you :)
(also for scaring the crap out of the fundies, as the idea of a woman who controls her own sexuality and body, that’s their worst nightmare *smile*)
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
oops, that should be Kyra, apolos hon :)
This comment was written by Sarah in Chicago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Yes, actually, individual human desires ARE the final arbiter. The alternative is the model — the historically dominant model — that people need to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a tiny minority. The test of whether a society really benefits the majority is whether most people feel their needs and desires are being fulfilled. And the insatiable demands for greater and greater self-sacrifice pre-empt that test.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
“Wonder if the federal government would back a Muslim-based organization? Or Hindu? Or Wiccan?”
It’s a blue burqa thing.
Robert:
So at what age did you lose your virginity?
You don’t have to answer, of course. I’d just like to point out that I very clearly remember the founder of Silver Ring Thing on NPR saying how he had been a little slutty and lived to regret it. Like Jerry Falwell, George Bush and Laura Schlessinger- it’s easy to age out of the raging hormones and teenage drama and romance and then tell others to do as you say and not as you did. Also- What did Mrs Bush do for birth control? She only has had one pregnancy.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Yes, actually, individual human desires ARE the final arbiter. The alternative is the model … the historically dominant model … that people need to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a tiny minority.
OK. My desire is to rape every woman I find attractive, seize any property I find desirable, and kill any man, woman or child who gets in my way or causes me any inconvenience whatsoever.
Explain why I shouldn’t, without appeal to anything larger than myself.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Robert, if you did that, you’d be miserable because everyone around you would hate you.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Can we get a definition of “anything larger than myself”? Is that some sort of god-concept, or can it just be the community one lives in?
This comment was written by Ab_Normal.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Ab_normal, anything outside myself.
Brian, your example relies on how other people feel about me. I don’t care about how other people feel about me. Remember, my own desires are the FINAL arbiter.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
(Also, Brian, your example fails on historical grounds. There were lots of people in history who behaved exactly as I described. They are not recorded as having been miserable.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Please admire the skillful way in which Robert takes the example of an individual’s own desires, as in individual choices about that individual’s own life, that do not involve any imposition on anyone else, and turns it into a question of violence, rape, murder and theft.
Chapeau. Can I nominate that for straw man of the year?
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Noodles, there are very few decisions we can make about own individual lives that do not involve impositions on others. Nor did the original commenter whose indiscretion is being dissected make such a qualification.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
You have those desires, Robert? Damn, you’re worrying me.
I said, by the way, “think”, not “desire”. But I would contest that there’s not a strict dichotomy there. I say to my boyfriend, “I think I will go water the tomatoes.” But I also mean, “I desire to stand around with a hose smelling the afternooon air, lost in my thoughts and proud of my garden.” Dig?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Sociopaths don’t care what other people think, so no, there’s nothing in my moral schema to make them behave in a socially acceptable way. But since they don’t care what other people think, they’re not going to acknowledge authority, either. I don’t think there’s any moral schema that’s going to work well for people who are insane, so I don’t see how that’s a valid criticism of my point.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Sociopaths don’t care what other people think, so no, there’s nothing in my moral schema to make them behave in a socially acceptable way.
Since sociopaths exist, doesn’t this imply that your moral schema is de facto unworkable in a real society?
I don’t think there’s any moral schema that’s going to work well for people who are insane…
Not one that depends solely on the goodwill of each individual member of society, no.
But one that draws on larger conceptualizations than an individual’s own desires, yes. (Which may involve drawing on enforcement mechanisms more vigorous than individual conscience, as well.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Amanda, just to reassure you, no, those aren’t my desires.
(More accurately: yes, those are my desires, and the same holds true for everyone. But we’re socialized out of such absolute and utterly egotistical selfishness, fortunately.)
My socializations works pretty good. I don’t want to rape anybody, only occasionally get itchy fingers, and haven’t killed anyone for being in my way in DAYS.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
The BASIS, the fundamental STARTING POINT for the moral schema I’m describing is meeting individual desires — as opposed to the basis being some arbitrary code of conduct. I’m only talking about a basis, a starting point, not the entire damned system.
People seek their happiness, and they negotiate with each other on that basis. Insisting that people obey a code of conduct, and if they do, they’ll be happy, seems completely backwards to me, and it seems to me to be a recipe for misery.
Case in point: abstinence-only sex education. Aside from the fact that it is probably designed to fail anyway — it certainly can’t be justified on utilitarian grounds — the premise seems to be that teens should commit to an abstract duty to repress their sexuality completely. In short, kids are to be taught that their desires are evil. For the kids that actually buy that line, they can look forward to a lifetime of guilt and shame.
What’s wrong with taking as a starting point that teens will have sexual desires of various sorts, and should be able to explore them somehow, and here are the possibilities and the risks and how to minimize those risks. Maybe there’d be less of that whole “rape culture” business if teens actually had the chance for real discussion and exploration of sexuality, without shame and recrimination.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
OK, Brian, fair enough. Saying that the individual desires are the arbiter of the moral correctness of your action, then, is inaccurate.
the premise seems to be that teens should commit to an abstract duty to repress their sexuality completely. In short, kids are to be taught that their desires are evil.
Maybe we’re looking at different curricula. We teach our kids (or will teach, when the hormones start kicking in) that their desires are a beautiful and natural part of God’s intention for them. We will also teach them that the consequences of those desires, if acted upon precipitately, without guidance, can be very negative, even life-destroying - and that self-control and the use of the mind and spirit are thus necessary to a healthy sexual life. That can and will be spun in a hostile fashion by folks who are opposed to the notion of self-control.
What’s wrong with taking as a starting point that teens will have sexual desires of various sorts, and should be able to explore them somehow, and here are the possibilities and the risks and how to minimize those risks.
Not all desires are morally acceptable, for one thing. Some teens desire to have sex with young kids because they don’t feel threatened by young kids but do feel alienated from and threatened by their peers. Should they be able to explore these desires? Hell, no.
Teaching rational risk calculus is a great idea, in the abstract. Unfortunately, in the concrete, teenagers are the world’s crappiest rational risk calculators; even little kids do better. Formulating sex ed curricula that are based on the idea of the kid being smart and making the right choices sounds great in theory, until you look at the teenagers out there. For God’s sake, they don’t even know which way to point their baseball caps.
Abstinence-only education programs are not perfect by any means. There’s lots of things I would change in those programs, were I omnipotent. That doesn’t mean I have to throw the idea of an abstract, external code of sexual morality out the window. You gotta start somewhere.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 24th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
“You gotta start somewhere” doesn’t mean that any starting point is as valid as any other.
Of course, opposition to abstinence-only teaching–especially the lie-filled kind too often found in schools–can and will be spun in a hostile fashion by those folks who believe any message other than “none of you should so much as kiss until marriage” is deadly.
The real problem with abstinence-only teaching is that it doesn’t consider what happens when the kids grow up. Do we expect our adult children to be abstinent until marriage? Do we also expect that knowledge of human sexuality and contraception are useless to married people?
It’s as though we’re trying to go back to the mythical age when brides thought babies were left by the stork, until the night before the wedding, when Mom sits down and explains everything from intercourse to using condoms to different lube brands in one massive pre-nuptial cram session.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 3:19 am
Robert - there are very few decisions we can make about own individual lives that do not involve impositions on others
If you really believe that, if that’s how you see life, then I wonder why you’re not in prison yet. Anyway. The original commenter was talking of desires, her own sexual desires, herself choosing how to relate vis a vis abstinence and sex life, her own. Nowhere did she speak of imposing her sexual desires on anyone else. (Curious, how you instantly connected ’sexual desire’ to violence… You do know there’s not just abstinence or rape, right?). In fact, she was speaking of refusing pressures and impositions placed by others on herself.
There are a lot of things human beings do every day to follow their own wishes and desires, that do not involve any harm or coercion or any sociopathic behaviour you described.
yes, those are my desires, and the same holds true for everyone.
Speak for yourself, Robert. If a genie was to come out of a bottle right now and ask me what desires I wish come true, well I am sorry to disappoint your colorful view of the heart of darkness lurking beneath all that cute socialisation thing, but I am nearly ashamed to admit the first thing that would came into my mind wouldn’t be, oh now here’s my chance to live out all of the Marquis De Sade’s fantasies. Sorry, not my thing. I would simply wish for very banal, obvious, pleasant things, for myself and people I care for. Whether it’s about the weather, or sex, or money, or health, or just living my life doing what I like to do and having good friends around and my kids to grow up happy and all that kind of shit, you know. Boring, but true.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 3:35 am
We will also teach them that the consequences of those desires, if acted upon precipitately, without guidance, can be very negative, even life-destroying - and that self-control and the use of the mind and spirit are thus necessary to a healthy sexual life.
See, Robert, the problem is you sound like you’re talking of having to educate little savages of another species that’s not human. Self control, a sense of ethics, using your head, distinguishing between impulses and desires, and respecting yourself and others - these are all basic parts of growing up and of any basic education and child-rearing and it starts at a very young age, when children are taught they can’t just grab their siblings toys and smash them to bits, or punch their sister in the face; they know these things already, but also need to get boundaries shown to them too, it’s a two-way process. It’s not “desires OR etc.”, it’s both. Teenagers have had 10+ years of growing up, learning, knowing themselves and others, learning about respect. Screwing up is normal part of that, but in my experience the teenagers who react most strongly against all kinds of rules, not just external and social ones but also their own better judgement - that they do have, at that age - are more often than not precisely those who’ve been pressured the strongest with authoritarian rules and scare tactics and paranoia about what happens if they start to think with their own head.
It’s a recipe for disaster. Brian is right, those abstinence programmes are a preparation for a lifetime of shame and guilt and being screwed up about sex and relationships. Even the kids who would be most naturally and spontaneously drawn to being more reserved and less outgoing sexually than others will suffer under that repressive idea of sex.
But those who push those programmes don’t care about all that, they’re good for political purposes, and they’re an excellent preparation for brainwashing in other areas of life too, so, that’s why both religious fundamentalists and non-religious reactionaries favour them. It just fits into their idea of society.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
noodles said:
I concur completely; after 18 years of marriage, I’m still trying to convince my subconscious that “sex is okay now that I’m married”. Eighteen years. Either I’m excessively credulous or the Catholic school did a bang up job on brainwashing.
This comment was written by Ab_Normal.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
“Abstinence-only education programs are not perfect by any means. There’s lots of things I would change in those programs, were I omnipotent. That doesn’t mean I have to throw the idea of an abstract, external code of sexual morality out the window. You gotta start somewhere. ”
“Abstinence only” sounds reasonable to us parents who have a deadly fear of our children’s sexuality and unwanted pregnancy. Let’s face it, that’s what we’re scared of. Putting aside the fact that just about all of us somehow survived adolesence sexuality, the problem is that those abstinence programs are filled with inaccuracies - see ” The Content of Federally Funded Abstinnence Only Programs at Democrats.reform.house.gov. They have come to mean “pull the wool over the kids’ eyes programs” that any self respecting teen would spot as false in two seconds. And it has never been as if opponents of such programs ever favored telling kids to go at it whenever they want. Reasonable adults know we must teach teens to be responsible.
I will never let some holier than thou, intelligence insulting, bible thumping protestant Ned Flanders go anywhere near my daughter to teach her about sex with some silly rock show if I can avoid it. Public school sex ed should be biology and ethics based, with a little birth control thrown in to help them make more informed choices as sexually active adults. After all, I don’t know of any abstract, external code of morality that dictates ignorance.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Elena said…
Fundamentalism, mixed with religion.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
In this thread, it was pointed out that information on how to minimize a woman’s discomfort during her first experiences in vaginal intercourse is very hard to come by. It reminded me that I had, years ago, tried to find that sort of information, and I couldn’t find more than a sentence or two on it anywhere. A few texts said outright that anyone old enough to read the book would be unlikely to ever encounter a virgin.
I’ve never heard a woman say a pleasant word about her first sexual experience. Most women I’ve talked to about it described it as incredibly horrible, both from the physical pain and the confusion.
Wouldn’t any genuinely compassionate sexual education program explain how to minimize the discomfort of “deflowering” BEFORE a woman was most likely to go through it?
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Robert, truth told, I don’t have those desires. I have fantasies of hurting people, but that’s a very different thing. I weigh my desire to beat the ever-living crap out someone with my desire not to have blood splatter all over my clothes and their pain on my conscience. But the reason that the penalties for sex and the lies are common is because of a basic truth–the desire for sex outweighs desires for other things. Much, if not most of the time, this isn’t a bad thing by any stretch. Oh, my desire for sex outweighed my idle desire for my parents to think I am still a virgin but it turns out that my adult sexual behavior is something they can live with. In fact, they like my boyfriend.
Certainly there are desires that are so out-of-whack they need to be constrained by law. Unfortunately, I define those as behaviors that have definite bad consequences for others, and I have yet to see a reasonable argument that people who have consenting sexual relations have genuine consequences for others. Sure, there are those who get bent out of shape thinking that someone, somewhere is having a good time but frankly, that’s their problem and not the duty of the rest of us to be unhappy for their satisfaction.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
I have yet to see a reasonable argument that people who have consenting sexual relations have genuine consequences for others.
Epidemiology says different. The history of STDs and their transmission through the population is hostile to your view.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Okay, let’s go with your point. In that case, the gross desire of people to have friendship, employment, and various other forms of face-to-face interaction with others has been the greatest tragedy of humanity. Leperosy, the bubonic plague, polio, scarlet fever, malaria, and even the ordinary flu are transmitted by filthy, dirty, immoral people who put their desires to be members of society before the critical need to be around others and get sick, deviant pleasures like friendship, family, and trade. Clearly the desire for companionship needs to be nipped in the bud due to disease.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
*Dropped a phrase. Should read more like:
Leperosy, the bubonic plague, polio, scarlet fever, malaria, and even the ordinary flu are transmitted by filthy, dirty, immoral people who put their desires to be members of society before the critical need to avoid disease, even at the expense of abandoning friendship, family, and trade.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 25th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Your response is a non sequitur. You claimed ignorance of any reasonable argument that sex could impact people aside from the couple involved. I provided a reasonable argument about how it could and does. Saying “ok, but what about all the diseases that are spread by nonsexual means!” does not address the point.
A reasonable argument has been presented. Do you have a response?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 12:16 am
This was aimed to Amanda but i hope she doesn’t mind if I speak out:
Robert wrote:
Let’s see. Jack meets Jill. They have sex. Because of that other people get STDs. How reasonable! (Okay, i’m being silly on purpose.)
This comment was written by Tuomas.I think you are creating a false dilemma here. As if it’s either abstinence only, or let teenagers irresponsibly fuck everything that moves without any thought. Of course information about STDs, pregnancies, and generally the emotional baggage concerning dating, sex etc. must be part of sex ed. And also frank discussion about what is right and wrong (and legal issues), like rape,(child) molestation and the right of people to refrain from sex, and this message should be given to both sexes. If you are going to answer that it won’t do any good because teenagers are so rebellious, then why should we assume that abstinence-only would work?Why don’t you prove that abstinence only - sex ed is reducing teen pregnancies and the prevalence of STDs?
I remember that most teenagers “got” the message about safe sex when I was young (and it sure wasn’t abstinence only - message). Some didn’t, of course. But it helped a lot of people, and no, I didn’t pressured to have sex because of the sex education.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 3:36 am
Robert, it’s your argument who isn’t reasonable. It’s the usual scare tactics of those abstinence programmes. The reason why STD’s are transmitted is not sex itself. It’s ignorance - not having a clue, not taking care of one’s health, and not using condoms. Learn about STD, visit your doctor in case you have doubts, make sure your partner does the same, and best of all, use a condom, wether you have taken all the other steps or not.
But the worshippers of Abstinence don’t want kids to know it’s that simple, because that would take away one their most effective tactics in demonising sex and associating it with fear, shame, guilt. They want to brainwash kids into thinking sex before marriage is unclean, and what better confirmation of that than going on about STD’s - and unwanted pregnancies, of course - as the consequence of breaking the pledge of chastity. Not as a consequence of ignorance, no, ignorance is exactly what these people spread.
If that’s reasonable or ethical, then let’s have equally reasonable and ethical objections to ‘clean’ sex within marriage - if Hitler’s parents hadn’t had sex, 6 million lives could have been saved. How about that now. It’s just as honest an argument as yours.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 3:55 am
Yep, and what Tuomas said, it’s a false dilemma, and indeed, in areas where abstinence programmes are more heavily present in schools or church groups, the rates of STD’s and teen pregnancies are very high, obviously. The kids are hearing a completely ambivalent, ignorant, manipulative message, instead of being given a healthy and confident approach and information.
There’s one aspects of ‘desire’ in these abstinence programmes that no one has mentioned yet - the desires of the parents who voluntarily submit their kids to this brainwashing. It’s a desire that has to do with that big conditioning factor on so much of human behaviour - “what will other people think of me”. The parents who push their kids to take the pledge are worried less about their kids wellbeing, than about social appearances in the environment that considers sex as unclean. What will they think of us, as parents, if our daughter is having sex! (I doubt that thought is as bothersome when it’s the sons) They’ll think we have failed in educating her. That is obvious in how those programmes and especially the pledges are done, it’s all a vulgar exhibition with no respect for the privacy of the kids involved, actual privacy and emotional privacy. It’s all for public and political consumption. It’s the ‘reality tv’ mentality.
Oh well, everybody has their idea of what responsible education is, I guess. Pity so many kids don’t get to choose which kind is handed to them under the pretence of ‘for their own good’.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 9:18 am
The reason why STD’s are transmitted is not sex itself. It’s ignorance - not having a clue, not taking care of one’s health, and not using condoms. Learn about STD, visit your doctor in case you have doubts, make sure your partner does the same, and best of all, use a condom, wether you have taken all the other steps or not.
Your PARTNER? Why are you imposing your fascist assumptions of monogamy on our kids?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Robert said…
Robert, don’t be an ass. Attack noodles’ argument, not noodles’ personally.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 11:47 am
LOL, what’s that all about?
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Well, Brian, if it’s any consolation, mine was just kind of dull. :/
This comment was written by alsis38.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
My point is simple, Robert. If the fear of disease trumps the desire to have sex, then the fear of disease should also trump the desire to associate with others at all.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Amanda, you made a claim that there were no consequences outside of the diad having sex. You can present reams of scenarios or parallels where people choose to accept the risk of the consequences, but that has zero bearing on your explicit claim that the consequences do not exist.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 12:28 am
I have to say I’m finally swayed by the power of Robert’s reasonable arguments, not to mention his charming responses which consist of ignoring responses. I’m going to move to Texas and sign my kids up to an abstinence programme so by the time they turn puberal they’ll learn fear, shame and ignorance, not confidence and knowledge, is what’s going to make them enjoy a natural, healthy sexual life as they grow up. Gimme that silver ring now!
One question, Robert: you do have sex? What do you do to prevent STD’s and unwanted pregnancies? Why can’t a reasonably well-informed and responsible teen do the same? Or is a reasonable degree of responsibility and knowledge about prevention of unwanted consequences of something natural, enjoyable, healthy something that you only acquire magically by marriage and/or turning 21 or 29, whatever might be the case? How do you acquire that, exactly?
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 12:31 am
NB: whether that teen has sex as a teen or later, that is. You know, I’m just wondering how and when exactly the teens that follow these abstinence programmes are going to learn grow up and behave like adults. I suppose it’s some overnight process right after the wedding ceremony?
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 1:23 am
Now you are getting the idea!
A religious marriage ceremony confers magical powers on young people. It instantly makes them all grown up and ready to face sex, pregnancy, and intimacy. Even if the only education they ever received on the subjects consisted of lies, half truths, and urban myths. Because the really neat thing about religion is you don’t need any pesky facts, you just need to believe.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 2:32 am
Because the really neat thing about religion is you don’t need any pesky facts, you just need to believe.
Er, there is more than one type of religion.
I keep thinking of that Rodney Dangerfield movie (I believe it’s Easy Money) where the new bride won’t have sex with her husband, because Daddy’s don’t-mess-with-my-daughter message was so strong that even after marriage…
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 5:51 am
Sorry Amanda, had to answer this.
One more time Robert (maybe this time you will not pretend to have not seen any of the aswers directed to you):
Okay. A claim has been made.
Epidemiology doesn’t say different. Of course, if people have multiple sex partners, and some of them have STDs, and condoms aren’t used STDs are transmitted, but then, that isn’t outside the couple (x,y,z. z has STD, y has sex z, gets STD, y has sex x, x gets STD. Three “couplings”, no consequences outside the couple, unless of course, they have more sex with different people, but thats more couplings then). What part of this is so difficult?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 9:31 am
Noodles, Tuomas - sorry for not responding. Occasionally I do have a life, and the mismatch between my views and most of the rest of y’all’s being what it is, I could literally sit here all day and respond to posts. But the baby has to be played with and the work has to get done.
I am also often reluctant to respond. I’ll make a point, and I’ll get a raft of responses, some of which are simply not logical or are emotional venting. Nothing wrong with that, but how do you argue back to emotional venting? You don’t; you let the person make THEIR points unmolested. I’ve made my statement, and if the person who’s disagreeing with me doesn’t seem interested in an actual argument/discussion, then me responding just ends up in a perpetual cycle of uh huh/nunh unh that results in 400-comment posts with no content.
And then there are posts where the rational response is “God, you’re dumb.” No doubt I make posts that elicit that response from other posters; Amp has wisely requested that people refrain from “hey, you’re an idiot” type posts.
So if I don’t respond to something you say, I either think you’re a moron, I don’t have time to respond, or I’m content with what I’ve said and am yielding to you the final word. You can choose whichever of those possibilities is most congenial to you.
Tuomas, your micro-analysis of an epidemic is reductive to the point of uselessness. Every new non-monogamous coupling adds to the vector space that a pathogen can travel. The more non-exclusive couplings, the larger the epidemiological space and the more room in the ecosystem a pathogen has. (Exclusive groups create tiny new vector spaces, rather than increasing the size of the community one, for the duration of the exclusivity.) What other people do ends up having an effect on my chances of getting an STD; if I’m hugely promiscuous in San Francisco in 1975 it means a much different risk than from being hugely promiscuous in Amish Country in 2004. What other people have done effects me; what I do effects other people.
Noodles, my sexual life is not your business. However, I can tell you that judgement comes from a variety of factors, the biggest of which is maturity. People are going to inevitably make mistakes and have to deal with negative consequences, and those experiences also add to judgment. However, in sexual matters, the costs of acquiring judgment through experience are very high. I happen to think it better for young people to slowly acquire judgment through observing other people, rather than to quickly acquire judgment through making mistakes, when the consequences of mistakes include death and the creation of new life. YMMV.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Well, I don’t have a life and work and kids to tend to, so I guess I’ll respond… I may still think you’re a moron, though. See, we have so much in common.
I happen to think it better for young people to slowly acquire judgment through observing other people, rather than to quickly acquire judgment through making mistakes, when the consequences of mistakes include death and the creation of new life.
Well, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who disagrees with that.
I don’t see how it justifies the kind of abstinence programmes above mentioned, though.
See, Robert, you obviously make only reasonable arguments with no appeal to rhetorics or emotion whatsoever, but perhaps we aren’t reading the same thread, cos I don’t remember anyone saying their own ideal for sex education has to be plunging their kids in the middle of an orgy and see how they cope*. I do remember, however, some people arguing that the alternative to those abstinence programmes is not pushing kids to just go with the flow and not worry about a thing, but a different approach that wouldn’t replace information and encouragement to responsibility and respect with scaremongering or shaming and demonisation. There isn’t just abstinence or recklessness.
Incidentally, I happen to think that all the obsession on abstience is just the other side of the coin of the extremes of commodisation of teens and sex in advertising and entertainment, young teens get bombarded with such overwhelming messages on sex that they probably wouldn’t make such a huge fuss about it if it was up to them. The “don’t do it” message is probably even stronger in generating counter-reactions. But that’s just an impression.
One other thing - the question you dodged wasn’t a literal question on your sex life, Robert, obviously, and I don’t think you are that stupid to not have realised it; it was a question about how someone educated with an abstinence-only programme of the religious kind, virginity pledges and all, can suddenly come to act responsible, know about prevention of STD and contraception, and appreciate marital sex as a good thing, after they’ve had sex demonised for such a long part of their formative years.
Also, the question Tuomas asked about the incidence of STD’s and teen pregnancies and how do abstience programmes affect that incidence, that’s an interesting question on an aspect where facts should count more than opinions, perhaps.
No one has to agree on the principles and ideas, to at least discuss the actual outcomes and benefits of a certain approach.
(No one has to bother discussing anything at all, of course. But then, one wonders, why even begin.)
* Maybe one day someone will come up with a “Virgin Island” reality tv show, where the teens are dropped not on a desert island, but in the middle of Miami in the summer spring break, with nothing but their pledges to get them through that tenth circle of abstinence hell. Endemol US is likely studying the script right now.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 10:58 am
When I was in elementary school and high school, sex education was limited and perfunctory, but at least they acknowledged that there was birth control. (Although at least one “sex ed teacher” they brought in was a blatant liar.) But it was still presented as, “Sex is a terrible, dangerous thing, and you shouldn’t ever have sex. But if you do, wear a condom.” And there was very little more information than that.
That’s just not good enough. Where’s the sex ed program that will teach kids that masturbation is a healthy way to achieve sexual release? Where’s the sex ed program that will teach young men that trying to thrust with as much physical force as they can manage, as quickly as they can, is going to hurt women? Where’s the sex ed program that will teach kids how they can have good sexual experiences — before they’ve actually had sex?
Because we know that adolescents will have sex.
Really, did anyone decide never to drive a car after watching Bloody Pavement in driver education class?
When I was in college, there was more detailed sex education made available — mostly, organized by other students. And much of it was on how to overcome the trauma of our early, horrible sexual experiences. It upsets me that our culture has no better transition from sexually immature to sexually mature, then lying to kids, trying to shame them out of sex, then years later, trying to apply Band-Aids to the emotional trauma that’s the entirely predictable result.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Robert, I agree that most things we do affect other people in one way or another. However, it seems that you’re suggesting that to solve the problems our behavior might cause, we should just discourage that behavior. That may work for rape and murder, but when it comes to behavior that’s (collectively) morally sujective and has a subtle or intangible effect on others, we can’t just say, “OK, everybody quit doing that.”
What other people have done effects me; what I do effects other people.
You can also limit the effects of what other people do by the choices you make. (Isn’t this belief part of the Republican platform?) So at what point does one’s responsibility to others outweigh what one wants to do? It’s not clear and depends on the situation–it’s, dare I say, nuanced.
I think that the more knowledge someone has about the effects of her behavior, the better decisions she can make in regards to both herself and the rest of the world. You yourself said, “I happen to think it better for young people to slowly acquire judgment through observing other people.”
Yes, sometimes laws and regulations are required, because just knowing that you’re hurting someone else isn’t always enough to make the behavior unappealing. But I don’t see how consensual sex between any two people falls into this category. (I can guarantee my sex life isn’t bothering anyone.)
So it isn’t the sex that’s the problem. The problem is not knowing if you have an STD; not knowing if your partner has an STD; not knowing that these are important things to know; and not understanding that there are ways to limit STDs and pregnancy.
Going back to the original post, religion actually obscures this knowledge by introducing the abstract concept of God and God’s authority. When it comes to the consequences of disobeying God, there are no experiences for them to observe. If we actually want to help kids avoid mistakes, “Because God said so” isn’t a very effective message to send.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Where’s the sex ed program that will teach kids that masturbation is a healthy way to achieve sexual release? Where’s the sex ed program that will teach young men that trying to thrust with as much physical force as they can manage, as quickly as they can, is going to hurt women? Where’s the sex ed program that will teach kids how they can have good sexual experiences … before they’ve actually had sex?
Hmm, how about a tantra seminar too while we’re at it? =)
No, seriously now - maybe it’s just me, but I’d be uncomfortable with that kind of teaching too, and not just for my kids but for myself, I mean, when I was a teen, I wouldn’t have wanted that kind of thing in school at all. I don’t think it’s the place for it. There’s such a thing as too much information… and there’s a sense of privacy too, to be respected, especially on such intimate matters. I don’t think sex has anything to do with expertise, skills, performance, and I think that kind of focus you describe would reinforce that notion. Once you teach respect and responsibility, along with the actual information on how to behave responsibly of course, there’s no need to get into the details of… how the perfect pelvic thrusting is supposed to be (besides, there’s no such thing…). I think young people are supposed to find out what’s comfortable for them by themselves, when they want. No need to push it, either way.
I’m for a no-frills approach. I just think some honest factual information is good enough, for the purposes of what school teaching can and should do. The rest is up to the family, depending on their approach, and environment and society the kids grow up in, and of course the kids themselves. (Besides, there’s so much involved that goes beyond sex itself, all that is about human relations and communication and culture etc etc. is also just as important and ideally that should come through in all teaching and education, family or school.)
Possibly, also easy access to a good counsellor, not just for issues related to sex but everything else. A third person to talk to, who’s not family or teacher, can be helfpful, as long as they’re good and not in the business of telling anyone what to do or not to do, but just listen and offer some orientation in a non-directive way. Not a substitute for parents or school, of course, just another source that would be available to talk to, if so desired.
PS - It made me laugh when I read that bit about thrusting, reminded me of that Monty Python sketch where John Cleese gets out a bed in front of the class and demonstrates with his wife, all the while explaining to the kids what he’s doing…!
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Yes, there’s such a thing as too much information, and public schools probably should only go so far. I’m already uncomfortable with the phenomenon of school dances, for instance.
But I really do think there’s a problem with a lack of teaching about the basics of sexuality. I wasn’t making a joke about the violent thrusting thing, for instance. A lot of the horror stories women told me about their early sexual experiences involved being badly injured because of that sort of thing.
Growing up, I was told — even by my parents — that sex was simply a matter of reflexes, that you simply knew how to do it by instinct. I suspect that’s a widespread myth, and needs to be specifically countered.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Everything has consequences, Robert, so why should sex specifically be set aside as something that has to be avoided due to consequences? The argument that STDs are reason enough to avoid sex is not one you are willing to make when it comes to the consequences of having friends, leaving your house, driving a car, or basically anything that has consequences of accident or disease.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 27th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Robert:
This comment was written by Tuomas.Come to think of it, the “what part of this so difficult?” part of my post wasn’t necessary at all and probably insulting or at least arrogant.
Good luck with work and kids, and don’t hate us (or actually I can only speak for myself as I don’t personally know anyone here) for not having a life.
:-)
I’m kidding. I have some life.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 3:03 am
I happen to think it better for young people to slowly acquire judgment through observing other people, rather than to quickly acquire judgment through making mistakes, when the consequences of mistakes include death and the creation of new life.
If those were the only two choices, indeed. I happen to think that it would be best if young people were able to acquire judgment because they have knowledge and teaching–that they aren’t guessing through observation and making mistakes because they are proceeding with little or no real information.
A friend of mine worked for a couple of years as a counselor in an abortion clinic. Most of the teenagers she saw got all of their information through listening to, and observing, other people: their friends all said that you couldn’t get pregnant if you douched with Diet Pepsi; their best friend has been having sex with boys for years and SHE never got pregnant; when they started having sex they got a lot more attention from boys, and so on.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 7:35 am
…and obviously their parents failed them, in terms of providing information and guidance. That is highly regrettable. The impulse to correct the problem by having the government provide sexual education to everyone is understandable.
The problem is that having the government do it doesn’t eliminate the dysfunction; it simply moves it around. Injustice doesn’t get reduced, just redistributed. And you still end up with the problem of unwanted pregnancies and diseases - no social order conceived by the human mind is going to create universal responsibility and good decision-making.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 7:46 am
Here’s a recent piece on the rise in teen pregnancies in UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4584175.stm
With links to interesting stats and reports on the different approaches in UK, other parts of Europe, and the US.
‘The UK has the highest teenage birth rates in Western Europe - twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands.’ The US apparently has the highest in the whole developed world.
‘The much-quoted research concluded that countries enjoying low rates of teen births were characterised by, among other things, an acceptance in society of the sexual activity of young people.’
Here’s a report with some data on abstinence programmes:
This comment was written by noodles.http://www.brook.org.uk/content/M6_1_5_abstinence.asp
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 7:49 am
Also:
This comment was written by noodles.http://www.brook.org.uk/content/M6_4_abstinence.asp
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Robert:
Would you explain that? Sounds great, but doesn’t make any sense. You are basically saying:
This comment was written by Tuomas.1)Teenagers dont have information and guidance (this is the injustice?)
2)Their parents didn’t provide information and guidance (”Tough shit”)
3)Government does provide information and guidance (Wrong impulse?)
3)Phase 3 (?)
4)Injustice stays the same
Sorry for getting “micro-reductive” again (I’ll take microreductiveness over strawmen and false dilemmas anyday). Seems that you think nothing government does ever works, when it comes to sexual education. Except abstinence. Fancy word play about “redistributed injustice” or “personal responsibility” doesn’t change the fact that you have absolutely nothing to back up any of your claims, except for the ones that are so basic that no one wants to dispute them (sex has consequences, oh really). You (or your ideas) don’t have a monopoly when it comes to justice and responsibily, don’t try to claim otherwise. Thanks for the links, noodles!
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
And you still end up with the problem of unwanted pregnancies and diseases - no social order conceived by the human mind is going to create universal responsibility and good decision-making.
So what? Sure, nobody’s perfect, we aren’t living in paradise, etc.–but that doesn’t mean we should give up on ways we can help. We certainly shouldn’t stop educating kids (on the public-school level) about sex just because it won’t work 100% of the time.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
No, Hestia, but we have to recognize that there are unique perils involved in bringing the government in as an educator of last resort.
From your point of view, the peril is in the programs you see right now - abstinence programs that your lot don’t think much of. Most of the criticism I have seen has to do with why y’all think these programs are bad - but the underlying point is that the programs are being administered by the state and that means that whoever has political power is the voice that will be heard.
In other words, ten years from now when the liberals are in power and the sex ed curriculum are full of things I find wrong or ineffective, you’ll be happy and I’ll be unhappy. Ten years after that when the Sharia Party takes control and it’s all infibulation and circumcision, we’ll both be unhappy. And so on. Arguing that the curriculum ought or ought not to include certain things, that it should have a certain viewpoint or goal, or what have you, is all very interesting but quite irrelevant - my Baptist friends don’t care what you guys think, and they don’t care whether the curriculum makes you happy - just as when your turn comes around again, you won’t care about their desires.
That’s the peril of having the government do it - governments are by their nature political. You’re not going to be able to design a curriculum that will always be in place regardless of what bozo takes office; your curriculum is going to change with the political wind.
It might be better to leave such instruction in the hands of parents and local community bodies - accepting that there will be parents who fail at this duty - than to have a one-size program that will be alienating to various segments of the population.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Good point about changing curriculums, Robert. But there are parents who, for whatever reason, do not provide sexual education to their children. And there is a difference between abstinence-only sexual education and the liberal way. I’m not sure what others here are advocating, but my ideal sexual education (which I consider liberal) would cover all aspects - including the choice to abstain from sex.
And having liberals or conservatives or whatever in the office has little bearing (or should have) on what parents and local community bodies are allowed to do. For example, as a teenager I remember some youngsters who came from very religious families (Laestadians, Jehova’s witnesses and Pentecostals mostly, but a small minority of Evangelic Lutherans[the most common religion here and the church I belong to] too) did their own thing and didn’t (supposedly, but there are many exceptions) have premarital sex. But few had problems with the information itself, as it could be applied both to abstaining and “promiscuous” lifestyle.
This comment was written by Tuomas.I’m not an expert on the legal system of the USA, but aren’t the conservatives a wee bit out of line (when it comes to the First Amendment) in advocating their own abstinence-only curriculum, as it is (mostly) based on religion and unproven, unscientific scare tactics? That was the original post, I suppose.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
I suppose the point is that abstinence only - education has a goal (to make teenagers abstain), and a fact-based education leaves all options open and thus, it is unfair to compare those two on equal grounds.
This comment was written by Tuomas.“It is the facts that are biased.”
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
All education has a goal. Some educations are more upfront about it than others. We can’t learn in a vacuum; there has to be a point of view expressed in any pedagogy more involved than “fire is hot”. (And even there…hot from whose perspective?)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
From the BBC link above again:
- Germany: unlike the UK, parents do not have the right to withdraw their child from sex education.
- The UK has the highest teenage birth rates in Western Europe - twice as high as in Germany…
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
but the underlying point is that the programs are being administered by the state and that means that whoever has political power is the voice that will be heard
This is, in theory, why we have a Constitution (so that, e.g. the Silver Ring Thing can’t tell public-school kids to keep their legs closed for Jesus). Of course educational messages are going to change depending on the latest edu-fad and on who’s teaching, but I don’t get that as an argument for not teaching at all.
We don’t say that the government should stay out of teaching children about nutrition because eating is highly personal, that different changes in opinions and knowledge about nutrition make such education pointless, and so on. We would think it ridiculous for a vegetarian parent to say “I don’t want my kid in Home Ec the day you explain the iron content of red meat.” We’d think it wingnut (and possibly ACLU-worthy) if I pressured my school to teach all kids to follow a kosher diet, along with highly suspect criteria about how it’s much healthier not to eat pork.
Yet we apply that kind of mentality to education about human sexuality.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Practicality, Mythago, not principle. Get fifty million vegetarians to say “I’m pulling my kid out of school if you don’t stop evangelizing for meat”, and you better believe they’d shut up about the meat.
What can be taught in the public schools is, in the final analysis, subject to parental veto. Because we won’t send our kids to learn stuff we don’t approve of.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Oh please. I didn’t know you were such a post-modernist :-).
This comment was written by Tuomas.And besides, if this is all so irrelevant and just a matter of invidual desires, why are we having this conversation in the first place (I’m doing it test my views and maybe teach and learn something new), and can’t you and your baptist friends say: “OK, you do your thing, I do mine” . (That is the point of view I support). Instead, the conservative point of view seems to be “Everyone do MY thing, because my religion says so”.
Seems that after all, we kind of agree. But as sexuality and STDs are part of basic human biology, I think they should absolutely be taught. There is no harm in knowing your own body. Maybe ethical discussion and things like that would be subject to parental approval (I think I could support that even though I don’t like it), but not basic biology and legal issues.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Maybe ethical discussion and things like that would be subject to parental approval (I think I could support that even though I don’t like it), but not basic biology and legal issues.
Sorry, man. This is America.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
I can’t agree with that. There are private schools and there is homeschooling. Just because 100 million people decide that 2+2=5 instead of 4 and will not approve the answer 4, curriculum shouldn’t suddenly be changed to reflect their obviously ignorant point of view. Facts and personal ethics should be kept seperate. Otherwise every time the majority holds an ignorant point of view they can ram their ignorance down other people’s throats, and thus ensure that their own, ignorant point of view gets passed on. That would obviously be totalitarian way of doing things, not practical.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Heh. And you can keep it. I love Finland :-). I just feel sorry for those who don’t see things your way there.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
curriculum shouldn’t suddenly be changed to reflect their obviously ignorant point of view
OK. So you hold the line, fight the good fight…and the public schools close because people won’t pay taxes to run schools that they don’t send their kids too.
The public schools do not have the ability to dictate terms to the population. It’s the other way around. For good and for ill.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
I’m saying people should have some sense where their frredoms/privileges start and end. If i’m in the majority of, let’s say 75%, then I don’t feel that I have the right to trample the rights of the 25%. If you do, you are advocating for tyranny by majority.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
I quite agree, Tuomas.
If you want to fund a school system with your tax dollars and teach what you want taught, go right ahead. But don’t come pestering me to contribute.
If I’m paying for the schools, then I get a voice in what they’re teaching. Period.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Fair enough.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
…But of course plenty of tax dollars came from liberals who don’t like abstinence-only education, so basic rules of capitalism are not working very well. Or are taxes voluntary in the US of A?
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Those liberals have recourse. They can pull their kids from the schools. They can organize. And so on.
(Or they can do what I think they should do, which is recognize that it’s a bad idea for the government to teach sex in a republic, and get rid of all these programs.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Would you consider basic biology class, with discussion about human body and its functions (anatomy/physiology) not including the act of sex, (As in teaching teenage boys/girls about the sudden changes in their body, and explaining the reason for those changes), teaching about sex? If not, then I agree with you. On principle: I don’t have to like what the baptists/abstinence advocates teach about sex, and they don’t have to like what I would teach. Seems like a very reasonable suggestion, it does, and addresses the problems of having different ethics (in a republic) quite well.
This comment was written by Tuomas.In other words: Does that mean you would also not advocate for abstinence-only sex education?
Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Practicality, Mythago, not principle.
Then let’s not pretend there’s any reason whatsoever the government should stay of of sex ed other than a lot of people think the First Amendment applies to nobody but themselves.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Not following you. What’s the first amendment got to do with sex ed in the schools?
Other than the tired, and laughably discredited, idea that you can’t teach anything that’s consistent with religious values. As is obvious, pretty much every idea out there is going to vibe with some religion somewhere.
If you want to argue that teaching a sex ed curriculum that some Baptists like is tantamount to establishing a religion, knock yourself out, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
Robert said…
And go back to the good ole days of the assbackward-thinking, ignorant, Medieval utopia where disease and unintentional/unwanted pregnancies were far more rampant than they are today? Zero education for the masses–the best way to keep them in line,…genius. It worked for centuries.
Thanks for reminding us though, that the idea of a Republic, freedom, democracy, etc., which beneath it all frightens the conservatives–your ilk–so. They’re afraid of people having the right to not adhere to their narrow-thinking, superstitious, authoritarian, and practically anti-humanity dogma which forbids free thinking and individualism which existed during the Dark Ages. Yes, I said anti-humanity because conservatives–especially ultra-conservatives–seem to loathe human freedom and basic human desires which you along with them automatically and irrationally equate with violent crime, mad chaos, and more hysterically the coming of the fanciful [nonexistent] Four Horsemen. Why don’t they just throw in some pixies and gremlins too? ‘People having sex for enjoyment immediately means doom for society,’…nice one. ‘You can’t trust people.’ Talk about anti-social views. I’m well aware that some of the Framers of the Constitution had the same kind of reservations but no where near the high levels of the authorities in Europe at that time in history and the religious leaders.
Scare tactics, the dismantling of enlightened education, and the constant re-telling of nightmarish fairytales; the best way to keep the people in line and ignorant. But sprinkle in some pro-democracy, pro-freedom rhetoric anyway though it’s slowly disappearing with all of the subtle, bullshit religious superstition and dogma being injected into public institutions and even government. The pro-Republic and democracy rhetoric are merely doggie treats for the obedient populous. That’s how Dumbyass and his buddies won the election–the only means they had in order to win. Conservatives hate humanity because we naturally resist their longing to impose their authoritarian [deeply tied with religion] controls and refuse to believe such irrational and stupid rhetoric that automatically equates human freedom and desires with doomsday. Though they enjoy exploiting and spouting pro-democracy and liberty propaganda constantly.
Sorry–well no I’m not it’s your problem not mine–but we’re not as bestial, depraved, criminal, and barbaric as you and your ideological bretheren would like to think we are simply because we enjoy having non-reproductive sex, freedom, civil rights, enlightened education, and a Republic–that listens to us when it’s convenient for them.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
I do not think it is “tantamount to establishing a religion”, but I do think that it endorses a certain religion. And I don’t think government funds should be spent on a program that promotes one religion over others. If abstinence only programs can’t work without religious overtones being tossed in, why should we have them? No one can argue that that telling kids to wait to have sex until they are older is a bad thing, but why toss in religion along with outright lies and dis-information and call it it a good thing? The current programs do not educate young people. They tell them that condoms won’t protect them from sexually transmitted diseases. They concentrate on failure rates of contraception. Young people come away thinking why bother with condoms and contraception if they don’t help or prevent anything. And they end up having sex with no protection, because everything they have been taught tells them it is useless. How could teaching safe-sex practices be a bad thing? Teach abstinence in schools, but include actual, true data regarding safe-sex practices. Kids have sex. It’s a fact of life. Why wouldn’t any thinking person do everything in their power to keep them safe? How could any religion that purports to be about love and life not want their kids to be able to protect themselves even when they make bad decisions? How could any religion justify lying to young people about things that could kill them and call it good?
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
What’s the first amendment got to do with sex ed in the schools?
When a sex ed program is produced by a religious group, contains explicitly religious content, or is designed to promote a particular religious view, you have a First Amendment problem. I know you know this, Robert. It’s tiring to see you play dumb.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
When a sex ed program is produced by a religious group, contains explicitly religious content, or is designed to promote a particular religious view, you have a First Amendment problem.
No, YOU have a First Amendment problem. I have a pretty narrow view of the first amendment. If it doesn’t establish a state religion, I can live with it.
And I speak as a member of the third-most historically persecuted religious group in America (fourth if you count Native American spiritual practices as being a bloc). I know what the state can do to persecute followers of a religion.
I don’t perceive state use of a religiously-affiliated program as being persecution. And that’s all the 1st amendment is intended to do - prevent persecution - actual, bona fide persecution, not “I had to see a cross on the way to work and it made me sad” nonsense. That some liberals get their knickers in a wad because a 4th grader sees the word “God” bothers me not at all.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
Gee, Pseudo-Adrienne, don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Mousehounde:
They tell them that condoms won’t protect them from sexually transmitted diseases.
And they won’t - they’re completely ineffective against some STDs and only partially effective against others. I don’t know of anything they’ll stop cold. I got a nasty case of gonorrhea once, while wearing a little rubber hat. What’s the problem with telling them the truth about the technology, instead of spinning some crap about “safe sex”?
There IS no safe sex. Sex is innately dangerous. It’s built into the design. (Some practices are safer than others - but the ones that are very nearly safe are also pretty distant from “sex”. )
They concentrate on failure rates of contraception.
And it would be better by you if they glossed over the high failure rate for condoms as typically used?
Young people come away thinking why bother with condoms and contraception if they don’t help or prevent anything. And they end up having sex with no protection, because everything they have been taught tells them it is useless.
Got evidence?
How could teaching safe-sex practices be a bad thing?
Because what is taught is normalized.
Kids have sex. It’s a fact of life. Why wouldn’t any thinking person do everything in their power to keep them safe?
This is simply moral collapse. People kill; it’s a fact of life. Why wouldn’t any thinking person do everything in their power to teach them how to do it and get away with it?
And before the inevitable idiot cry of “you’re equating sex with murder” comes, no, I bloody well am not. It’s an analogy. It’s a tool of logic.
The best way to keep CHILDREN safe is to teach them that certain activities are reserved for ADULTS - not to show them how to engage in the ADULT practices without quite as much harm. The idea that it is inevitable that CHILDREN will have sex is appallingly morally degenerate. No, it is not inevitable - not if they are trained in moral behavior, not if they are raised with an eye to turning out healthy adults.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 12:22 am
Uh-huh. This is getting nasty again, it seems.
Robert:
Kindly provide the list of STDs that against which condoms are completely ineffective.
Well, no problem with truth. Except abstinence programs are greatly exaggerating the problems with technology.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 12:37 am
And Robert, since it seems that all your beautiful words about having no governmental sex education in a republic etc. seem to boil down to “No sex education by government, except MY kind of sex education (abstinence only), liberals please bend over, we are in power now” you appear quite hypocritical. And your analogy
In your analogy, you are equating sex with murder. Yes, you are. Do I get a price for the first “idiot cry”? Quite prophetic, it was inevitable :-).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 12:53 am
Quotes from Robert….
“This is simply moral collapse.”
“And before the inevitable idiot cry of “you’re equating sex with murder”? comes, no, I bloody well am not.”
“The idea that it is inevitable that CHILDREN will have sex is appallingly morally degenerate.” (emphasis mine)
I will tell you how I really feel Robert and your belligerent “I’m more holier than thou” and “you’re all sexually depraved idiots who prey on children” are starting to get damn near close to out-of-line. Debate and disagreement are fine and dandy, and you and others have done just fine and okay thus far, and thank you all. But that “your thinking is morally degenerate” (as if we’re stupid and out to sexually seduce children with condoms, birth control pills, and abortions–and we’re not) character assasinations of yours are becoming really tiresome (in a very irritated kind of way) to read over and over again. And I can see the sublte innuendo behind that “you’re morally degenerate because you think kids will have sex anyway” little comment of yours and that was damn near out-of-line. I’m not as stupid and blind as you think I am. You’re starting to sound similar to the banned raving Fitz or Fritz–whatever the hell that little shit’s name. Are we (as in you) trying to reduce ourselves to his low-low level of arguing abilities, because you’re getting awfully close. Oh and here I thought we were the civil and rational one when it comes to debates–whoops!
And don’t go spouting off that victimology-persecution bullshit because I’m sure this kind of thing would occur on a conservative blog with the liberal commentor being “checked” and lectured by the conservative moderator.
For the record; I may think you are narrow and prejudiced in your views of other ideas and philosophies, I don’t think you’re stupid or degenerate in any kind of way. Even though you think I and others here are “degenerates” and sexually “immoral,” and I’ve never even had sexual intercourse or performed oral sex, but oh well, think what you will about us. Do you actually have any kind of response that doesn’t sum up to calling someone “morally retarded,” according to your standards and Baptist buds? ‘Doubt it.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 2:00 am
Kindly provide the list of STDs that against which condoms are completely ineffective.
HPV and some localized genital ulcers. (Those in areas not covered by condoms.) The evidence for effectiveness against other diseases is of variable strength.
Against nothing have condoms been shown to be ironclad. (Not unreasonably; all materials fail under some conditions and viruses are sneaky.)
your beautiful words about having no governmental sex education in a republic etc. seem to boil down to “No sex education by government, except MY kind of sex education (abstinence only), liberals please bend over, we are in power now”? you appear quite hypocritical
How so? I don’t want to have powers over the liberals; I don’t want to ram my views down their throats. I would PREFER to have government neutrality on this subject.
But if the government is not going to be neutral, then I want it to act on my behalf, and not on behalf of other people.
Neutral, first choice; me in charge, second choice. Where’s the hypocrisy?
Pseudo-Adrienne, I neither said nor implied that you or anyone here preyed on children. Banning me is entirely your prerogative, if that’s what you think the appropriate answer to my position is.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 2:22 am
No, banning you is not my prerogative nor my intention. Reminding you and other commentors here that calling others for example, “morally degenerate,” or any other personal attack, is not the best way to go about making an argument is however a prerogative of mine. Discussions, not flame wars about “whose holier than who” please. Go on…..
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 3:02 am
Okay, if the neutrality is your first choice, then there is no hypocrisy.
HPV: not completely ineffective, but of dubious efficiency. Same goes for genital ulcers. And condoms are never 100% effective, that is very true (and I suppose no one claimed them to be…)
Responsible, truly safe sex education, IMHO, entails things like telling “condoms aren’t foolproof” and “have sex with someone you know reasonably well”, “get tested regularly, and be sure your partner is too”, not just handling condoms at random and proclaiming them the saviour. That is why any “safe” sex programme must still make it clear that having sex randomly and irresponsibly isn’t a good idea, even with condoms and contraceptives. There are consequences.
My concern is that abstinence programs create too much scare effect, and that will make teenagers suspicious and prone to reject the program entirely. And, if teenagers should have sex anyway, then no information or false information is bad.This is evidenced by fairly weak success that abstinence-only programs have (noodles provided some nice links). In fact, a program on BBC about sex education in Africa, found out that countries that empathized either religious abstinence-only education and countries that very much concentrated on condoms both had been quite unsuccesful at halting the spread of HIV (this was a surprise of sorts for many advocates of safe sex), while countries that did both (as in: It would be best to abstain from sex until married, but if you have sex anyway, please use a condom and backup contraceptives. It isn’t foolproof but it is better than “bald-headed”) had succesfully been able to cut back the prevalence of HIV and other STDs. And unwanted pregnancies.
Nature abhors vacuum, and if there is no good information available for youngsters, they will get wrong information instead. Maybe public schools could provide links, contacts and voluntary classes of non-govermental organizations dedicated to providing information, abstinence programs etc (among which the students[taking in consideration the wishes of parents] could select). Simply assuming that parents can handle this isn’t enough, as expecting education to provide morals and parents provide facts seems… wrong somehow.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 3:20 am
But it’s an illogical analogy. It is inevitable that the overwhelming majority of teenagers will, sometime before they die, have sex. On the other hand, for most, committing murder is not inevitable; the overwhelming majority never become murderers.
(Have you ever noticed that the moral outrage people use in arguments rises in inverse proportion to how much evidence they have to support their views? In tradition debate terms, people try to compensate for a lack of logos by piling on the pathos.)
There is strong evidence that abstinence-only programs as practiced not only don’t work, but could cause harm by making them more likely to catch STDs. According to the CDC, “Research has clearly shown that the most effective programs [for preventing HIV] are comprehensive ones that include a focus on delaying sexual behavior and provide information on how sexually active young people can protect themselves.”
No abstinence-only program has been shown to have the positive outcomes of the best comprehensive sex-ed programs. And although you claim that sex-ed that teaches both abstinence and birth control normalizes sex (which implies, if I’m understanding you correctly, an increase in teen sexual activity), studies show that kids taught abstinence-only have just as much sex.
Condoms are not perfect - nothing is - but there is overwhelming evidence that consistant, correct use of condoms makes transmission of some STDs, including HIV, much less likely. (Not to mention making pregnancy much less likely.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 3:34 am
Where did the blockquotes come to my post (or did I make that mistake myself, damn I have to get coffee)? I wasn’t quoting (but it looks nice like that anyway)… And on Roberts behalf, I have to say HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) and HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) are different things (in the unlikely event you misread that as spelling mistake, Amp?)
Nice links, BTW.
[My fault, I thought it was a quote, so I added blockquotes while I was making the change that you had actually requested. The blockquotes have now been removed.
Also, we-crossposted, so my post wasn't a response to you. --Amp]
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 3:53 am
Democracy, first choice; our bastard at the head of a puppet government, second choice.
Where’s the hypocrisy in that? There’s none, of course. Under a very particular notion of hypocrisy, or ethics, or democracy.
Mr Straw Man Robert here seems to think that the alternative to abstinence-only programmes is… sex-all-the-time-for-everyone-starting-at-12-only programmes.
As in, one extreme ideological position that actually exists, vs. one extreme ideological position that would border on paedophiliac and does NOT actually exist.
Mr Straw Man is fond of arguing against hypotheticals, you see.
He can’t possibly think that the alternative to the extreme ideological position that does exist might be one that is actually neutral. No, his definition of ‘neutrality’ clearly does not include ‘facts that I do not want to take into consideration’ or ‘information that would help young people think and choose with their own head’.
The comprehensive sex education programmes that are in place in other countries than the US do not “push” some Everybody Have Sex Now agenda in terms of attitudes and choices about having sex, if and when, in fact, they specifically assume it’s better even for teenagers who are sexually active to delay the first sexual experiences and that’s why the higher average age of first sexual intercourse is considered, and even counted in statistics, as a benefit of those programmes, together with the far, far lower rate of STD’s and teen pregnancies.
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/Councils/scrutiny/hscosc/tpsreport.htm#Appendix%201
‘… the latest figures for the USA show 95.5 conceptions per thousand women (64% higher than Cornwall). This figure places the teenage conception rate in the United States twice as high as that for either the UK or Canada and approximately four times that of France.’
Please continue to argue hypotheticals, head deeply buried under sand.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 6:08 am
Very few things are 100% effective. But we shouldn’t discredit the use of condoms or contraceptives just because they sometimes fail.
Three recent studies (DeVincenzi et al., Saracco et al., and Deschamps et al.) followed 245, 305, and 177 discordant couples (respectively). Among those who did not use condoms every time (inconsistent users), there were 4.8, 7.2, and 6.8 seroconversions per 100-person years. In contrast, among those who used condoms consistently, there were 0, 1.1, and 1.0 seroconversion per 100-person years. These studies show latex condoms are highly protective, and point to the need to promote consistent and correct use.
Do you have any evidence that the programs, as they are taught, do keep kids safer?
THE CONTENT OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
completed to date do not show any overall effect on sexual behavior or
contraceptive use.”?
14
One recent study of abstinence-only programs found that they may actually
increase participants’ risk. Columbia University researchers found that while virginity “pledge”? programs helped some participants to delay sex, 88% still had premarital sex, and their rates of sexually transmitted diseases showed no statistically significant difference from those of nonpledgers.
15
Virginity pledgers were also less likely to use contraception when they did have sex and were less likely to seek STD testing despite comparable infection rates.
16
Sex is normal. Young people should wait to have sex. But if they don’t, they should have the facts they need to make informed decisions in order to protect themselves. Keeping them ignorant seems like foolish choice.
No, it is just a bad analogy. Wanting to keep kids safe by teaching them the facts about sex and disease is not analogous to teaching people methods of getting away with murder.
That sounds lovely. By acknowledging that some young people will have sex and wanting them to be informed and safe, I am morally degenerate.
Sadly though, not every young person has parents who “trains them in moral behavior”. Not every child is “raised with an eye to turning out healthy adults”. Proper sex education can help these young people be safe. And it couldn’t hurt those young people who are taught lies and half truths about sex in the name of religion either.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 7:18 am
Please stop me if my flooding you with government links is becoming annoying :-)
From recent UK Teenage Pregnancy report, here’s a morally degenerate concept:
(That’s the notoriously far-leftist Tony Blair)
One of the causes identified by the report for the UK’s higher rates as compared to other European countries:
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 8:15 am
I don’t know why I should believe that there’s anything intrinsically more virtuous and trustworthy about a program that has God and Christ attached to it– as opposed to one that does not. From my own POV, God and Christ have been invoked a number of times throughout history to excuse some incredibly stupid and atrocious acts. They have been invoked to give AMORAL people just the excuse they needed to do awful, self-indulgent things which they had long wanted to do anyway.
Obviously, there are as many reasons for a person to want to have sex as there are people. Still, it’s easy to see that groups like Silver Ring might –even without meaning to– give kids PERMISSION to have sex. After all, you might do “bad,” “amoral” things, but later you can square it all away with God by asking Jesus to forgive you, right ?
Of course, I didn’t even have a “real” kiss with anyone until I’d reached the grand old age of 19. This despite my evil Jewish-Secular-Humanist upbringing. So what do I know about it ? :/
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 9:21 am
You know, I was 20 when I first had sex*, and my mother gave me the condom talk at the age of about 13.
But then again, she also never, ever pressured me to “look pretty for the boys”, to have a boyfriend or in any other way to see myself as incomplete without a male. Hmmm, imagine that.
*protected, of course! though we hadn’t heard about AIDS yet
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 11:20 am
That is why any “safe”? sex programme must still make it clear that having sex randomly and irresponsibly isn’t a good idea, even with condoms and contraceptives.
Is there any safer-sex program that tells people it’s OK to have sex irresponsibly, or “randomly” (whatever that means–key parties?).
What’s the problem with telling them the truth about the technology, instead of spinning some crap about “safe sex”??
“Telling them the truth” would be a fine thing. Lying and scare tactics, not so much.
As long as we’re being analogy-huggers, let’s apply the same logic to driver’s ed: teach kids that they should never, ever get behind the wheel of a car until they’re married adults and then only for trips where there isn’t public transportation. Because driving is very dangerous–here are photos of car-accident victims!–and seatbelts will not protect you from everything; here are the statistics on how often seatbelts fail.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Just as pundits frequently confuse 195o’s Betty Crocker ads with what actually went on in the 1950s, so do Right-wingers and Fundies confuse what the “liberal entertainment media” says about sex with what secular sex-ed classes say about sex. So, if Boy rolls around with Girl on some FOX nighttime soap, that’s the equivalent of the average secular sex-ed class. Got it ?
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Okay, I’m sure I’m about to get flamed here, but here’s one question:
Why, exactly, is it so bad for teenagers to be having sex? Yes, sex is a high risk activity, and I’m not talking about indescrimanately screwing everything with two legs, but what exactly is wrong with kids having sex? If you are aware of what could happen wrong, sex is great. If anything, I feel like it was DETRIMENTAL for me to go through high school with the mindset “Sex is bad, sexuality is bad, why the hell am I having these urges if I’m a good girl” that frequently went through my head during my highly (sexually) frustrating teen years.
The problem with these “scare tactics” is it demonizes sex. It talks about all the stuff that’s wrong with it, without ever mentioning what is good about it. It makes it seem that people who choose to have sex outside of marriage are less worthy than those who wait. That’s stupid, that’s detrimental, and quite frankly, WRONG. Sex is great, and I think I am in fact a better person for having it, not a worse one (it’s always a good idea to get new skills :). It is good for no one to be willfully ignorant about a subject that effects us all.
If you want to live your life like there’s a giant sky-fairy dictating your life, and determine what is good for your life, that’s just peachy keen. You’re believing so does not effect me in the slightest. But when you start making me believe, or trying to make my life miserable for not pretending to believe (abstience-only education, pharmacist-deny contraception, school prayer, creationism, 10 commandments in the court house, et cetera) IT IS MY BUSINESS. You do not have the right to force harmful beliefs on me. Just like I don’t have the right to tell you MUST have sex, you don’t have the right telling me I can’t.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Mythago wrote:
“Is there any safer-sex program that tells people it’s OK to have sex irresponsibly, or “randomly”? (whatever that means”“key parties?).”
No, I don’t really think there are any safe-sex programs like that. I was merely using Robert’s analogy about safe sex education as “mindless condom-throwing” as a way to illustrate a point. I didn’t use the best choice of words, though, since I really meant to point out that safe sex programs MUST tell the risks in truthful manner (not exaggerating or minimazing facts), and safe-sex programs that don’t do that aren’t, by definition, safe-sex programs anyway.
Of course one shouldn’t feel compelled to reason with straw-men arguments like “safe sex is about random sex!” but instead call bullshit, because many conservatives do indeed know the that, and arguing on terms set by the opponent does create the need for a sort of false compromise.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 4:33 pm
and safe-sex programs that don’t do that aren’t, by definition, safe-sex programs anyway
Exactly. (Which is why ’safER sex’ is a more accurate term, anyway–no such thing as safe sex, even and perhaps especially within marriage.)
but what exactly is wrong with kids having sex?
What is wrong with *children* having sex? I hope that question doesn’t really need an answer.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Antigone, I agree.
As I said before, even in the relatively progressive models of sex education, it’s still “sex is bad, and you shouldn’t do it, but if you do it anyway, here’s how to use contraceptives.”
Then, a few years later in college (if you go to college), you may, if lucky, get, “Okay, here’s how to deal with the emotional and physical trauma you suffered from having sex with no clue what it would actually be like.”
It seems to me there’s a tremendous amout of pain and suffering caused by ignorance, and we need to find some way to address that, and until we acknowledge that at some point people have sex for the first time, and would be better off knowing what it will be like. And to do that, I think we need to stop treating sex as something shameful.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Brian Vaughan:
“As I said before, even in the relatively progressive models of sex education, it’s still “sex is bad, and you shouldn’t do it, but if you do it anyway, here’s how to use contraceptives.”?”
That must be true because you say so.
There is a big difference in telling the risks about sex, and telling “sex is bad” a la abstinence education.
” And to do that, I think we need to stop treating sex as something shameful.”
True. advocating for masturbation would be cool, because you learn a lot about yourself and do no harm unto others. No risk of STDs or pregnancy.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 10:41 pm
“Kids” as a general rule of someone in high school. Sorry, I’m still called “kid” even though I’m in my 20s…that’s somewhat of a misleading term.
Why is it so bad for teenagers having sex?
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Tuomas said
I’m not sure what you mean. Is that sarcasm?
I was overstating things a bit, but what I meant is that even in the model texts I’ve seen, there’s still a basic position of discouraging teens from having sex at all. That doesn’t seem quite right to me. It’s not that I think teens need more pressure on them to have sex, either. But what I’m thinking we need to do is start from a position that teens will have sex, and that’s fine. As things stand now, teen sexuality is almost always described from the point of view of damage control.
I suppose, strictly speaking, there’s no direct connection between that and the problem I was really worried about, which is that teens don’t really hear much accurate information about what sexuality is actually like until after they’ve already started having sex — if then.
Honestly, I’m at a loss how best to handle it. Leaving it to parents doesn’t seem like an effective approach, but maybe some approach that does involve parents talking to kids in a structured setting would work. I’m afraid it might take another generation or so of overcoming the weird oversexed repression we’ve lived with before we can have that sort of thing be effective, though.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:42 am
Brian Vaughan:
Yes, I was sarcastic (though looking back, it isn’t very evident) about the that must be true part, but other parts of my post were dead serious. I kind of disagree with the discouraging part existing, but of course I don’t know many sex education programs, so we may well be both right in some way. In fact, I think “teens will have sex” position isn’t without problems, as it may create a sort of equation being teen=having sex, and being teen=”not getting any” -> unnatural, pathetic etc. There is even now quite a pressure for young people to get “rid of virginity” in non-religious surroundings, especially for boys/men (contradictory messages like don’t have sex/ have sex, sex is cool/sex is bad, very confusing indeed). And the thing is pregnancies and STDs do happen (and are epidemic in parts of the world), and must be addressed in education. Of course you haven’t claimed otherwise.
Your main point (in earlier posts and now), and the problem you are worrying about… I thought about that, and you have a point there. Also, thank you for admitting to not have a clear solution (except cultural change, which isn’t going to happen overnight. But this cultural change would be welcome).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:30 am
Antigone, I have to say that I pretty much agree with you…with some reservations, though.
I don’t think teenagers having sex is in and of itself “bad” or “wrong”. However, I feel that society as a whole is so massively screwed up about sex that it is next to impossible for any young person to approach sexual activity with a healthy attitude. Of course, there are likely to be exceptions to that, and I for one would be glad to hear any examples if anyone here has some.
My biggest concern is teenage girls. Because for the most part, they are trained to think that not only are they bad, evil sluts for having sexual feelings at all, they are simultaneously taught that their only worth is found in their bras and between their legs. I just don’t see how most of these girls could manage a sexual encounter in which they wouldn’t be exploited.
If we could manage to raise a generation that didn’t have these poisonous beliefs, however, I’d be hard-pressed to find any reasonable objections to sex between teenagers.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:55 am
In fact, I think “teens will have sex”? position isn’t without problems, as it may create a sort of equation being teen=having sex, and being teen=”?not getting any”? -> unnatural, pathetic etc. There is even now quite a pressure for young people to get “rid of virginity”? in non-religious surroundings, especially for boys/men (contradictory messages like don’t have sex/ have sex, sex is cool/sex is bad, very confusing indeed)
Tuomas, that’s a very good point, and very true. That thing about mixed messages is precisely the problem, it all risks getting reduced to extremes and a natural balanced approach can be hard to find.
I also don’t agree with Brian’s view. I understand his point, but I think that there has to be a difference betweeen an individual approach and a social approach.
At individual level, if we could theoretically set aside all social conditioning, you’ll have all kinds of variations - people who will by character be less interested in sex; people who will be more interested; people who are perfectly happy to delay their first sex experiences; people who have them earlier, and among these, people for whom it’ll be a bad experience and others for whom it’ll be a good one, or so-and-so. We cannot predict what the “correct” behaviour can be for everyone, and we shouldn’t, because there isn’t. So, we shouldn’t use scaremongering and scare tactics and repression, but we shouldn’t even end up reinforcing pressures to be sexually active, either, or that ‘get rid of virginity’ mentality, or the image of sexy teens as put forth in the entertainment business. Those are pressures to conform to some standard that is not good for everybody, in a mentality that treats sex as the defining element of a person, or as a commodity, or as competition, or as a way to “prove” you’ve grown up and are cool etc. So, when government policies and sex ed programmes put emphasis on delaying first sexual experiences as a benefit, well I think that’s a good approach. Maybe it’s a bit of a politician thing to say “I don’t think teens under 16 should have sex but since however much we may disapprove many do anyway we should provide them with the tools to be responsible”, but I think it is a wise thing, in general terms, when it comes to social approach (and not just because 16 is the legal age of consent). It isn’t in itself repressive, it just puts the emphasis on maturity and responsibility. There’s a way of doing it without demonising sex, and that’s precisely what sex ed should do. They’re not supposed to teach what the actual decision or choice about being sexually active or not should be; they’re only supposed to teach the facts to make responsible choices, either way.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 11:39 am
I thought 18 was the legal age of consent. Does it vary from state to state?
I’ve complained often enough about the problems of treating a certain pattern of sexuality treated as normative, so I can certainly agree that that’s a problem. That bit in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life was mentioned, which, among other things, was the classic model of lousy, unsatisfying sex. And I can certainly see the problem with piling more shame on teens for not having sex.
I don’t have a clear idea of a program — I’m just trying to brainstorm, really.
The US is so backwards that Jocelyn Elders was forced to resign from the post of Surgeon General, for saying that masturbation was healthy and should be encouraged. It’s “controversial” to oppose overt lying to kids in school. Just stopping the lying and saying that masturbation is a safe and enjoyable way to relieve sexual tension would be a huge improvement.
For the more radical things I was talking about, I think it may be necessary to start such programs outside of public schools, assuming such programs don’t already exist.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2005 at 8:23 am
I have a few points to make.
First, I want to share what I was taught in my developmental psychology class: the normal age of marriage has changed dramatically over the last 50 years or so. It used to be the case that sexual desire would start around the age of puberty (say 12-14), and marriage would follow sometime around, say, 16-18. That’s not really a long time to wait to have sex. Now, the average age of marriage is much later; I really don’t think it makes sense to expect the majority of people to wait to have sex until they’re in their late 20s or early 30s, and not because of our highly sexualized society. It’s simply something that people by nature want to do.
Second: I’ve been through what I thought was a fairly liberal and comprehensive sex ed course relatively recently, and I think Robert and some of the other commenters here may find it useful to know what it entailed. Around about 3rd grade, we started off with basic biology: i.e. sperm and egg exist, combine together somehow in a process called fertilization, and offspring result. We didn’t talk about this in human terms, and it was pretty much completely divorced from human body parts (if I recall correctly, the illustrative animals were fish). In later years, human physical development was explained, coinciding roughly with the time we were going through puberty. Personally, I think this is pretty useful stuff to know at that time: I know when I first got my period, it was nice to know beforehand what it meant.
Later, we were explicitly told what sexual intercourse was; we were told about AIDS, herpes, gonnorhea, etc., in explicit and graphic detail, and we were told that the only sure way to prevent most of these diseases was not to have sex. (Medical transmission of HIV, by that time, was not a major issue in Canada, and so was ignored.) However, we were also told that condoms existed and could make sex safer; we were told that they could fail, but that certainly if we did have sex, we should use one. We were also told about other barrier methods, and we were taught their failure rates; we were taught about oral contraceptives, and it was always made clear that they could prevent pregnancy, but not STIs. (This was around 8th grade.)
Once I got into high school, my health ed class (part of phys ed) went into more detail about how to correctly use both condoms and oral contraceptives, but there was still always the message that it was better to wait to have sex. We spent some time talking about non-sexual intimacy as well. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people to wait until they’re in their late 20s to have sex, but I do think it’s reasonable to encourage kids not to jump into a sexual relationship right away, for sure - the longer we have to develop our judgment, to decide how we feel about a particular person, etc., the better, in my opinion. (Tangentially, I’d like to add that although it squicked some people, my teacher *did* point out that masturbation is a healthy, normal practice.) Since most of us were just starting to explore relationships at the time, again, this was good information to have; it was practical, it was something most of us wouldn’t get at home, and we had a lot of time to discuss it and hash out our feelings - and get to the point where we could be fairly open about sexual topics, and therefore, I think, be less scared to insist on condoms, to be willing to go to the doctor for testing and birth control prescriptions.
This program did try to scare the bejesus out of us early on, but not about sex itself; rather, about the possible *consequences* of early or irresponsible sex. It gave us the knowledge to protect ourselves if we had sex, it gave us some confidence in talking about sex, and it made me, at least, wait to have sex until I felt fairly sure about what I wanted.
Aimed at Robert in particular: I really don’t think I would have gotten any of this from simple observation. Teenagers don’t really get to see very many adult relationships develop, and they certainly don’t get to see intimacy in person; what we might see on television is not, I think, representative of relationships in real life.
This comment was written by gwendoly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
gwendoly: …what we might see on television is not, I think, representative of relationships in real life.
Word. Even though there’s more “reality” TV every day, one of the main sources of information for kids does not reflect normal relationships, for the most part. I think it’s very difficult for many young people to watch TV and understand that what’s shown is purely for dramatic effect or comic effect, that it’s not representative of what most people experience. For instance, I had this concept when I was young that married people were supposed to sleep in separate twin beds and that we must be really poor for my parents to have to share a bed!
I think American society specializes in mixed messages - everybody drinks beer, but you can’t because you’re not old enough; everybody ought to have passionate, lusty sex, but you shouldn’t until you’re older; driving a car is really really fun, but you can’t unless you have a license, which you get when you’re old enough.
Maybe parents should have mandatory sex ed classes so that they can teach their kids what they need to know. But then what happens to the kids whose parents can’t or won’t talk to them about sex? Raise your hands, all of you who know or were the kids whose parents didn’t tell you about menstruation or nighttime ejaculation. Maybe those parents would have to sign a waiver so their children could have a sex ed professional inform them.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators