Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jesus does not cut he shoots

halonachos wrote:Actually, comparing the teens of today to the teens of yesterday we see teens with more permissive attitudes towards sex. Does this mean they're having sex, no, just that they don't think of it as negatively as before.

Given the number of teens signing up for abstinence pledges and the like is increasing, I'm not sure that's true either.

The wording of your first point is a little confusing for me. Are you saying that comprehensive sex education has been decreasing and teen pregnancy rates are increasing?

That's it, yep.

Platuan4th wrote:After reading this thread, his wrists.

Indeed.

"You know I died for your sins right?"
-Jesus, deciding to just take up accounting the second time around.

A Moderator wrote:This thread has been reported for name-calling.

Keep it cool, please.

Rule no.1 counts in the OT Forum as well!

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:Actually, comparing the teens of today to the teens of yesterday we see teens with more permissive attitudes towards sex. Does this mean they're having sex, no, just that they don't think of it as negatively as before.

Given the number of teens signing up for abstinence pledges and the like is increasing, I'm not sure that's true either.

The wording of your first point is a little confusing for me. Are you saying that comprehensive sex education has been decreasing and teen pregnancy rates are increasing?

That's it, yep.

Abstinence pledges will never go away, but they ultimately fail because we overestimate the teen psyche.

halonachos wrote:Abstinence pledges will never go away, but they ultimately fail because we overestimate the teen psyche.

I think people who think abstinence pledges will make a difference misunderstand the teen psyche. When they make those pledges the kids are full of excitement over purity and clean living so they pledge, honestly believing they won't have sex until marriage because that's the truth of that moment right there. Some time later they're with their partner, and the excitement over pledging is gone, but they're horny. So they feth, because that's the truth of that moment right there.

It's just kids. They're driven by the impulse of the moment. The ability to think about two different drives and consider which one really matters in the long term is something that develops later in life.

But the point is that abstinence pledges, as pointless as they are, are a pretty good indicator of the nation's thinking about sex. When they're on the rise it means it's fair to say that attitudes towards sex are becoming more restrained.

Regardless of abstinance-only's (lack of) effectiveness as contraception, I really wish the repugs would stop cutting education funding locally. The teachers and professors here at the public schools and colleges are already overworked, and now they're going to be increasing class size by reducing the number of teachers, causing them to be even MORE so, and probably losing their most experienced teachers...

Melissia wrote:Regardless of abstinance-only's (lack of) effectiveness as contraception,

Actually, I'm pretty sure that abstinence is 100% effective as contraception barring rape and immaculate conception.

Monster Rain wrote:Actually, I'm pretty sure that abstinence is 100% effective as contraception barring rape and immaculate conception.

"Only if you assume that people who attempt abstinence are likely to succeed. You know how they claim condoms are 97% effective? That's over a year, and most importantly it includes the risk of user error - that the condom is the wrong size or put on incorrectly.

Thing is, we need to make the same assumption about user error for abstinence, and the plain reality is that user error is about 50% for 17 years olds who pledge abstinence."

I'm not talking about theoretical abstinence.

I'm saying that not having sex prevents pregnancy.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not talking about theoretical abstinence.

I'm saying that not having sex prevents pregnancy.

And that's great for the invidual, if he or she wants to make that choice. But on matters of policy it has to be understood that a large portion of the people who are taught and attempt abstinence will fail.

The claim that abstinence is 100% effective is only true if we assume everyone who attempts abstinence will succeed, and many will fail.

Right, but if one attempts abstinence and succeeds they will have none of these problems to worry about.

There's no reason not to teach it as part of a sex ed curriculum.

Monster Rain wrote:Right, but if one attempts abstinence and succeeds they will have none of these problems to worry about.

There's no reason not to teach it as part of a sex ed curriculum.

And if a person attempts to use a condom and does so correctly the success rate goes from 97% to 99.something%

And yeah, of course abstinence should be taught. It is taught. One of the biggest decisions when it comes to sex is the decision to have it, and kids should understand that it's perfectly alright to say no if they don't want it. Sex ed teaches that.

The point is that many schools teach abstinence only, that is they teach abstinence and nothing else. Or even worse, they keep telling kids nonsense about how likely different forms of birth control will fail, but don't explain this is because they're used incorrectly, and they don't actually explain how to use them correctly.

Abstinence only sex education is not as effective at achieving any of its goals as a broad based curriculum which includes relationships, contraception, STDs and abstinence.

yeenoghu wrote:Aid to Israel probably. He didn't seem to have a good relationship with them the first time around.

Roman propaganda. Pilot's favorite past time was killing Rabbis.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Jesus would cut defense spending.

Requia wrote:

yeenoghu wrote:Aid to Israel probably. He didn't seem to have a good relationship with them the first time around.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Jesus would cut defense spending.

Easy enough to do when you can just call down the host of heaven. But yeah totally agree.

He'd probably also cut "Family Planning" if you know what I mean.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that abstinence is 100% effective as contraception barring rape and immaculate conception

.

Erm immaculate conception had nothing to do with being concieved without a father...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Only if you assume that people who attempt abstinence are likely to succeed. You know how they claim condoms are 97% effective? That's over a year, and most importantly it includes the risk of user error - that the condom is the wrong size or put on incorrectly.

Actually the WHO had it at about 85% effective in practice - including things like slipping breaking, wrong size and general user error. This was about 3 years ago.

But yes not having sex is the only guaranteed way. Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode. Additionally if you're in a loving monogamous relationship you dont need to worry about STIs or getting pregnant in the same way.

Phototoxin wrote:Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode.

Or not, because they're practicing safe sex.

You know, one or the other.

Phototoxin wrote:Additionally if you're in a loving monogamous relationship you dont need to worry about STIs or getting pregnant in the same way.

You can contract all sorts of diseases (including "STI's") via non-sexual contact so it is important even for monogamous couples (or groups, if that is your thing) to practice safe sex and go for regular screening.

And obviously you still need to "worry" about unwanted pregnancy.

I also disagree that teaching "safe sex" leads to more/earlier sex/teen pregnancies/STI's/etc.

Edits: Keep adding stuff to my post damn it!

Phototoxin wrote:Telling kids to have 'safer sex'

Sex education doesn't tell kids to have safe sex, it tells them what safe sex is. Even in comprehensive sex ed they stress abstinence as the best way to avoid issues. There is difference between teaching something and telling someone to do something. I never understood the idea that if we inform young humans about human sexuality that that is what is going to drive them to want to have sex. You could inform them about fungus, spores, and molds and young humans are going want to have sex. Pretending it isn't going to happen is bad policy. And that is what we are talking about here. Abstinence works on an individual basis but policy can't be written on hopes and dreams. We know that sex will happen so it is best to be informed about it. This is also not taking into account that sex is going to happen eventually to most that abstain too so it isn't a bad idea that they not be ignorant either, either as a non-married adult or a married adult. Safe sex isn't just a teenage issue.

Being less informed has never been as useful as being more informed. The more informed people are the better choices they make. We don't live in a dream world where telling a bunch of 16 year olds (or 26, 36, 46, or 56 for that matter) to never have sex is a realistic expectation.

Let's put it this way, one of the figures quoted above is that condoms are 85% effective.

How many abstinence only people think its possible to get 85% of teens to avoid sex until they finish high school?

Hell, how many think its possible to get 50% of teens to do it?

Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode.

Maybe?

Go tell that to the missionaries that teach abstinence in Africa, that seams to be going over really well!

Only teaching abstinence is going to make teen pregnancy go up even more. Teach abstinence but also prepare them for the realities of society.

No offense to anybody out there, but coming from a position of someone who has done quite a bit of um..behavior, really if you get pregnant/get someone pregnant on accident in today's society, you are just plain stupid, irresponsible or unlucky. There are so many forms of contraception, you don't have to limit yourself to just one you know, it's pretty inexcusable. Wrap it, slather it, take a pill and use the rhythm method if you have to.

I take a dim view of people that use abortion as a form of birth control, it's dangerous and scaring both mentally and physically to one patient and terminal to another. Unfortunately this is the situation only teaching abstinence forces people into.

Yeah sure contraception is never 100%, but you can cut it down to almost nil.

Lets be real.

Wrap it, slather it, take a pill and use the rhythm method if you have to.

For the rules monkeys out there, its worth noting that these effects stack.

Requia wrote:

Wrap it, slather it, take a pill and use the rhythm method if you have to.

For the rules monkeys out there, its worth noting that these effects stack.

Yeah it's like getting cover, armor, and ++ saves, if you blow all of them you were just meant to die

Monster Rain wrote:blah blah blah

I'm not interested in the sex ed conversation, but the budget one.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:blah blah blah

I'm not interested in the sex ed conversation, but the budget one.

Interesting.

Your comments on the subject suggested otherwise.

This thread is about as much fun to read as the leaflets my local local MP jams through my letter box.

sebster wrote:The point is that many schools teach abstinence only, that is they teach abstinence and nothing else. Or even worse, they keep telling kids nonsense about how likely different forms of birth control will fail, but don't explain this is because they're used incorrectly, and they don't actually explain how to use them correctly.

Do they teach that they will fail or that they aren't 100% effective?

There's a pretty fine line between the two.

Kilkrazy wrote:Abstinence only sex education is not as effective at achieving any of its goals as a broad based curriculum which includes relationships, contraception, STDs and abstinence.

I couldn't agree more.

Jesus would cut the crap.

Amaya wrote:Jesus ... could have been a mason.

I thought they only started in the second millenium - after the destruction of the Templars. Plus, the bible makes no mention of rolled-up trouser legs or dodgy handshakes.