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.

 Manchu wrote:
You are attacking my argument explicitly on the basis of my religion (or rather your bizarre misunderstanding of my religious beliefs). That is pretty much the definition of culture war.

Kind of like how you're attacking the parent's argument on the basis of her beliefs?

And no, I didn't attack your religion on the basis of your religion, I explained very clearly why it's an absurd argument. Speculating about your motives for making such an absurd argument is not the same thing as saying "that argument is wrong because of your religion". Perhaps the difference would be easier to see if you weren't so eager to frame everything in terms of "culture war".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
When it comes to religions and anyone who disagrees with your rather leftist view, Peregrine, you're incredibly condescending.

So now statistics and opposition to lying to students is a "leftist" thing? And why shouldn't I be condescending to people who are proudly and dangerously wrong?

Hm.

No hilarity ensued for me. Sounded like a helicopter parent and a know it all student. I don't know why I keep coming back to OT, I somehow stumbled into here though.

 Stormwall wrote:
Sounded like a helicopter parent and a know it all student.

Yeah, how dare anyone object to bad "education". Students and parents should submit before the school and accept that mindless obedience is the only virtue.

I don't know why I keep coming back to OT, I somehow stumbled into here though.

Probably because you wouldn't get to make dramatic "ALL OF YOU SUCK" posts if you just quietly declined to read or post here?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormwall wrote:
Sounded like a helicopter parent and a know it all student.

Yeah, how dare anyone object to bad "education". Students and parents should submit before the school and accept that mindless obedience is the only virtue.

I don't know why I keep coming back to OT, I somehow stumbled into here though.

Probably because you wouldn't get to make dramatic "ALL OF YOU SUCK" posts if you just quietly declined to read or post here?

Ah, way to twist something into something else. I never implied that getting a better education is bad. I actually agree with you on the subject of education thus far, with what little I have read. Oh Peregrine you.

That meme was in no way directed at you but, at the hostility that has opened up so far in the thread. Which never ceases to amaze.

grt b8 m8.

 Stormwall wrote:
Ah, way to twist something into something else. I never implied that getting a better education is bad. I actually agree with you on the subject of education thus far, with what little I have read. Oh Peregrine you.

Then why did you call them a "helicopter parent" and "know it all student"? That pretty clearly implies that they were wrong and shouldn't have said anything.


PS: I see you're repeating your "mistake" of coming back here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormwall wrote:
Sounded like a helicopter parent and a know it all student.

Yeah, how dare anyone object to bad "education". Students and parents should submit before the school and accept that mindless obedience is the only virtue.

I don't know why I keep coming back to OT, I somehow stumbled into here though.

Probably because you wouldn't get to make dramatic "ALL OF YOU SUCK" posts if you just quietly declined to read or post here?

You're a blast at cocktail parties, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The 18% which is when it is used incorrectly? Well I guess that's why we have sex ed to teach people how to put one on properly (make sure condom is right way up (should be like a sombrero), pinch tip, unroll over penis, let go of tip, done http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/how-do-i-use-condom.aspx) which brings the effectiveness up to 98%

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/male-condoms.aspx

If used correctly every time you have sex, male condoms are 98% effective. This means that two out of 100 women using male condoms as contraception will become pregnant in one year.

And then it's not like there are other alternatives to male condoms...

On the 40% of college males thing. Well that is just highlighting the massive need for a comprehensive sex ed program to bring that number down. Teaching a man abstinence is not gonna make him better at putting a condom on. Teaching him how to do it better, is.

As to the 18%. That figure was given without the information that it was only when used incorrectly. If I missed out that piece of information when citing numbers in a scientific paper my work wouldn't even make it to print.

I was thinking, and it's curious to me that these arguments are acceptable when it comes to condom use, but not to abstinence education.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but if abstinence is used perfectly, then it's more effective than a condom, right?

 cincydooley wrote:
I was thinking, and it's curious to me that these arguments are acceptable when it comes to condom use, but not to abstinence education.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but if abstinence is used perfectly, then it's more effective than a condom, right?

The difference is that proper condom use is something where better education is a plausible solution. The biggest problem comes from people who want to use them but just don't do it right. Abstinence, on the other hand, fails when people refuse to use it at all, not when they want to but don't know how. To make it work effectively you have to completely change what people want, and the evidence shows that this is almost certainly a doomed effort.

And of course the other side of the problem is that you're comparing the best option for the abstinence side to a mid-level option for the non-abstinence side. With non-abstinence the discussion doesn't stop at "18% failure rate", you can keep going and say "but there's this thing called an IUD that is nearly 100% effective at stopping pregnancy and has no risk of user failure". Or "but you can combine them with the pill and allow one method to catch the failures from the other".

 Peregrine wrote:
To make it work effectively you have to completely change what people want, and the evidence shows that this is almost certainly a doomed effort.

So what about all the people that don't want to use condoms?

 cincydooley wrote:
So what about all the people that don't want to use condoms?

They aren't included in the 18%.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So what about all the people that don't want to use condoms?

They aren't included in the 18%.

And won't get sex if their partner wants them to use one. At least not if they understand consent.

The mother is fascinating, this isn't her first rodeo. Here, she admits to harnessing underhand tactics in setting narratives:
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/science-social-justice-activism-alice-dreger-galileo-middle-finger

they had used some of the tactics we had used in the intersex rights movement: blanketing the Web to make sure they set the terms of debate, reaching out to politically sympathetic reporters to get the story into the press, doling out fresh information and new characters at a steady pace to keep the story in the media and keep the pressure on, and rhetorically tapping into parallel left-leaning stories to make casual bystanders “get it” and care.

Here, she rails against some aspects of modern liberalism:
http://chronicle.com/article/Reluctant-Crusader/228377/

"I very much identify as a liberal feminist," she says. "That said, I get extremely impatient with liberals who want to rail about Republicans who won’t look at facts and then you get people who are making decisions based on identity and not on the facts. To me, that’s just a perversion of liberalism."

Here, she's accused of being a neo-conservative because she didn't toe the line:
https://endablog.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/joelle-ruby-ryan-has-alice-dreger-gone-neo-con/

Dreger was part of a long history of transsexual imperialists, cissexual persons who have appropriated trans identity to control the flow of discourses that determine our lives

But my favourite thing in this mess was a random comment in the original article

My 1978 "sex ed" was from our wrestling coach who was a WWII D-Day veteran. The guy had forearm tattoos of anchors that were not ironic.

One of his choice quotes as he handed out condoms:

"If one of you little selfish donkey-caves manages to convince —God knows how — a real live woman to have sex with you, then for god's sake wear a condom. Don't you curse one these nice girls with your hell spawn... or what ever creeping crud crotch rot you got going on down there."

 Manchu wrote:
It's not surprising that she lost her temper considering she was looking for a fight. The proper thing to do in such a situation is not follow your kid into a class and make a scene. If your kids tell you they are getting taught something you consider ridiculous about sex ed, the adult thing to do would be clear that up with your kid at your home. With the example she sets, it's no wonder her kids walk into classes with statistics printed from the internet. That kids will probably grow up to be an donkey-cave, too.

Yeah, that'd be the way for her to stop this nonsense from affecting her kid. But her kid isn't the only kid in the world. Personally finding out what was really going in the class and then letting other people know, so that something can be done to reform sex education is a good and proper step forward. Stepping back, taking a high moral ground that you won't interfere with what gets taught in school, that's an easy position that lets people who want to peddle non-science in sex ed take control.

She was wrong to confront the teacher, and admits as much. Everything else was fine.

Like maybe a journalist that tracks down people in small town's to report on their "backward" attitudes.

I have absolutely no clue what that has to do with anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
And I think she's stupid for saying so. IMO Abstinence ONLY is pretty ignorant, but there's no arguing that abstinence is the easiest way to keep yourself from getting pregnant.

If you as an individual choose abstinence and actually maintain it, then yeah its 100%. As a recommendation for other people, though, it's meaningless, because across a population you simply won't see any reduction in sex because people were told abstinence works. The sex drive is a really powerful thing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It never starts with murder. The first step is moral denigration to dehumanize. You have to portray the enemy as something like shameless liars attacking children. You have to make sure everyone feels comfortable hurling vitriol around. You need to get to the point where it is a matter of good against evil. In the past, this led to stoning, burning, lynching, etch. These days, it is about public shaming, harassment, trying to get people fired, and of course playing into the vanity and self-righteousness of the culture warriors who are so outraged.

Wow. Are you trying to become a parody of yourself?

Nah man, but your thinking lying to kids is bad is on par with preparing some form of crusade-esque war in which your enemies (teachers or christians or I dunno, what ever the hell he's going on about)

 kronk wrote:
The article's narrative: My son took a proactive approach to taking his education in his own hands and stood up to the hierarchy "Footloose Style" for his good and the good of all his classmates. I'm so proud.

The actual story: Know-it-all, helicopter parent with a bone to pick disrupts a teacher while he's conducting the sex-ed program he's legally not allowed to alter for risk of losing his fething job.

Should the school teach abstinence only? feth no. That's dumb.

Is it the teacher's fault? feth no. That's the politicians getting involved in the fething schools.

Do I have any respect for this lady? feth no. She should pick on the school board, the state legislature, or even the principal. But leave the fething teacher alone. What-A-Bitch, indeed.

She didn't interrupt the class, she approached the teacher and aide after the lesson. She shouldn't have done that, but it didn't interrupt the class, and she admitted it was wrong.

Taking it up with the school board, based on 'what my son said was being taught' is worse than useless. The absolute fething way to reform anything is to base it on 'what people have said is happening'. Actually seeing the class and taking a proper adult account of the content is exactly the right thing to do. Now, armed with actual knowledge of the class, she and everyone else involved is in a position to meaningfully challenge the curriculum.

 Manchu wrote:
You are attacking my argument explicitly on the basis of my religion (or rather your bizarre misunderstanding of my religious beliefs). That is pretty much the definition of culture war.

He is attacking your argument on the basis that it is ridiculous, and then assessing that it was likely your religion that lead to you making such a ridiculous argument.
Let us sum up your argument. The facts were that the educators brought false and incomplete informations for ideological purposes, and the mother came, was angry about the biased informations, her child showed other students the informations were false and incomplete, and after the class the mother told the educators how false and incomplete their informations were.
Your argument is that because the mother was ideologically motivated too, this is terrible and a culture war and she was just as wrong, if not more wrong. You are judging her on her motivations rather than her actions.
Peregrine's argument is that because what the mother and her child did was only about correcting wrong and incomplete information, it was a good thing. He is judging her on her actions.

 Manchu wrote:
This is my thought every time you deny being a culture warrior ... and then decry the guest speakers as BLATANT SHAMELESS LIARS and your declare continued commitment to the INDISPUTABLE TRUTH.

Your argument would hold more weight if Peregrine did not have a direct example of them actually misrepresenting a statistics for ideological purpose. I would love to know, how in your opinion should non-culture warrior people describe someone who misrepresent statistics for ideological purpose when teaching children how to be safe?

Caught up with this thread... I agree with peregine, sebster, malus...

Someone... please hold me!

Edit: and Hybrid too!

I think there's issues with "SJW" / "Culture Warriors" these days... but, like I said earlier, she's an ass for confronting the teacher that way, but that doesn't mean she's wrong.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
He is attacking your argument on the basis that it is ridiculous, and then assessing that it was likely your religion that lead to you making such a ridiculous argument.

Right, that would be an indirect attack on my faith. It's like saying, you're ugly and I suspect that is your parents' fault. I thought it over, slept on it, and have concluded the closest thing to a polite response to this kind of attack, and of course the fact that he then immediately blamed me for him attacking me in this way, is disengagement. So I'll be signing off after correcting your summary of my argument.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Your argument is that because the mother was ideologically motivated too, this is terrible and a culture war and she was just as wrong, if not more wrong. You are judging her on her motivations rather than her actions.

I am judging her actions in light of her motivations. My argument is the mom acted like an donkey-cave because she was spoiling for a fight. It was not a slip up in the heat of the moment. Alice Dreger is not just some random "helicoptering" mom. She is a committed activist specializing in sex topics. She wrote a book called "Galileo's Middle Finger" that Salon sympathetically describes as:

a trench-level account of several hot scientific controversies from the past 30 years, told with the page-turning verve of an exposé

From those same trenches, she engineered the confrontation in her son's classroom in order to spin it into a story about battling evil right-wing liars:

She says she's really being punished for shining a light on the use of a curriculum that's driven by a conservative agenda.

Souce. Unsurprisingly, our own culture warriors have received the signal and are re-broadcasting:

 Peregrine wrote:
an informative example of what happens when right-wing ideology is allowed to control educational content

Notwithstanding misleading implications to the contrary, I actually never defended the content of the guest speaker's presentation or even said that they should be allowed to be guest speakers. Here's what I actually said about them:

 Manchu wrote:
Personally, I don't like the idea of having guest speakers on abstinance. They are only present for ideological reasons. A non-ideological lesson on abstinence is very simple: You do not have to have sex. If you do not have sex, you or your partner cannot become pregnant. Not having sex also means your chances of contracting a sexually-transmitted infection are nearly zero, all other things being equal. That's it. No need for any kind of guest speaker.

The fact that there was in this case a discussion about the efficacy of teaching abstinence during the time when abstinence was supposed to be taught is pretty telling.

I even used an analogy to clarify that it is not Dreger's values about sex that I object to but rather her invented self-righteous outrage and how it is socially destructive:

 Manchu wrote:
My comments are founded on a concern about public rhetoric. To change up the example, it is increasingly OK here in the US to attack anti-vaccination folks at a personal level and with an extreme amount of vitriol. I personally have no sympathy whatsoever with any part of the anti-vaccination agenda. I would like to see that movement fade away completely. What I actually see, however, is an entrenchment of anti-vaccination beliefs fueled by a persecution complex. It seems like there is a positive correlation between commitment to the anti-vaccination beliefs and feelings of personal persecution. And giving vent to abusive, self-righteous behavior is simply not OK ... that point seems to be slipping away.

So that is where it will have to stand, as far as I am concerned.

 Manchu wrote:
Personally, I don't like the idea of having guest speakers on abstinance. They are only present for ideological reasons. A non-ideological lesson on abstinence is very simple: You do not have to have sex. If you do not have sex, you or your partner cannot become pregnant. Not having sex also means your chances of contracting a sexually-transmitted infection are nearly zero, all other things being equal. That's it. No need for any kind of guest speaker.

The fact that there was in this case a discussion about the efficacy of teaching abstinence during the time when abstinence was supposed to be taught is pretty telling.

Of course, not having sex also means that you miss out on a huge part of the whole human experience and by actively repressing the completely normal sexual urges on teenagers you could actually be forming less than stable adults, but that is a small price to pay... right?

PhantomViper wrote:


Of course, not having sex also means that you miss out on a huge part of the whole human experience and by actively repressing the completely normal sexual urges on teenagers you could actually be forming less than stable adults, but that is a small price to pay... right?

I assume you'll be substantiating that claim with some data?

In fact, I'd wager if one were so inclined to do the research, you'd find the opposite is true. If one were so inclined.

 Manchu wrote:
Unsurprisingly, our own culture warriors have received the signal and are re-broadcasting

This is kind of unintentionally ironic, isn't it? Either you agree with me, or you disagree, in which case you're a robot without original ideas just regurgitating the party line. Heh, OK.

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Of course, not having sex also means that you miss out on a huge part of the whole human experience and by actively repressing the completely normal sexual urges on teenagers you could actually be forming less than stable adults, but that is a small price to pay... right?

I assume you'll be substantiating that claim with some data?

In fact, I'd wager if one were so inclined to do the research, you'd find the opposite is true. If one were so inclined.

A gentleman by the name of Sigmund Freud (and many, many, many more Psychoanalysts and Psychologists), disagree with you. But I'm looking forward to reading your research on the subject.

PhantomViper wrote:

A gentleman by the name of Sigmund Freud (and many, many, many more Psychoanalysts and Psychologists), disagree with you. But I'm looking forward to reading your research on the subject.

Enjoy

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/the-teenage-brain-under-construction
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/01/07/8-traits-of-teens-who-abstain-from-sex

A few tidbits from the last:

Kids who can make abstinence decisions do better in school, too, even when the comparison group was matched for social background and the desire to pursue education. Abstinent teens are far more likely to attend and graduate from college than those who are sexually active, based on an analysis of the NIH-supported National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health by Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson, researchers at the Heritage Foundation. Seems obvious: less distraction and more time to study.

and

...But maybe it's more. The researchers identified eight personality and behavioral traits that were associated with both abstinence and academic achievement—traits that to some extent may be inborn but can also be taught and reinforced regularly at home and at school:

Future orientation, with a focus on long-term goals
Willingness to postpone current pleasures for larger future rewards
Perseverance, as in the ability to stick to a task or commitment
A belief that current behavior can positively affect the future
Impulse control, including ability to control emotions and desires
Resistance to peer influence
Respect for parental and social values
Sense of self-worth and personal dignity

I wouldn't really recommend using anything from the last article as an argument.

At the bottom she refers you to two other articles she's written and provides no citation of scientific references to support her hypothesis. In fact, most of the links she puts in her article link to more of her articles which are, again, lacking in scientific references.

Also, the American College of Pediatrics is very clearly a conservative organisation, as can be seen in their About us page and in their opposition to same-sex families, emergency contraception (morning after pill) for teenagers and abortion for teenagers whilst supporting a doctors right to conscience (refuse treatment based on personal beliefs, regardless of if it is the best course of action for the patient), abstinence-only approach to sex-ed and parental notification in adolescent cases (effectively nullifying doctor-patient confidentiality for teenagers).

The first link is not only looking at sexual behaviour but also drug and alcohol abuse. They found that those whose brains were wired to be high risk takers were more likely to engage in sexual activity, drug and alcohol use, which would affect their mental development.

In fact, that first report did not actually look at data concerning sexual activity on its own but rather the combined effects of multiple risky behaviours. This can clearly be seen in the citations, the majority of which are about the effects of drugs and alcohol on brain development, not sexual activity.

It appears that she has taken that data and extrapolated it to include sexual activity, due to similarity in chemical releases from the behaviour.

The second report says, very clearly in its abstract:

There was no significant association between number of sex partners and later anxiety and depression. Increasing numbers of sex partners were associated with increasing risk of substance dependence disorder at all three ages.

The report did not claim that the link was causal. In fact it only suggested further study to investigate the link.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I wouldn't really recommend using anything from the last article as an argument.

At the bottom she refers you to two other articles she's written and provides no citation of scientific references to support her hypothesis

The first link is not only looking at sexual behaviour but also drug and alcohol abuse. They found that those whose brains were wired to be high risk takers were more likely to engage in sexual activity, drug and alcohol use, which would affect their mental development.

In fact, that first report did not actually look at data concerning sexual activity on its own but rather the combined effects of multiple risky behaviours. This can clearly be seen in the citations, the majority of which are about the effects of drugs and alcohol on brain development, not sexual activity.

It appears that she has taken that data and extrapolated it to include sexual activity, due to similarity in chemical releases from the behaviour.

The report did not claim that the link was causal. In fact it only suggested further study to investigate the link.

You're welcome to disassociate sex from the "high risk behavior" category; I believe it should be firmly planted there.

Additionally, from the 2nd article:

The nature of casual sex relationships may, however, present a risk factor in and of itself. These relationships may be particularly likely to be impersonal, lacking in the potential to provide emotional fulfillment. People having a string of these relationships may turn to the self-medication provided by alcohol or drugs. As the authors point out, drinking alcohol to cope with feelings of loneliness and despair can pave the way for later substance dependence.

Definite causation? No. But there's certainly correlation.

The second report says, very clearly in its abstract:

There was no significant association between number of sex partners and later anxiety and depression. Increasing numbers of sex partners were associated with increasing risk of substance dependence disorder at all three ages.

You're right. You don't see a problem with the 2nd part of the abstract, which I've put in bold....?

 cincydooley wrote:

Spoiler:

PhantomViper wrote:

A gentleman by the name of Sigmund Freud (and many, many, many more Psychoanalysts and Psychologists), disagree with you. But I'm looking forward to reading your research on the subject.

Enjoy

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/the-teenage-brain-under-construction
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/01/07/8-traits-of-teens-who-abstain-from-sex

A few tidbits from the last:

Kids who can make abstinence decisions do better in school, too, even when the comparison group was matched for social background and the desire to pursue education. Abstinent teens are far more likely to attend and graduate from college than those who are sexually active, based on an analysis of the NIH-supported National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health by Robert Rector and Kirk Johnson, researchers at the Heritage Foundation. Seems obvious: less distraction and more time to study.

and

...But maybe it's more. The researchers identified eight personality and behavioral traits that were associated with both abstinence and academic achievement—traits that to some extent may be inborn but can also be taught and reinforced regularly at home and at school:

Future orientation, with a focus on long-term goals
Willingness to postpone current pleasures for larger future rewards
Perseverance, as in the ability to stick to a task or commitment
A belief that current behavior can positively affect the future
Impulse control, including ability to control emotions and desires
Resistance to peer influence
Respect for parental and social values
Sense of self-worth and personal dignity

That first report, like Malus says is focusing much more on drug and substance abuse.
That second report seems to directly contradict the first one, you might wan't to remove it from your list.

As for the third one, its from the Heritage Foundation and that alone is reasons to disqualify it from any kind of serious discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

The second report says, very clearly in its abstract:

There was no significant association between number of sex partners and later anxiety and depression. Increasing numbers of sex partners were associated with increasing risk of substance dependence disorder at all three ages.

You're right. You don't see a problem with the 2nd part of the abstract, which I've put in bold....?

Correlation does not equal causation.

PhantomViper wrote:


Correlation does not equal causation.

You're right. It doesn't. But it doesn't mean it's appropriate to ignore it, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

As for the third one, its from the Heritage Foundation and that alone is reasons to disqualify it from any kind of serious discussion.

Healy was "Health Editor for U.S.News & World Report and wrote the On Health column. She was a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and served as director of the National Institutes of Health and president and CEO of the American Red Cross."

I feel pretty comfortable listening to her as an authority.

If I were her husband I'd be asking: you seem to have a lot of extra time. Why the hell aren't you working, woman!

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Correlation does not equal causation.

You're right. It doesn't. But it doesn't mean it's appropriate to ignore it, either.

But why isn't it the other way around?

Substance dependency disorders are much more likely to be the reason for an inordinate number of sex partners than for it to be the other way around.

Also the original premise was sexual repression vs normal sex life. The alternative to abstinence is not downright overindulgence in sex practices, its having a normal and healthy sex life.

 Manchu wrote:
Right, that would be an indirect attack on my faith.

Indeed.
No denying it, he is of the opinion your faith could lead you to have silly ideas about sex, birth control and abstinence. I can personally see why.

 Manchu wrote:
I am judging her actions in light of her motivations. My argument is the mom acted like an donkey-cave because she was spoiling for a fight.

Yet what she did was showing how the information given was wrong and incomplete, right? Good actions coming from bad motivations are still good actions, right?

 Manchu wrote:
She is a committed activist specializing in sex topics.

I am sure that helped her to correct everything wrong or incomplete the educators could have said.

 Manchu wrote:
Unsurprisingly, our own culture warriors

Who could that be ?

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Of course, not having sex also means that you miss out on a huge part of the whole human experience and by actively repressing the completely normal sexual urges on teenagers you could actually be forming less than stable adults, but that is a small price to pay... right?

I assume you'll be substantiating that claim with some data?
In fact, I'd wager if one were so inclined to do the research, you'd find the opposite is true. If one were so inclined.

You would wager actively repressing the sexual urges of teenagers would form more stable adults? Do I look stable to you ?

 cincydooley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Correlation does not equal causation.

You're right. It doesn't. But it doesn't mean it's appropriate to ignore it, either.

Though it's used to draw firm, yet spurious, conclusions.

Seems obvious: less distraction and more time to study.

Most kids in school are not having sex regardless of their abstinence choice. Further, lots of kids making these pledges still have boyfriends and girlfriends, they're still being distracted socialising, it's not a pledge to be a shut-in.