Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > FDA "discovers" that condoms prevent pregnancy and STDs

FDA "discovers" that condoms prevent pregnancy and STDs (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG
When was this "sexual revolution?"

You, like many others, like to use these buzzwords to make it easier to focus on mythical times, when in fact there are many factors that cause changes in society, and they are constant and ongoing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution

The sexual revolution was a substantial change in sexual morality and sexual behavior throughout the West in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The trigger for the revolution was the development of the birth control pill in 1960, which gave women access to easy and reliable contraception.

Women reaching sexual maturity after about 1984 have behaviours much more in common with the men of a generation earlier. They had more partners (two to three times), starting at an earlier age (by three to five years), than women of the generation of the 1970s. Nevertheless this rather radical change in actual behaviour is rarely reported on, being regarded as no longer newsworthy.

Larkin doesn't mention the advent of The Pill in 1960, but he could have -- the ability to have sex without expecting children was in a sense the birth of the sexual revolution and the beginning of the swing towards sexual liberalism. The pendulum swung back as social attitudes toward sexuality became notably more conservative in the 1980s in part because of the fear of AIDS.

The sexual revolution was an outgrowth of a process in recent history. It was a development in the modern world which saw the significant loss of power by the values of a morality rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition and the rise of permissive societies, of attitudes that were accepting of greater sexual freedom and experimentation that spread all over the world and were captured in the phrase free love.

The Industrial Revolution during the nineteenth century and the growth of science and technology, medicine and health care, resulted in better contraceptives being manufactured. Advances in the manufacture and production of rubber made possible the design and production of condoms that could be used by hundreds of millions of men and women to prevent pregnancy at little cost. Advances in steel production and immunology made abortion readily available. Advances in chemistry, pharmacology, and knowledge of biology, and human physiology and all sorts of new drugs led to the discovery and perfection of oral contraceptives also known as "The Pill". New drugs like Viagra helped impotent men have an erection and increased the potency of others. Purchasing an aphrodisiac and various sex toys became "normal". Sado-masochism ("S&M") gained popularity, and "no-fault" unilateral divorce became legal and easier to obtain in many countries during the 1960s and 1970s.

All these developments took place alongside and combined with an increase in world literacy and decline in religious observances. Old values such as the notion of "be fruitful and multiply" rooted in the Bible, for example, were cast aside as people continued to feel alienated from the past and adopted the life-styles of modernizing westernized cultures.

Beautiful women and extremely handsome men were rigorously selected to become movie stars and when they were cast in movies with romantic scenes of love, kissing, hugging, and flirting, an entire culture was transformed as it became more acceptable to show feelings of affection in public. The very conservative mood leading up to the twentieth century gave way to a growing erotic milieu as popularized by the movie industry emanating from the studios of places like Hollywood.

It is said that at the time, public morality severely restricted open discussion of sexuality as a human characteristic, and specific sexual practices, especially sexual behaviors that did not lead to procreation. Kinsey's books, which among other things reported findings on the frequency of various sexual practices including homosexuality, caused a furor. Many people felt that the study of sexual behavior would undermine the family structure and damage American society.

The development of antibiotics in the 1940s made most of the severe venereal diseases of the time curable, removing the threat of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis.

In the early 1960s, The Pill became available; at first for married women only, but demand and changes in attitudes later lead to it becoming available to unmarried women as well.

With the twin threats of disease and pregnancy removed, many of the traditional constraints on sexual behavior seemed unjustified.

The advent of genital herpes and AIDS has started the pendulum swinging in the reverse direction, but modern trends are towards harm reduction through education and safer sex rather than a return to sexual puritanism.

Pre-marital sex was openly adopted by the adherents of the 'counterculture' and spread to the majority of young people in the 1970s. Also in the 1970's pregnancies could be ended as abortion become easily available. This led to perceptions of the times being an "age of promiscuity", decadence and hedonism, and there was even a backlash in America as people sought to return to family values.


There you have it. Not Mythical at all. I can quote from Wikipedia too. But I actually gave a link, and didn't pretend I wrote it
People need to stop trying to go back to some magical time that didn't exist.
It existed, people are trying to re-write history.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
I could live with a world like this as long as it is Celibate to on Person not Hetrosexual's only club LOL
I didn't differentiate between the two. Obviously the same would go with that.

Too many people judgeir self worth on how many people they have had sex with. Especially men. Sex to them, is a way to boost their insecurity.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
I didn't differentiate between the two. Obviously the same would go with that.

Too many people judgeir self worth on how many people they have had sex with. Especially men. Sex to them, is a way to boost their insecurity.
I noticed you didn't
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution
[/b]

There you have it. Not Mythical at all. I can quote from Wikipedia too. But I actually gave a link, and didn't pretend I wrote it

It existed, people are trying to re-write history.
Kevin, please. Wikipedia is hardly an expert source. It's editable by anybody.

I didn't pretend I wrote that statistics I posted. They're from a family history book I have, written by a noted family historian, and backed up by reasearch, not made up numbers like some people are fond of quoting and linking to. I will give you you're point on people trying to rewrite history, but it's the "family values" people that are doing it.

Again, this issue is much more complex than the buzzwords and catch phrases that are very successfully used to hook people into believing in myths, and it's quite obvious it works. It's a lot easier to spout simple phrases than to do research and discover what's really transpiring.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG
Kevin, please. Wikipedia is hardly an expert source. It's editable by anybody.
Karl, you obviously DID NOT READ the Wik article. It had the EXACT text you posted in it. Word for word.
I didn't pretend I wrote that statistics I posted.
You didn't give any source links either. So one assumes that it was you that wrote it.
They're from a family history book I have, written by a noted family historian, and backed up by reasearch, not made up numbers like some people are fond of quoting and linking to.
So you are referring to YOUR family then. No one is making up numbers.
I will give you you're point on people trying to rewrite history, but it's the "family values" people that are doing it.
Nope, it's you. Just like it's you that is trying to "rewrite" history by saying Bush was anti-condom.

It seems you delude yourself into believing what you want regardless of teh truth.

The sexual revolution was alive and prospering the late 60s. That is not a history revision.

Denying it happened is.
Again, this issue is much more complex than the buzzwords and catch phrases that are very successfully used to hook people into believing in myths, and it's quite obvious it works. It's a lot easier to spout simple phrases than to do research and discover what's really transpiring.
Again, more nonesense. It's no myth.
( Last edited by Kevin; Nov 14, 2005 at 12:10 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
if everyone just chose one person to have sex with
Precisely my point.

This is an entirely different message than abstinence. You have to promote adultery to get any further away.

It is, for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of abstinence.

More germane to your original point, if one modifies this message to exclude pre-marital sex, it's no longer functionally equivalent to the message given prior to the sexual revolution. It used to be acceptable to get married as a teenager, society (wisely IMO) now frowns upon it. Asking someone now to abstain until marriage is a much tougher row to hoe than it used to be.

If this is what must be asked, so be it. Though asking youth, already accused of being dissolute, to hold themselves up to standards higher than "the best generation" will produce predictable results.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 10:48 PM
 
Asking an adolescent to settle on what shoes to wear today is an immense task. Asking them to decide to stay with one romantic interest for any length of time is unreasonable not only because of the fickleness of the adolescent mind, but because of how much emotional and social development is going on at that time in their life. They aren't fully formed mentally, so they are not rational in the adult sense most of the time. And they are just starting to feel the effects of those hormones, and not yet used to the way their bodies now work... Being set on ONE person is not a reasonable thing for an adolescent.

Kids need to learn that, while sex is a wonderful thing, it's so much better in a committed relationship that it's almost not worth bothering with outside of one. Abstinence until one finds a real relationship that is based on something more than just hormones is a really valid goal, and one that a lot of people would find not only worthwhile, but workable.

But you also need to prepare kids for what happens when the hormones win. They need to know how to correctly use a condom. They need to know why to use a condom as much as how to use one correctly. And they need to know that they are not horrible or perverts if they had sworn to be abstinent and fail to be. All three of these take (as I've said before) good, involved, and honest parenting.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Precisely my point.

This is an entirely different message than abstinence. You have to promote adultery to get any further away.
Actually it's not. I was speaking about having sex with one person FOREVER. Meaning only having sex with one person throughout your life. Meaning, abstain till that person.
It is, for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of abstinence.
Bush isn't saying "DON'T EVER HAVE SEX"
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Actually it's not. I was speaking about having sex with one person FOREVER. Meaning only having sex with one person throughout your life. Meaning, abstain till that person.

Bush isn't saying "DON'T EVER HAVE SEX"
Quit arguing facts with these people. It won't work. Spin is all they understand.

I hope you've learned that when you prove Karl wrong he just disappears instead of admitting he is wrong. Or he'll come back and be condescending and call all republicans wrong and that Americans are closed-minded.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Actually it's not. I was speaking about having sex with one person FOREVER.
As was I. Sorry for any confusion. I think I may have cut my post to the bone.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Meaning only having sex with one person throughout your life. Meaning, abstain till that person.
These will illustrate my point even better.

While "only having sex with one person throughout your life" and "abstain till that person" contain the same information they don't convey the same message.

One is forward looking, the other is firmly rooted in the present.
One has "hot parts" the other is about a period of denying yourself "hot parts"
One is a beautiful thing, the other, no matter how much you believe in its merits, is a drag.
Did I mention the "hot parts"?

In other words, "having sex with one person throughout your life" is a message about having sex, "abstain till that person" is a message about not having sex.

You don't need a degree in marketing to imagine which message will sell better, even though they contain the exact same information.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Bush isn't saying "DON'T EVER HAVE SEX"
Never said he said this.

This was in response to "[having sex with one person throughout your life] is, for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of abstinence".

A reiteration of my above point.

All of this has to do with your claim that previous generations were told to abstain, so the current generation should live up to this. I am proposing previous generations were told to "get married", which they did, and quite young to boot. In the present, the message of "get married" means waiting longer than previous generations. This would require the current generation to wait longer, and hence have to live up to an even higher ideal than previous generations.

As I said originally. If this is what has to be, than so be it. Just don't be surprised by the results.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 15, 2005 at 11:39 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Quit arguing facts with these people. It won't work. Spin is all they understand.
Me and Kevin are having a perfectly civil* discussion, why would you tell him to stop?

Did I say or do something to offend you?

*As well as interesting and illuminating.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Me and Kevin are having a perfectly civil* discussion, why would you tell him to stop?

Did I say or do something to offend you?

*As well as interesting and illuminating.
I was using a literary device called "sarcasm". Mostly my comment was directed at KarlG.

You have not offended me.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
I was using a literary device called "sarcasm". Mostly my comment was directed at KarlG.

You have not offended me.
Good deal.

Since you quoted Kevin's response to me, I thought it was directed at me.

     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
These will illustrate my point even better.

While "only having sex with one person throughout your life" and "abstain till that person" contain the same information they don't convey the same message.
Regardless, that is the message Bush is trying to get across. To abstain till you find that one person.
In other words, "having sex with one person throughout your life" is a message about having sex, "abstain till that person" is a message about not having sex.
Actually if you ever listened to any of Bush's speaches on the matter, he is speaking about those not married or in a monogamous relationship. To abstain.

It isn't the people having sex with one person throughout their life causing these things. So it's not sex that is the problem.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Regardless, that is the message Bush is trying to get across. To abstain till you find that one person.
If Bush's message is really "have sex with one person throughout your life" then my argument is moot. I had taken your statement "He is anti-premarital sex" as evidence to the contrary. "Have sex with one person throughout your life" implicitly condones pre-marital sex.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Actually if you ever listened to any of Bush's speaches on the matter, he is speaking about those not married or in a monogamous relationship. To abstain.
I'll admit. I haven't listened to his speeches. Assuming you mean "...those not married or not in a monogamous relationship", then see above.

Originally Posted by Kevin
It isn't the people having sex with one person throughout their life causing these things. So it's not sex that is the problem.
Can't argue here.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 15, 2005 at 03:56 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 03:42 PM
 
Went back to reread the thread and noticed I missed your post.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by Railroader
You think herpes, papillomavirus, syphilis, chancroid, and a better than 1 in 20 risk of getting pregnant is "minutiae"?
For a warning label, yeah.

Pregnancy is a different case. It's what the thing was designed to prevent. Failure rates for this should be on there.

Originally Posted by Railroader
Hmmm.. I'll bet you think AIDS/HIV is a mild cold then.
No I don't, and it's a special case. Though condoms weren't designed to stop STDs, by random luck condoms happen to do a really good job of preventing the spread of this one. So much so it should be on the warning label.

As an aside, I agree people put too much stock in condoms. If you're going to have sex, body fluids are going to get swapped. Accept it. That means AIDS too, though if you use condoms, it's going to take a whole lot longer. Not quite the case with all the other diseases out there.

Originally Posted by Railroader
Are you really this obtuse in real life or do you just play at in on TV?
I was using a literary device called "sarcasm".
( Last edited by subego; Nov 15, 2005 at 03:53 PM. )
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
If Bush's message is really "have sex with one person throughout your life" then my argument is moot.
Indeed.
I had taken your statement "He is anti-premarital sex" as evidence to the contrary. "Have sex with one person throughout your life" implicitly condones pre-marital sex.
No he doesn't condone it. He advises it
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
He advises it
He advises pre-marital sex? As in recommends?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 05:04 PM
 
I'm sorry, I apologize, I got confused there.

he advises on waiting till your married I am sure.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
I'm sorry, I apologize, I got confused there.

he advises on waiting till your married I am sure.
How can he have it both ways?

Unmarried people in a committed, monogamous relationship are having pre-marital sex.

Regardless, if he's against pre-marital sex, it "un-moots" my argument.

People are encouraged to get married later in life than they used to, so asking people to abstain is asking them to do more than was asked of their elders.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 06:47 PM
 
Aaarrrrgh.

We already have Bush in the boat, so could please someone start some Christian bashing and bring in the gays, so we can close this thread ?

-t
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777
Aaarrrrgh.

We already have Bush in the boat, so could please someone start some Christian bashing and bring in the gays, so we can close this thread ?

-t
Reporting for duty, Sir!

*clicks heels*
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
How can he have it both ways?
What both ways? Having one partner AND waiting till your married?
Unmarried people in a committed, monogamous relationship are having pre-marital sex.
I said he encourages it.
People are encouraged to get married later in life than they used to,
By whom? No one ever encouraged or discouraged me to get married in my life...
so asking people to abstain is asking them to do more than was asked of their elders.
I think you just made up an argument or "fact" out of the blue to support your own ideals. But ok.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Oisín
*clicks heels*
Those shoes are... fabulous
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 07:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Those shoes are... fabulous
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
What both ways? Having one partner AND waiting till your married?

I said he encourages it.
Let me rephrase:

How can he encourage unmarried people in a committed, monogamous relationship to have pre-marital sex if he is against pre-marital sex.

Originally Posted by Kevin
By whom? No one ever encouraged or discouraged me to get married in my life...
We have different life experiences.

Growing up, "wait until after college" was a familiar mantra to me.

The ridiculously high divorce rate (which is having constant attention drawn to it) I have always considered to be encouragement to wait until I had a chance of not screwing things up.

Of course, people are getting married at an older age, though I understand that doesn't necessarily mean they were encouraged to do so. It is none the less good circumstantial evidence. Something is causing people to act this way.

Originally Posted by Kevin
I think you just made up an argument or "fact" out of the blue to support your own ideals. But ok.
What prompts the need for accusations?

I presented it as an assumption I imagined you would agree with, otherwise I wouldn't have posed the argument.

If I had presented it as fact, I would be unwilling to say we can agree to disagree on this point.

Which I'm not.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 08:12 PM
 
All this has made me wonder though...

Why is the message "abstinence" instead of "get married"?

Does it have too much religious baggage? It seems to me abstinence has the same religious baggage.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Let me rephrase:

How can he encourage unmarried people in a committed, monogamous relationship to have pre-marital sex if he is against pre-marital sex.
He is basically saying, if your value system doesn't have any morality issues with premarital sex, to not sleep around.
We have different life experiences.

Growing up, "wait until after college" was a familiar mantra to me.
Well that is your personal experience.
The ridiculously high divorce rate (which is having constant attention drawn to it) I have always considered to be encouragement to wait until I had a chance of not screwing things up.
I know people married young that are still together. I know some married later on, that fell apart. While I am sure getting married before you are an adult matters, I think that attitude going into the marriage has more to do with if it will fail or not, more so than age. Too many people today getting married thinking "Oh well, if it doesn't work, I can always get divorced"

It's part of the whole not taking responsibilities for your actions thing that seems to be so hip right now.
Of course, people are getting married at an older age, though I understand that doesn't necessarily mean they were encouraged to do so. It is none the less good circumstantial evidence. Something is causing people to act this way.
Depends where you live.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
All this has made me wonder though...

Why is the message "abstinence" instead of "get married"?

Does it have too much religious baggage? It seems to me abstinence has the same religious baggage.
Because the reasons are different. Abstinence to save your flesh. Not your soul.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
He is basically saying, if your value system doesn't have any morality issues with premarital sex, to not sleep around.
Understood.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Well that is your personal experience.
And was presented as such.

Originally Posted by Kevin
I know people married young that are still together...
Agree with everything you say here.

Originally Posted by Kevin
Depends where you live.
Not sure what you mean.

If you mean the causes are dependent on where you live, well, of course they are.

I'm assuming you're not arguing it's statistical validity. You do live in the United States, right?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2005, 08:41 PM
 
Even in parts of the United States, customs are different. That is what I mean.

The US is just a mirror reflection of the rest of the world.

BTW subego, it has been a pleasure to discuss this with you.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2005, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
BTW subego, it has been a pleasure to discuss this with you.
Likewise.

For me, the most instructive thing has been putting myself in your shoes, something I hadn't done until this discussion.

For someone who comes by their religion honestly (which I believe you do), the notion that one should dispense a little moral advice with something that will likely used sinfully...

Well, this just isn't a hard notion to understand or sympathize with. Even if one doesn't agree.

I wish I could say the counter-argument was as simple. It isn't.

I've been trying to boil it down, and I think it comes down to the belief the government shouldn't be giving moral lessons of this nature. I hope it's understandable that someone who comes by this belief honestly would recoil at the government's violation of said belief.

Imagine what the attitude might be if this perceived violation were to deprive someone of a condom, with fatal consequences.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2006, 12:42 AM
 
Bush is still anti-condom, in that he still regards abstinence as the only method of ensuring against teen age pregnancy and out of wedlock births. His black and white stance, which is not unlike that of some here, is quite obviously flawed, because it rejects reality. People are going to have sex out of wedlock, and have been doing so forever, and to simply wish that it weren't so, is ridiculous at the least and sublime ignorance at the worst.

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/01/010606abstain.htm

Medical Group Rejects Bush Admin. Abstinence-Only Policy
by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Washington Bureau

Posted: January 6, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Washington) The Society of Adolescent Medicine, in one of the most exhaustive reviews to date of government-funded abstinence-only programs, has rejected current administration policy that promotes abstinence as the only sexual health prevention strategy for young people in the United States and abroad.

"We believe that current federal abstinence-only-until- marriage policy is ethically problematic, as it excludes accurate information about contraception, misinforms by overemphasizing or misstating the risks of contraception, and fails to require the use of scientifically accurate information while promoting approaches of questionable value," the report concludes.

"Based on our review of the evaluations of specific abstinence-only curricula and research on virginity pledges, user failure with abstinence appears to be very high. Thus, although theoretically completely effective in preventing pregnancy, in actual practice the efficacy of abstinence-only interventions may approach zero."

When the report's authors looked specifically and LGBT teens they found that abstinence-only education was "unlikely to meet the health needs" of the group because abstinence-only programs focus heavily on no sex until marriage and ignore homosexuality. This could lead to increased risk of infection among these youngsters, the investigators said.

The report, published in the peer review Journal of Adolescent Health, also says that abstinence-only programs negatively impact other federal policies

Citing the Administration's requirement that U.S. AIDS relief programs abroad spend at least 33 percent of prevention dollars on abstinence-only programs, the report states: "Human rights groups find that U.S. government policy has become a source for misinformation and censorship in these countries. U.S. emphasis on abstinence may also have reduced condom availability and access to accurate information on HIV/AIDS in some countries."

"The report reads like an indictment," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

"Enough is enough. The time has come for Congress to declare an immediate moratorium on federal funding for these programs. It is a national scandal that we have already spent over $1.1 billion of taxpayers' dollars on programs that don't work and that censor vital public health information for young people."
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2006, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG
Bush is still anti-condom, in that he still regards abstinence as the only method of ensuring against teen age pregnancy and out of wedlock births. His black and white stance, which is not unlike that of some here, is quite obviously flawed, because it rejects reality. People are going to have sex out of wedlock, and have been doing so forever, and to simply wish that it weren't so, is ridiculous at the least and sublime ignorance at the worst.
Hasn't it already been made clear to you that you are spreading FUD?

"The only method"?!?! C'mon, you really think GWB thinks that? You are the one with a black and white stance.

GWB says "the best method ...", and you know it.

You are being entirely dishonest in your post and you know it.

You are the one who "rejects reality" here.
     
Ratm
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2006, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader

"The only method"?!?! C'mon, you really think GWB thinks that? You are the one with a black and white stance.

Of course not. How could he. Considering he has two of the sluttiest daughters on planet earth. He knows the Jimmy Hats have saved his ass on more than one occasion.

     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2006, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Ratm
Of course not. How could he. Considering he has two of the sluttiest daughters on planet earth. He knows the Jimmy Hats have saved his ass on more than one occasion.
You're probably right. Which makes KralG's stance look even more fanatical fundamentalist liberal.
     
Ratm
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2006, 01:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
You're probably right. Which makes KralG's stance look even more fanatical fundamentalist liberal.
(did not read the entire thread)
You must(?) agree that the groups he associates with will typically have these views. Chances are that he also has the same beliefs. But you know him better than I.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2006, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Hasn't it already been made clear to you that you are spreading FUD?

"The only method"?!?! C'mon, you really think GWB thinks that? You are the one with a black and white stance.

GWB says "the best method ...", and you know it.

You are being entirely dishonest in your post and you know it.

You are the one who "rejects reality" here.
No, I'm not spreading FUD; you are, but it obviously isn't clear to you. Since the day he took office, the official government policy is that abstinence is the only method that is to be discussed and funded. Do some research; the facts might (or should I say, obviously will) surprise you. I know what they are.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2006, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG
No, I'm not spreading FUD; you are, but it obviously isn't clear to you. Since the day he took office, the official government policy is that abstinence is the only method that is to be discussed and funded. Do some research; the facts might (or should I say, obviously will) surprise you. I know what they are.
Again, you are twisting reality and avoiding what I posted.

Are you sticking to your statement that GWB says:
Originally Posted by KarlG
abstinence as the only method of ensuring against teen age pregnancy and out of wedlock births.
Because clearly, this is FUD. You know the policy that GWB backs is that:
Originally Posted by Railroader
abstinence only is the best method of ensuring against teen age pregnancy and out of wedlock births.
Try to stick to the current topics that you bring up. This twisting and turning of topics is clearly deceitful.

But, to answer your latest post: And why is it that in schools the current sex ed is not an "abstinence is the only method" policy? Are you ignorant of this? My wife is a public school teacher and teaches a sex ed program. I can assure you that "abstinence is the only method" is not the current program. The emphasis is on "abstinence is the best method", it is certainly not taught that abstinence is the "only method". You are spreading FUD if you think otherwise.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,