Can someone explain...

09/19/05

Permalink 09:00:51 am, by Roulette Email , 436 words, 349 views   English (US)
Categories: Political BS

Can someone explain...

Abstinence only programs? I don’t understand. I grew up in the 80s. AIDS was kind of a big deal. They told everyone that if you’re going to have sex, wear a condom because it reduces your risk of both unwanted pregnancy and STD. Now, for some reason I just can’t fathom, black has become white, up has become down and condoms suddenly are bad.

Take for example, the Silver Ring Thing. Apparently it’s this huge show with a great big song and dance about how kids should abstain from sex. There is even a cute little virginity pledge thing. I’m with them that far. Nice message, right? I mean, it’s tragically flawed because teens are horny little buggers, but it’s a good idea at least. Then they go in the DANGERS of condoms. They tell kids about how condoms don’t work, and how you can still get STDs even when you use them. They don’t list a single benefit to using a condom. They only list negatives and failures.

So, how effective are programs like this? More effective than I thought actually. Research shows that the people who take the virgin pledges typically wait 18 months before having sex. That’s a good long time in a teenagers life, so that result is very good. But, there is a catch. When they finally do break down and fuck like bunnies, they don’t use protection. They’ve been taught all the negatives, so they figure there is no point. Oh, and here’s another bonus from these programs. The kids involved are more likely to have anal and oral sex instead! Which makes them every bit as likely to get an STD!!! But wait!! There is MORE! They’re less likely to tell an adult they are having sex, including people that need to know like doctors!!!

I don’t understand these programs. I mean, what the hell is wrong with promoting safe sex? I get the abstinence idea. I really do. It’s laudable. However, it's only the first step. You have to tell kids that if they do decide to have sex (and let’s be honest here… they’re going to have sex) they need to wear a condom, get on a pill, and use them properly. You have to tell them that blowjobs and anal sex count as sex, and each comes with it's own risks. You have to get them to talk to their parents about sex, not pretend it doesn't exist.

Putting on blinders is not the same as correcting the problem.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Abba Zabba [Member] Email
No, I don't think anyone can explain them. Abstinence-only programs are promoted by Christian conservatives, and they only make sense if you are (or think like) a Christian conservative.

If you honestly believe that pre-marital sex is immoral, then abstinence-only education is the only option. Condoms must be ineffective, because they don't make sex less immoral. And the effectiveness of the program doesn't matter, because that's the only kind of sex ed that can be taught without corrupting our children.

If you agree with their basic premise, it all makes sense. If you don't, then you won't understand. But that's just the way religion works.
PermalinkPermalink 09/19/05 @ 09:11
Comment from: u235 [Member] Email
The crisis, imho, is the government funding of this bullshit. And it is bullshit. Turns out that it's SO much bullshit that even our ultra-rightwing conservative government had to yank funding. It seems that in the battle between seperation of church and state it is REQUIRED that programs that accept government funding don't misuse the money to proselytize. While they had pledged to make a transition between messages, SRT never did, and thus recently lost their government support.

As to why this is happening, well it's for all the valid reasons mentioned above. Bush and his cronies value faith above science, reason and logic. All because Bush was a freeking alchoholic and couldn't get a grip on his own life...
PermalinkPermalink 09/19/05 @ 13:34
Comment from: Abba Zabba [Member] Email
It's funny how the terms of this debate have changed. It used to be that religious/conservative people didn't want sex ed taught in schools at all. Now, because of the success of liberals who believe that sex ed is necessary, it's a standard part of curricula everywhere. So the argument is whether the sex ed should be traditional (science-based) or abstinence-only (religion-based).

But considering the misinformation and outright lies taught in these abstinence-only classes, kids would probably be better off getting no sex ed in schools at all. They'd get the same amount of useful information and have more time for actual education. (Such as their studies of Intelligent Design.)
PermalinkPermalink 09/20/05 @ 11:10
Comment from: LonerVamp [Visitor]
Abba is correct, the reason these are so flaunted is because they are backed by religious groups, and those religious groups believe pre-marital sex, safe or not, is a sin and wrong. And people go to very great, illogical, and even fanatic lengths to protect their beliefs and project them onto the masses because, in the end, if everyone believes as you do, that must mean you're right...

Saying condoms don't work is much like how I view statistics. I can take the same sampling and the same data and not only see your point of view, but mix the numbers around (validly) and also still point out how my view is correct. You could say that in a study 98% of condom users were safe, but 2% failed due to misuse, defects, etc. I can compare this to many things and show how this is great...or I could say this is not acceptable, or that the +/- is too great and it COULD be 94% or something else. It's all about how you use the data given to you, and in this case you see the data in a way that fits with your beliefs, in many cases.
PermalinkPermalink 09/21/05 @ 12:16

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Rou

October 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Search

Categories

Misc

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 17

powered by b2evolution free blog software