Hopefully The Death Of Abstinence Only
Tweet
President Obama will be cutting funding for ineffective abstinence-only education. It’s a hell of a boondoggle, supported mostly by the same conservatives who bitch and moan about government spending of course. Abstinence only is a silly way to try and prevent teen pregnancies and STDs, we should be smarter about this issue.
71 Responses to “Hopefully The Death Of Abstinence Only”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Obama actually CUT a program’s budget?
BREAK OUT THE DRUDGE SIREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s what’s up!!!
Sweet, now Cut DADT!
Who needs abstinence, when you have abortion?
Seems to me purty near impossible to have a baby, if you don’t have intercourse, but, then again, I didn’t win a Nobel Prize, so what do I know?
Frank, yes. You’re right. Abstinence is the most effective way (as in, 100% effective) to prevent pregnancy and STD transmission.
But the issue is that abstinence-only education has bee demonstrated not to work effectively. Really, we should be teaching kids to be responsible in all ways with sex. Encouraging abstinence is a positive thing, but we also need to teach them how to have sex safely.
Agree?
This is a very good thing. Add this to the list of things that makes me happy we have a Democratic president.
Funny how Frank, who thinks the government can’t do anything right, thinks that the government can convince teenagers not to have sex.
bee = been. d’oh!
As a former professor of mine said regarding abstinence education, ‘People will fuck.’ For anyone who wants to reduce teen pregnancy and has actually looked at the numbers, this is a win.
As we all know, the alternative to abstinence only is abortion. It certainly isn’t a sane mix of abstinence, sex ed, and condom usage. Never mind all the mountains of data that show that yelling DON’T HAVE SEX at teenagers without any follow up doesn’t work.
Just say no, kids!
Can’t anyone see it as reasonable that it is irresponsible to have sex when you have not reached your majority? When you can get involved with unsavory characters (see the Post about the incident in Richmond, CA)? You can get STD’s? You can be used, and and abused , and objectified in such a way as to poison your view of life?
But it is important somehow that we simply concede that they will fuck [I wonder if that professor felt that way about his daughter, or if he had one]. We don’t concede that children will smoke,or drink or drug, or even eat poorly.
Nope, let them fuck with a what, 85% chance of catching a disease or having a baby anyway?
Jesus fucking Christ, Frank. I mean… goddamn. Sometimes you just cannot be reasoned with.
Can’t anyone see it as reasonable that it is irresponsible to have sex when you have not reached your majority?
Sure. But it has been shown again and again that keeping kids in the dark about biology doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Funny, isn’t it?
Oh, and for the record, I’ve been fucking fairly consistently for 10 years now. No babies, no STDs, no real scares of any kind. And that’s because I knew how to protect myself.
Can’t anyone see it as reasonable that it is irresponsible to have sex when you have not reached your majority? When you can get involved with unsavory characters (see the Post about the incident in Richmond, CA)? You can get STD’s? You can be used, and and abused , and objectified in such a way as to poison your view of life?
Yes, those statements are perfectly reasonable. The problem is, multiple studies have shown that abstinence-only education doesn’t help prevent any of these things – rather it often results in more teen pregnancy and STDs.
Why would an abstinence program keep kids in the dark about biology? I saw a woman speaking on EWTN (the Roman Catholic network) to high school kids about the medical, emotional , and spiritual consequences of premarital sex , with and without contraceptives.
Are you saying that abstinence – only programs don’t tell kids why they shouldn’t do it, they just tell them not to?
I find that hard to believe.
We’re saying that abstinence-only education doesn’t tell kids how to use contraception, etc., and that it doesn’t work. That’s what we are saying. Or what I’m saying, rather.
fuck happens
“You can be used, and and abused, and objectified in such a way as to poison your view of life?”
Sex isn’t rape, Frank.
Why would an abstinence program keep kids in the dark about biology? I saw a woman speaking on EWTN (the Roman Catholic network) to high school kids about the medical, emotional , and spiritual consequences of premarital sex , with and without contraceptives.,/i>
This lecture also went out to Catholic priests, right?
Right wingers that can’t get laid just want us all to suffer their same pathetic destiny.
Conservatives and Fundagelicals all love to pretnd that they’re more “rational” and “logical” than those touchy-feely libs. Yet, when confronted with direct evidence that abstince only education leads to MORE teen pregnancies (given that the highest teen pregnancy rates are in the deepest red Bible Belt states), their response “We just need to shout ‘Whore!’ at them louder!”
And the worst thing of all to me is that the biggest assholes screaming loudest about how terrible and awful abortion is are the VERY SAME ones demanding abstinence-only the most. If you want to reduce abortions, why not go with the STATISTICALLY DEMONSTRABLE FACTS that teaching teens responsible sex education, giving them complete information on pregnancy prevention, and making contraception easily available REDUCES UNWANTED PREGNANCY and therefore abortion rates? The answer is, of course, obvious. Talibangelicals don’t give a shit about reducing abortions, all they really want when you get down to brass tacks, is to have state control over our sex lives and legislate their narrow morality.
Frank: But it is important somehow that we simply concede that they will fuck. We don’t concede that children will smoke,or drink or drug, or even eat poorly.
Yes we do, unless we are simpletons who believe that wishing a thing to be so will make it so. This is known as magical thinking, and unfortunately, it’s very popular. And, alas, whether it’s praying for divine intervention, wanting a spoon to bend, or expecting kids not to have sex because we tell them it’s a bad idea, magical thinking is also completely bogus.
There is a big difference, Frank, between conceding that kids will do something and conceding that they should do it. I have two young daughters — the eldest is in kindergarten — and at the moment the only vice that even remotely interests them is eating poorly, but I know the day is not far off when the temptations of sex and drugs and cars and consumerism will become real to them. When that day comes, I hope to have established a sufficiently solid relationship built on trust, compassion and integrity that they’ll still find my advice and opinions persuasive. Ultimately, though, they’ll have to negotiate those temptations the same way you and I and everyone else did: using their own judgment.
Chances are, no matter what I tell them, they’ll make some choices that won’t be the ones I’d prefer. Taking risks that are unacceptable to the Powers That Be is an inevitable feature of growing up, especially in adolescence. (Did you wait until you were married to have sex, Frank? Did you wait until you were 18? Did you take your first drink on your 21st birthday? Would you have handled sex and booze any differently, any better, if you had waited that long? No need to answer any of those questions, just think about them.) The best I can hope for is that when they decide to sample the forbidden fruits of this world, they do it with as much helpful, practical, honest information at their disposal as possible.
Nope, let them fuck with a what, 85% chance of catching a disease or having a baby anyway?
“Let” them? Short of imprisoning them in a high tower and making sure to keep their hair too short for an enterprising swaing to climb up, how do you imagine it would be possible to stop them? Jeez.
And not that you asked, but I got busy for the first time when my partner and I were both 16. We used protection and had no problems whatsoever. I didn’t get anyone pregnant until I was 30 years old and married. You see, it’s really not that difficult.
Swaing = swain.
So Frank, let me get this straight: are you in favor of dumping federal funds on abstinence-only programs that have been proven not to work?
But but but he’s just like Bushhhhhh….
Frank, the reality is that teenagers will be sexually active. You don’t like that, and think it’s wrong, but you know what? Reality doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what you think should or shouldn’t happen.
Personally, I was sexually active at 14 – a little bit. And 15 — a little bit more. And 16 a LOT more. (And 41 not as much as I’d like, but -ahem- that’s a different story). But I was also scared shitless of getting someone pregnant, and the girls I knew were scared shitless of getting pregnant, and we were pretty frank (sorry) about that. We understood what could happen, and took precautions. But no amount of moralistic hectoring would have kept us out of eachother’s pants. None. Zippo.
I mean, do you actually know any teenagers Frank? Have any luck at getting them to behave as you think is fit? Call it irresponsible frank, but it’s happening all around you and always has. It’s irresponsible to pretend otherwise.
Who needs condoms when you have prayer?
Oh right; all those pregnant Christian teens.
You’re right Frank, abstinence is one hundred per cent effective; if you could get a majority of teenagers to practice it, which of course, no one can.
‘Can’t anyone see it as reasonable that it is irresponsible to have sex when you have not reached your majority? ‘
Which is of course, why there are SO many teens and adults practicing abstinence, right Frank, because it is so eminently responsible.
You can’t even expect people to use cellphones responsibly while driving, but you think moralizing some 17th century notion of sexual restraint is somehow going to magically convince people, especially teenagers, of its efficacy?
Unbelievable.
‘But it is important somehow that we simply concede that they will fuck’
Which is somehow different from which era of life on this planet when teenagers DIDN’T have sex?
Conceding defeat in your view and recognizing something as reality are not the same thing.
‘Nope, let them fuck with a what, 85% chance of catching a disease or having a baby anyway?’
Preaching abstinence without sex ed will ensure that kids will have unprotected sex and thus be exposed to the risks of STD’s and unwanted pregnancies due to ignorance.
Let me try and sort this out: I asked a question, that no one answered: Is an “abstinence only” program , a program where no one explains to the kids any good reasons why they shouldn’t have sex until they are married, or at least, til they have better judgment?
Because, if you don’t give kids reasons that they understand and accept (see, Gumby i have two sons, 19 and 21 — they have friends — I know teenagers; I even know girls barely out of their teens that are single moms — how about you?), they will never do what you want.
Wilbur, complicated sex education programs only work a little better than “abstinence-only” (and I am still waiting to find out what that is); that is not the same as sayin that “abstinence – only” programs have been ‘proven not to work’. I hate to quibble, but when use phrases like,”Let me get this straight”, I get cranky.
Felix Helix , what I did in my youth is not the point here. But my children, in order to avoid the peccadilloes of my youth do not smoke, drink or do drugs (and don’t even think about “that I know of” — I know), and they are virgins.
It has not harmed them in the slightest. One of my sons asks me occasionally if he should feel left out, when his friends tell him drinking is cool, but he is not tempted to drink.
Canadian bacon, do you know what happens to “easy girls” as they grow older? They become known as tramps, and whores and bums, and they latch onto terrible men who treat them like crap. Want a link for that? Go down to the nearest saloon, and see who’s hanging around in there.
No, sex isn’t rape, but casual sex that begins in a girl’s teens can ruin her life.
Paul D, of course , is an anti-Catholic bigot. Thanks for sharing
That’s what I think… I believe in sex education, and I also believe that it is our culture that makes so important, that we say things “We just KNOW kids are gonna have sex”, even though illegitimacy rates are much, much higher than they were forty years ago.
“complicated sex education programs”
What’s so complicated about explaining basic human biology re: reproductive systems, teaching kids how condoms work, then making them available for free? That’s how it worked for me in 9th grade, and it was the best way of going about things.
No, it won’t prevent all pregnancies, but it would go a lot further than “cross your fingers and pray” which is what “abstinence education” is all about.
“and they are virgins”
In all seriousness, how do you know this? Because they told you they are? Because I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.
“Canadian bacon, do you know what happens to ‘easy girls’ as they grow older? They become known as tramps, and whores and bums, and they latch onto terrible men who treat them like crap. Want a link for that?”
I’m trying to be nice, but this is the lamest, most backwards misogynistic bullshit I’ve come across in a while. Girls that have sex with their boyfriends knowing what the consequences are and with accss to birth control grow into normal, well-adjusted women that know what they want from life (not to mention a man, or another woman for that matter).
This isn’t 1955 any longer Frank. Women can make their own choices in a safe manner, as long as they have access to the facts and access to birth-control to control their own biological destinies.
“Want a link for that?”
Yes. And I’ll be happy to tell you stories of women I met who were taught that sex was a horrible, terrible thing and grew up in fear of sex-acts and their own bodies. Some of these women go on to marry the first dim-witted schmuck that knows how to manipulate their fragile psyches, and they go on to live out loveless, passion-less marriages. Either that or they wake up and realize how duped they were at a younger age and get the hell out via divorce.
“even though illegitimacy rates are much, much higher than they were forty years ago.”
I’d like a link for this as well. My understanding is that teen pregnancies have fallen off from two decades ago.
“Canadian bacon, do you know what happens to ‘easy girls’ as they grow older? They become known as tramps, and whores and bums, and they latch onto terrible men who treat them like crap.”
Most I knew are very successful in career, family and life overall. Your POV focuses on the act too much when really it is, for the most part, but not always, the familial context of children and teens that determine life outcomes. With a good head on your shoulder and a strong family bond, one can weather most of the hurdles of growing up, even the emotional turmoil that sometimes accompanies healthy sexual exploration and puppy love. Nothing intrinsically wrong with abstinence, if one can pull it off.
Just out of curiosity, if the women are all that you say they are above, what are the men who frequent these same salons and why are they who they are.
One more question; when you say that these women
become known as tramps, and whores and bums
are they tramps and whores and bums or are they perceived as such by men.
Sorry quotation marks are not working – my keyboard has gone European on me.
*facepalm*
I know as an educator, this is great news. The number one way to fight ignorance is education. Holding back information that can help children is ludicrous. I will say that the importance of sex and its ramifications(relationships etc…) should be expressed, but I say congrats for our President leaving behind the 14th century thinkers.
To those insisting that scientific research has repeatedly shown abstinence only does not work I would like to point out the adagium most news organisations and people adhere to: scientific fact and opinion are equal, and if science contradicts ideology we should always accept unscientific myths (Intelligent Design, anti-vaccination quacks) as being “The Truth.”
Therefore, never argue based upon science, since we all know scientists conspire against [fill in your preference: the word of god, true believers, patriots, alternative medicine]. Or, put in another way, we are told by these misguided zealots: “I have no idea what I am talking about and proud of it!”
This is what the Bible says about stoning. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html We’re supposed to take our morals cues from this book?
I would still like something cleared up.
JR: I don’t want anyone stoned. And I don’t believe that people who read the Bible come away from it thinking, “Boy! I just can’t wait to stone a sinner!” Might I suggest a version of the Bible annotated by another group?
Tsutsugamushi: The almighty, infallible Science has been wrong before. So just tek your foot off the pedal on that one. Which is not to say that people who would like their children to hear about abstinence are still burning witches at the stake.
White Whale: It is not 14th Century thinking to think that sex before marriage (and adulthood) is not recommended
Canadian Bacon: I am not referring to girls that had sex. I am referring to girls who very early in life got a “reputation”. “Most that you know”? How many do you know ? Dozens ? Hundreds?
Mwahahahahahahahaha
Jaim. You? Trying to be nice? Don’t even bother… And you asking for a link is rank hipocricy
But here’s a freebie:
http://futurity.org/society-culture/as-illegitimacy-rates-soar-so-do-costs/
BTW { shameless plug }: Tune in to http://xpowerradio.com
Or listen to :
http://216.155.131.180:8604
…it is irresponsible to have sex when you have not reached your majority?
Hm… I’m actually surprised nobody called Frank on how he spelled “Maturity” there, but then I suppose my cents of hue more is just two im-major.
Onto his point, such as it is: Yeah, kids shouldn’t be having sex. Liberal communist tree-mo-sexuals you may think us all but I don’t think any of us would argue that more and more kids should be having sex, and honestly if you find one of us who does I’ll join in the shouting at them.
That said, without significant exception, every study done on the supposed effectiveness of Abstinence-Only education has shown that it is not even remotely accomplishing what it’s intended to. They’re just as likely to have sex, and depending on the study, as or more likely to do so without protection, and to engage in oral and anal.
Frank, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association all insist that education needs to be comprehensive to be effective, teaching not only “Don’t” but “Why not,” “How not to,” and “If you must then be sure to…” Refusing to acknowledge the need for comprehensive education (which does, in fact, advocate abstinence as the only 100% effective practice) puts you at odds with nigh on every study done on it’s effectiveness, as well as every significant medical body in the US, all in the name of preaching as the only option the only method that is really just most comfortable for you to consider.
You’re trying to argue an emotional point throwing out the “you’d feel different if it was your daughter” thing, and frankly yes playing into misogyny with the language you’re using on “letting them have sex” and “you know what happens to sluts” talk. Honestly if its so repulsive to you you wouldn’t be in favor of Abstinence-Only, you’d be even more in favor of mandatory chastity belts or just stitching them up, after all that would damn well guarantee 100% effectiveness, wouldn’t it? After all, there’s no such thing as a woman who had sex in their teens and did so responsibly and then grew up healthy, is there? No single example of that ever happening.
I don’t believe that people who read the Bible come away from it thinking, “Boy! I just can’t wait to stone a sinner!”
Yeah, crusades and witch hunts and holocaust, never happened.
The almighty, infallible Science has been wrong before.
Oh for sonofabitch’s sake, why is it when science conflicts with the Bible you nitwits always do this thing where you try to turn evidentiary empiricism into a retarded deity?
I am referring to girls who very early in life got a “reputation”.
Dammit Frank have you ever met a teenager before? Freaking Nuns have “reputations” in their book. That aside, even, what you’re really talking about isn’t even as much a consequence of sex, but a consequence of labeling people, honestly or not, coupled with the stigmatization of sex we have as a culture. A stigma you’re all too happy to subscribe to, I notice.
As far as the illegitimacy rates going up, thats a different thing than teen pregnancy, which has been steadily on the decline since 1990. Illegitimacy, as defined in that study, refers to single parents of any age, predominantly 20 and above.
Rex Mundane : Glad to see you arose from the dead, to be a big mouth fool once again..
Incidentally, “majority” is not a misspelling of maturity, which is why no one called me on it: Law. The status of having reached full legal age, with attendant rights and responsibilities.
I wanted to know if “abstinence only” meant precisely that, because if it did, then I would not be in favor of any education of kids that doesn’t explain what they need to know.
I hope that the next person’s head explodes, if they ask me if I have ever met a teenager…
Mundane, you idiot , do you even read my posts before you launch?
I’m man enough to admit I made a mistake as far as “Majority” goes. I’ve honestly never in my life heard that phrase used, and assumed you meant one thing and said another. I do beg your pardon, Frank, but it would hardly have been your first (or your silliest) verbal misstep.
I wanted to know if “abstinence only” meant precisely that, because if it did, then I would not be in favor of any education of kids that doesn’t explain what they need to know.
Well, yes. Abstinence only means teaching only abstinence. Very little about why it’s better than other methods, or at the least, little honesty about it. Arguing that Condoms have a 200% failure rate is hardly a good reason. Arguing that condoms aren’t perfect is a perfectly legitimate point to make, but making it fairly would require acknowledging their >98% success rate, which rather conflicts with the central thesis of Abstinence being the only way. Likewise with other contraceptives and preventatives and their quite reasonably high success rates. Comprehensive sex education already advocates abstinence as the best and only way to completely avoid pregnancy and STDs, as it should. AbsOnly preaches that it’s the only choice you should have, and as a result the failure of that educational model is only to be expected.
You tell me, Frank, which would be more effective to tell a young child trying to grab a cookie?
“You shouldn’t eat snacks, so don’t.”
“You shouldn’t eat snacks, but if you must, instead of a cookie you can choose to have a nice apple or maybe a banana.”
Beyond that, I do beg your pardon Frank, but you didn’t just “want to know” about Abstinence only, you came into this thread conflating the dissolution of a proven failure of a sex ed program with “Hooray Abortions! We do loves us some fetus killins!” So please spare us the faux humility. Nobody’s buying.
And while it should be obvious that my “Have you ever met a teenager” was purely rhetorical and only tangential to my point about how “reputations” are more a result of social stigmas than actual promiscuity, and of course I’ve read your posts mentioning your children so yes, look, duh you’ve met them, and double-duh that wasn’t the point.
Going over a tally you’ve directly failed to actually address any of the points raised, instead sandwiching a simplistic “Look, I’m just asking” that requires active ignorance of the totality of discussion on the AbsOnly programs since their inception, in between refutations on two completely tangential offhand remarks that had nothing to do with the discussion.
But clearly I’m the big mouth fool idiot, so what do I know?
But clearly I’m the big mouth fool idiot, so what do I know?
Just realized I gave you the opportunity to respond with a pithy “Yep” to the entire post in response to the final offhand remark within it, so let me diffuse that right now. Wouldn’t want you to completely miss the opportunity to form a reasoned argument in this debate. By all means, rebutt away.
Paul D, of course , is an anti-Catholic bigot. Thanks for sharing
I was raised a Catholic where I knew early on what a colossal waste of time it was, much like every other form of organized religion.
If practicing foolish rules of ancient date make you feel better, fine. But if you think that it makes you better than others, think of the nearly two billion in “whoops, didn’t mean to touch you there” cash thats been paid out since the 50′s.
Seems to me you’re the one acting like you’re better than other people who would practice rules of an organized religion, Paul_D.
But tell me, on what grounds do you condemn the Catholic Church, but defend ACORN? How do you nuance that conflict in logical progression?
Oh for fuck’s sake… my false equivalence meter is broken now. Dennis, go back on your meds. Your clownishness is worsening by the day.
You ever come up with that hard scientific evidence about how conservatives are “nicer” than liberals? You know, what Hitchens talked about? …Oh wait, he didn’t, did he?
First, Science is not a god.
Secondly, while scientists have been wrong before, the process of science is essentially infallible when you constrain it to understanding the natural world. It is infallible, Frank. I know that makes you vomit a little in your mouth. Sorry about your luck.
Here. and here, Mambobamabot the Chicken23.
ACORN??? WTF????
Yeah, gumby. The defense here was that a few bad apples doesn’t make the whole organization corrupt. That and “Look at all the good they do!”. So I’m asking Paul_D what he sees as the difference.
“Nuance”?
Two billion dollars in payouts to sexual abuse victims over 50 years. Got another number for you. 11,000.
That’s the number of sexual abuse allegations levied at the chruch.
Has the Catholic church bellied up because of the actions of their deviant clergy? No. Has any legislator called for the church to be disbanded or have their tax-exempt status revoked? Again, no.
But in the Wingnut Nebula, those rules don’t apply to ACORN because the stupid behavior of a half-dozen (fired) employees discredits a national group with offices in more than 75 cities staffed by thousands of employees and volunteers. Remember, Obama became president because a lot of undeserving types who are always looking for handouts fraudulently got on the voter rolls and voted for Barry Hussein X over and over times infinity double-tap ollie-ollie oxen-free.
Also.
“do you know what happens to “easy girls” as they grow older? They become known as tramps, and whores and bums”
Wow. Just. Wow.
Rex , I am not you. I posess subtlety, and would never have resorted to a tactic like that.
The reason I asked the question is because I truly can not believe that there would be a program that simpy told teens to abstain from sexual activity without, at the very least, explaining to them why it would be a good idea.
I practiced “natural parenting”: when my son approached an electrical outlet while he was still crawling, I called his name and distracted him. If he had touched the socket that would have been all the lesson he needed at that age . But teenagers becoming parents are a whole kettle of fish.
Since I am in the minority, my opinion doesn’t matter, anyway. It will be interesting what kind of private money goes to abstinence programs .
One more question; when you say that these women
become known as tramps, and whores and bums
are they tramps and whores and bums or are they perceived as such by men.
Sorry quotation marks are not working – my keyboard has gone European on me.
Will you answer me this one. I really need to know the depths of your ignorance.
Dennis [------------- 10,000 miles -------------] The point.
Big surprise.
Uh huh. Six ACORN employees, since fired, is a “few bad apples.” True. A few bad apples shouldn’t condemn an entire organization.
And importantly, that’s just the same as hundreds or more priests molesting children, and the Catholic Church turning a blind eye to it. Same thing! Exactly the same thing! EXACTLY!
Ugh. Clown.
Abstinence Only doesn’t work – end of story. When Frank and Wingnuts can make it work, you just give us all a call.
How fucking embarrassing.
Frank, I think you’ve misunderstood the question from the beginning. The question is not “is it good to tell young people that, short of surgery, abstinence is the only certain way to prevent std’s and unwanted pregnancies?” Everybody agrees, I think, that that is a good thing to tell them.
The question is “is it a good idea to spend federal money on programs to tell students that alone, and not also give them practical information about contraception and prophylaxis?”
The answer to that, as I think everyone agrees — except maybe you — is no.
It really should be so simple. This should be the final word. But it won’t be. No chance.
I am not one for beating a dead horse. I guess “Abstinence -Plus” is better than “Abstinence – Only”.
‘Rex , I am not you. I posess subtlety, and would never have resorted to a tactic like that.’
How that statement doesn’t cause you to instantly burst into flames is a mystery.
Whoa.
Frank just conceded that we are correct.
Whoa.
Wait a second, where am I? Who are you people? What am I doing here?… I am so disoriented…
This should be the final word. But it won’t be. No chance.
Exactly.
“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in …”
Say “Goodnight”, Junior.
Refusing to directly state your opinion when asked for it is not being subtle, it’s just being childish.
Why is it that only women are perceived as tramps, whores and sluts is they happen to be sexually active as teens, or perhaps choose to have more than one sexual partner over the course of their lifetime? What do we call men who engage in the same behaviors? Oh that’s right, they’re just “sowing wild oats.”
Ol’froth: ‘Tis a pity we don’t have a disapproving name for men who abuse, misuse and abjectify women. I hope you don’t think that I don’t think that they deserve one — they sure do.
Unfortunately, it is this opprobrium directed at women that makes it so hard for them when they have children out of wedlock. I am sure the fathers of those children have far less to worry about, with regard to being disapproved of because of their irresponsibility. But that is, in my book, another argument for abstinence.
I see now how it works, the men are “fathers of those children” and the woman are the whores?
Typical Sunday School Medieval Papal drivel.
isms : Are you obtuse, or pretending to be , for dramatic effect?. When I said those negative terms I never said I approved of them : “‘Tis a pity we don’t have a disapproving name for men who abuse, misuse and abjectify women. I hope you don’t think that I don’t think that they deserve one — they sure do.”
Until they have a word for seeing evil, where there is none , good old “anti-catholic bigotry” will have to do.
Your words Frank, not mine. You perception of “society’s perception.” You can’t bandy around demeaning terminology and then hide behind the cloak of society. My society doesn’t see sex in those terms, male or female. Own your language.