Abstinence-Only Education Offers Nothing But an “F”


Sex education funding can be confusing.  Just trying to figure out what’s funded requires some research and what’s actually being taught in sex education classes can vary.  On top of that, it’s hard to keep track of what’s changed or what’s been changed back to what it used to be.  As a result, many residents of communities all over America are going about their daily business unaware that their states just applied for sex education funding that will affect what sex education curriculum is taught in their children’s school.

Contrary to popular belief, the election of President Obama did not bring about the demise of abstinence-only sex education in America.  The Obama administration did remove from its own bugget most of the funding for abstinence-only sex education, but Congress added a provision to the recent health care reform legislation that restored $250 million in funding over five years for state programs that focus exclusively on abstinence.  States have the option of applying for one or both funding streams and my home state of Missouri applied for both.  While we cheered the application for comprehensive sex education funding, many Missourians were alarmed that the administration also applied for funding for abstinence-only programs.  As a result of pressure from reproductive health activists, Governor Nixon’s administration appears to be taking a new approach with abstinence funding that will require all programs to include only medically-accurate information.  But Missourians will have to keep a watchful eye to make sure abstinence-only programs do not revert to their traditionally dangerous and medically-inaccurate form.

I don’t have children but my interest in sex education is personal.  As a volunteer working with teens in my community, I’ve met young people who found out how pregnancy happens when they became pregnant.  I’ve taught young women who thought drinking a certain brand of soda pop would prevent HIV infection, who argued passionately that a person could tell whether their partner had a sexually transmitted infection simply by “looking” and who were convinced that certain forms of birth control caused permanent sterilization.  Myths and inaccuracies abound, fueled by years of conservative anti-knowledge policies and sex education curricula in which the only abstinence that results is from educating students about sex.

While some oppose comprehensive sex education and advise young people to just put a quarter between their knees, squeeze them together and then wait until “opposite” marriage, those of us who care deeply about the reproductive health of young people know that abstinence-only programs fail to empower young people to make informed decisions about their health.  Many of the young adults I know are frustrated with the quality of the sex education they receive in their schools and the impact that has on their lives and the lives of their friends.  Others turn to friends or older peers for information and advice that may or may not be medically accurate.

In my home city of St. Louis, the need for comprehensive and medically accurate sex education is clear.  St. Louis has led the nation in the rate of Chlamydia and other sexually transmitted infections (STI) for several years and, although some reports show those rates falling, they remain alarmingly high.  The Missouri legislature recently passed an expedited partner therapy law that will allow patients diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection to receive a prescription for their partner too, which will greatly decrease the likelihood of re-infection.  Expedited partner therapy is a welcome progressive step forward, but prevention remains the best policy and comprehensive sex education is the key to making prevention a reality.

Abstinence only programs cannot take credit for any decreases in STI rates or unplanned teen pregnancies – those few successes have happened in spite of abstinence only education, many as a result of local organizations government and community groups working to increase awareness and access to treatment.  As a taxpayer that brings me no joy, since my money has been used to fuel the farce of abstinence-only education even as I volunteer my time to try to mend the damage done through these inadequate programs.  It’s no wonder that I sometimes feels like I’m swimming upstream with weights on my legs.  With new funds come new opportunities to right what’s wrong or continue down the same dangerous path.  Supporters of comprehensive sex education must advocate on the state, city and local level to make sure funds are used wisely to support medically accurate sex education curricula.  Anything less deserves an “F”.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Pamela Merritt on twitter: @SharkFu

  • andenakker

    The primary difference between abstinence-only vs. “comprehensive” sex education are the kinds of decisions each one is intended to help teens make.  While abstinence-only education seeks to help teens make the big decision about whether to engage in premarital sexual activity, “comprehensive” sex ed programs presume that that decision has already been made or will be made outside the context of the program, and therefore focus only on helping those teens who choose to have premarital sex make the small decisions about whether and what sorts of contraception to use.

     

    If you believe that teens receive enough information to make a wise decision about having premarital sex from other sources, then “comprehensive” sex education is fine.  If not, then “comprehensive” sex ed is anything but a comprehensive answer to the choices with which teens are faced.

  • plume-assassine

    Hello again, Kevin Rahe? Still trolling around with the same nonsense that has been refuted time and time again.

     

    While abstinence-only education seeks to help teens make the big decision about whether to engage in premarital sexual activity, “comprehensive” sex ed programs presume that that decision has already been made

    Wrong.

     

    Comprehensive sex ed programs also help teens with their decision whether to have sex or not. Many emphasize teaching consent and discuss the emotional and physical “readiness” of handling a sexual relationship. That is why they are called “comprehensive” because they cover ALL options, including encouraging teens to wait, as well as covering contraceptive use & safety. Abstinence-only – on the other hand - only offers one subjective option, based in religious belief, and padded with medical inaccuracies: Wait until marriage because sex is a special gift from God. Sex is bad. Condoms don’t work. Abortion causes breast cancer.

     

    Also, did you even read the article?

  • oscar

    This is one of the most important decisions that teens have to make during the years that they feel most vulnerable. I think all parties involved have good intentions and yet they keep butting heads when it comes to opposing diverging points of view. I can understand this because I wouldn’t like someone else to teach my kid how they should behave sexually. I believe it is my job and my wife’s job to provide my teen kids with the tools they need to survive on this world. Keep in mind people, your kids are two decisions away of seriously damaging the rest of their lives lifestyle if they don’t know how to take care of themselves. I advise strongly to remove all shames and prejudices of the way and be pragmatic about it.. Your kids’ future depends on it.casino online nederlandsonline pokies

  • arekushieru

    There is a reason it is called education, Oscar.  And education should be handled by professionals.  Otherwise, it’s like trusting your parents to teach you math skills, when they may not have the skills required to teach it in the first place.

  • andenakker

    Abstinence-only – on the other hand - only offers one subjective option, based in religious belief, and padded with medical inaccuracies…

    Interestingly, the blog entry doesn’t claim that “comprehensive” sex ed programs are medically-accurate – only that abstinence-only programs aren’t.  Not that a “comprehensive” program’s claim to be accurate would be saying much when what it says is so vague, especially about the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of STIs.

    That sex means something beyond mere pleasure is a common teaching in many religions, but the idea is hardly exclusive to those who accept that our lives have a spiritual dimension.

     

    Wait until marriage because sex is a special gift from God.

    A good reason, but hardly the only one.

     

    Sex is bad.

    There have been and may still be some cults that exist on the fringes of society that take this position, but you won’t find them among the vast majority of people who support abstinence-only sex ed.

     

    Condoms don’t work.

    That condoms don’t work well – especially in preventing the spread of STIs – can be learned even from “comprehensive” sex ed programs (at least those that are medically-accurate.)  However, unlike abstinence-only programs that spell this out in no uncertain terms, in “comprehensive” programs it is a gem that can be dug up only after slogging through near-endless empty promises that condoms can be a good thing.

     

    Abortion causes breast cancer.

    It doesn’t cause breast cancer.  However, abortion does leave certain cells in the body in such a state that they are more likely to become cancerous.  The net result is that having an abortion increases the likelihood that one will develop breast cancer by about 50% (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/frear/brind.htm – search the page for “Daling”).

  • mechashiva

    No, abortion does not leave behind potentially-cancerous cells. No, abortion does not increase your chance of getting breast cancer by 50%. This has been studied so thoroughly for so damn long, and there is no legitimate research out there supporting any statistically significant correlation. Here, read what this oncologist has to say on the matter:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2749

     

    Oh, and the rest of your comment is wrong in every way, as well. Don’t need to take the time to respond to every peice of it, you don’t deserve that much attention. However, the cancer thing is a pet peeve of mine.

  • arekushieru

    That sex means something beyond mere pleasure is a common teaching in many religions, but the idea is hardly exclusive to those who accept that our lives have a spiritual dimension.

    Actually, that sex means something beyond mere procreation is a common teaching in many secular societies, but the idea is hardly included by those who accept that our lives have a spiritual dimension, namely religious folk.

    A good reason, but hardly the only one.

    As I explain below, the way mainstream religions view sex, make sex a CURSE from God.  Besides, not everyone believes in God.  Epic fail, once again.  Before you accuse me of being a heathen, non-believer, etc….  I DO believe in God.  And I think God created sex for pleasure not JUST procreation as the fundy Christians WOULD have us believe.  That I don’t want to participate in it in ANY manner does NOT make me believe, as it does you apparently, that I have a God-given right to impose my beliefs on others. 

    That condoms don’t work well – especially in preventing the spread of STIs – can be learned even from “comprehensive” sex ed programs (at least those that are medically-accurate.)  However, unlike abstinence-only programs that spell this out in no uncertain terms, in “comprehensive” programs it is a gem that can be dug up only after slogging through near-endless empty promises that condoms can be a good thing.

    Condoms are the only method of birth control that DO provide protection from STIs.  Yes, I noticed that, as a typical anti-choicer, you were trying to weasel out of that… unsuccessfully, fortunately.  Abstinence-only programs say absolutely that condoms don’t work, period.  Too bad, so sad, you missed that part….

     

    There have been and may still be some cults that exist on the fringes of society that take this position, but you won’t find them among the vast majority of people who support abstinence-only sex ed.

    Actually, you obviously are unaware that stigmatizing and shaming unwed pregnant women and brainwashing young men and women and placing limitations on sex DO mean sex = bad.  “Don’t have sex until you’re married!”  What if someone doesn’t WANT to get married?  You’re limiting their sexual freedoms because of your own PREJudices.  “Don’t have sex unless it’s for procreation!”  I don’t want to get married nor do I want to be pregnant.  So, again, based on YOUR discriminatory practices, I don’t have the same sexual freedoms as everyone else.  Nor does someone who is infertile and needs IVF treatment, or couples who no longer CAN procreate.  Do you guys EVER think these things through? 

  • plume-assassine

    ROFL. Everything about your comment is hilarious, Kevin. (You don’t mind if I call you that, do you?) 

     

    Abstinence-only education programs are almost always medically inaccurate and they have failed in this country. Can you prove otherwise? No. Does your religion tell you that it’s wroooong that some teens are having safe, consensual sex before marriage? Yes. Do we care? No.

     

    You are free to teach your children such nonsense as ”sex is a special gift from God and should be saved until marriage,” and withhold all contraceptive and safe-sex knowledge from them, but that kind of BS does not belong in public schools. A person’s morality should not be judged by their sexuality.

     

    That sex means something beyond mere pleasure is a common teaching in many religions,

    What makes you think that comprehsensive sex ed is teaching that sex is only about pleasure? Or teaching teens to have sex? Who are you to say that teens who choose to have sex are just doing it “for pleasure” and for no other reason? Actually, it’s really none of your business…

     

    That condoms don’t work well …

    Condoms are 82-90% effective at preventing pregnancy with “typical use.” With “perfect use,” they are 98% effective.

     

    For most STDs, they reduce the risk of transmission by 85-95%

     

    (Perfect use means using a condom during intercourse consistently and correctly every single time. Typical use gets at the reality that people may use condoms incorrectly or may not use them every single time they have sex.)

     

    Oh, and Thanks for the link to the Augustine Club’s* inaccurate belief that “abortion increases the likelihood of cancer.” However, you are completely wrong. Countless exhaustive studies have been done that have shown this time and time again to be a myth. The US National Cancer Institute, among other reputable sources (such as the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization, etc), have shown that there is no link whatsoever. It is incredibly embarrassing for you to claim otherwise when all the research is right at your fingertips.

     

    **”the Augustine Club is a student organization dedicated to the study of the Christian intellectual tradition and its approach to the modern world” (lol)

  • andenakker

    Condoms are the only method of birth control that DO provide protection from STIs.

    To protect means, “to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction.”  I don’t believe condoms actually meet that standard when it comes to STIs.  In fact, I’m pretty sure that no “comprehensive” sex ed program (at least not one that’s medically accurate) would make such a claim.  Let me know if you find an example of one that does.

     

    So, again, based on YOUR discriminatory practices, I don’t have the same sexual freedoms as everyone else.

    To me, “sexual freedom” means that my wife and I are free to engage in sexual intercourse whenever we mutually agree to it, and that we are both committed to accepting whatever results from that act.  It also means that we’re free from the effects (especially side effects) of any concoctions or contraptions that might reduce its meaning and power.  I honestly cannot conceive of how anyone could claim this kind of freedom outside of marriage.

  • andenakker

    Everything about your comment is hilarious, Kevin. (You don’t mind if I call you that, do you?)

    Not as long as you don’t mind if I call you la plume asinine.  (I’m sorry – I couldn’t resist.  My French is lacking and that was the first word that came to mind when I saw your username.)

     

    some teens are having safe, consensual sex before marriage

    No “comprehensive” sex ed program (at least none that are medically accurate) will make that claim.

     

    For most STDs, they reduce the risk of transmission by 85-95%

    Cite sources please.  We only want scientifically accurate information on this site.

    But since I have the information handy, let’s take Herpes as an example, since about 1 in 5 American adults already has it, it’s incurable, and having it increases one’s chances of contracting something more serious like HIV.  According to Lawrence Corey, MD (Professor of Medicine, Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle; Head of the Program in Infectious Diseases, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington):

    “The effectiveness of using condoms for preventing transmission of HSV-2 infection has been difficult to demonstrate. There have been no prospective studies specifically designed to evaluate the efficacy of condom use in this regard. Retrospective analyses of data from a prospective cohort study of incident genital herpes[20] have been useful in defining the fact that condoms are effective in reducing the transmission of HSV-2 from men to women and, more recently, from women to men. The effect is incomplete at best, however, with protection rates of only 40% to 50% being observed.[21,22]

    http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/472427_2  (you can’t view the article directly unless you’re a member; search for “medscape condoms reduce herpes 40 50 in Google to get a usable link)

     

    Oh, and Thanks for the link to the Augustine Club’s* inaccurate belief that “abortion increases the likelihood of cancer.” … the Augustine Club is a student organization dedicated to the study of the Christian intellectual tradition and its approach to the modern world

    Naturally some people are going to be interested in making sure information like that gets publicized, and others are going to want to do what they can to suppress it.  The page I linked to was not a blog or an opinion piece, but cites several facts, which you have not disputed.

    The link you provided is to a National Cancer Institute page that references the conclusions of a workshop held in 2003, which didn’t take into account the results of several more recent studies confirming the abortion-breast cancer link.  One of the researchers who’s done work for the NCI is Janet R. Daling, and here’s a note about her work:

     

    One study was conducted by Janet R. Daling, Ph.D., of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, for the National Cancer Institute. “Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women,” she said. “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing. It’s a matter of what is.”

     Daling supports legal abortion but opposes a self-serving “gag rule” that suppresses medical data and leads to patient ignorance. “If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda…”‘  (http://www.fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=basic)

  • andenakker

    The article you linked to is much more of an outdated rant than a scientific analysis.  Here’s a link to an article that refers to 4 studies that have come out in the past year, some of which couldn’t have been taken into account by the author of your article:

     

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~Reasons fundamentalist Christian men are against sex education, 1#. They are to insecure to have sex with a woman who knows “ANYTHING” about sex. 2#. Wants to have sex with a woman who has the knowledge of sex of a seven-year-old little girl, which is disturbing. 3#. If women have much knowledge about how not to get pregnant, she can control her body better, and prevent pregnancy, fundamentalist Christian men hatefully, heartlessly want every female on the globe to be pregnant every year of her life, from age nine until fifty. 4#. Pedophilia fantasies of men marrying women who are as oblivious as a child about sex, and then “HIM” the “MAN” the “HUSBAND” teaches her “HIMSELF” his ideas of sex, this helps greatly his little man limping ego. 5#. Knowledge is empowerment, and fundamentalist Christian men do not want women empowered sexually.~

  • purplemistydez

    I graduated from high school in 2003.  Teens were having sex then and they are now.  I never heard anyone talking about waiting until they were married to have sex.  That is not what this generation is thinking.  At my graduation there were a couple girls pregnant already. Abstinence-only education programs do not work.  We all heard that message at school and we had sex anyways.  Like all teenagers it goes out one ear and through another.  My boyfriend and I have a committed relationship and use contraceptives.  It works for us.  Sex does bring us closer and is a great stress reducer. LOL.  I know I sleep better on those nights.

  • beenthere72

    Herpes as an example, since about 1 in 5 American adults already has it, it’s incurable, and having it increases one’s chances of contracting something more serious like HIV.

     

    Please source this absurdity?  

  • beenthere72

    You are permitted to hold that definition of ‘sexual freedom’ for you and you only.   You are not permitted to expect others to hold that view of ‘sexual freedom’ just because it’s how you would define it.    

     

    Not everybody wants to get married.

    Not everybody is ALLOWED to get married.

    Not everybody wants to ‘save’ themselves for marriage.

    Not everybody wants to have sex with one and only one person for the rest of their lives.

    Not everybody believes in YOUR God.

     

    (I got married at age 36 – there is no way in HELL I could’ve waited that long and there’s no way in HELL that I would’ve married the first  schmo that came along just so I could start banging him and banging out his babies.)

     

  • mechashiva

    It only reads like a rant if you lack the intelligence and patience to get through the whole analysis.

     

    You underestimate the importance of things like:

    But Cancer Research UK questioned the accuracy of the figures and said women should not be unduly worried.

    Dr Kat Arney, the charity’s science information manager, said: ‘This is a very small study of only 300 women, so there are likely to be statistical errors in a sample of this size.

    ‘Much larger studies involving tens of thousands of women have shown no significant links.’

    When you increase the sample size and have better statistical analysis, inevitably there will be no correlation shown between abortion and breast cancer.

     

    Bsides, I don’t trust research coming from Sri Lanka, Turkey, or China. The US study they are referring to is likely the Hutchison study, which has been grossly misinterpreted by people with a political agenda (it doesn’t show what they think it shows).

     

    When the WHO, AMA, ACOG, NCI, or NBCF start taking any of this stuff seriously, get back to me.

     

  • mechashiva

    A population of people with HIV is likely to have a higher incidence of other kinds of STDs as well. It’s a correlative, not causative effect. However, having open lesions during a herpese outbreak will increase the chances of contracting an infection, which is why people with Herpes should abstain from sex during outbreaks.

     

    Of course, you won’t get that kind of information in abstinence-only sex-ed.

  • prochoiceferret

    No “comprehensive” sex ed program (at least none that are medically accurate) will make that claim.

     

    Some may, some might not. But if you deny that teens are having consensual, protected sex before marriage, then please come back when you decide to acknowledge science and reality.

     

    But since I have the information handy, let’s take Herpes as an example, since about 1 in 5 American adults already has it, it’s incurable,

     

    Yes, condoms are not as effective in preventing transmission of herpes. Is that a reason not to teach and encourage the use of condoms for the broad range of diseases—and pregnancy—that they are highly effective in preventing when used correctly? Or is it a reason not to have sex at all? Because last I checked, the existence of herpes and the 1-in-5 prevalence hasn’t stopped people from engaging in any form of sex.

     

    Naturally some people are going to be interested in making sure information like that gets publicized, and others are going to want to do what they can to suppress it.

     

    And some people are going to play up statistical anomalies and liberally interpret questionable studies so that they can have a sciencey-sounding talking point in a heavily polarized culture battle.

     

    The link you provided is to a National Cancer Institute page that references the conclusions of a workshop held in 2003, which didn’t take into account the results of several more recent studies confirming the abortion-breast cancer link.

     

    Well then, perhaps you may want to inform the National Cancer Institute of that, so that they can change their official position. Mainstream cancer-research organizations have a bit more credibility than random loners with Ph.D.s and an ideological axe to grind, so we’ll base our arguments on the views of the former, if that’s okay with you.

  • ack
  • crowepps

    Interestingly, the blog entry doesn’t claim that “comprehensive” sex ed programs are medically-accurate – only that abstinence-only programs aren’t.

    I would bet you that any comprehensive sex ed program which actually DID tell all the medically-accurate truth about reproduction would be banned.  Don’t know of any that include a full list of pregnancy complications, photos of grossly deformed fetuses, details of the permanent damage to women’s bodies, economic studies that show children are the leading cause of women’s poverty or sociological evidence of how rapidly a woman’s happiness plummets once she marries and has children or how marriages are more likely to fracture once children are added to the picture.

     

    For heaven’s sake, we DO want girls to grow up and have the next generation, don’t we?  We can’t tell them ALL the medically accurate truth or we’d never have any grandkids! 

  • prochoicekatie

    We’ll know for sure it’s Kevin when he starts blaming rape victims for being raped, again. Misogyny *hearts* Kevin.

  • andenakker

    When the WHO, AMA, ACOG, NCI, or NBCF start taking any of this stuff seriously, get back to me.

    The NCI’s web page on the issue (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage) still relies on the conclusions of a 2003 workshop, and doesn’t even take into account a study completed by Louise Brinton, one of its own researchers, just last year.

    As for the WHO, they’ve at least acknowledged the “birth control”-breast cancer link.  Perhaps they will come around on the abortion-breast cancer link as well.  Even if they do, however, don’t count on women being warned about it:
    ‘In 2005, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, released a statement conceding that combined estrogen-progestogen oral birth control causes cancer. IARC put the birth control method into the highest category of carcinogenicity, which is only used “when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” This information has also been withheld from women.’  (http://www.fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=basic)

  • andenakker

    I got married at age 36 – there is no way in HELL I could’ve waited that long

    My wife and I were both 34, and we both waited.  It’s not impossible, or even unreasonable.

  • andenakker

    the existence of herpes and the 1-in-5 prevalence hasn’t stopped people from engaging in any form of sex

    There are some people who would not avoid sex no matter how serious the hazards or how likely they are to experience them.

  • andenakker

    Herpes as an example, since about 1 in 5 American adults already has it, it’s incurable, and having it increases one’s chances of contracting something more serious like HIV”

     Please source this absurdity? 

    From Advocates for Youth’s (a partner of this site – http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/about-us#partners)  Life Planning Education program:

    The lesions caused by STDs such as herpes or syphilis provide a possible entry point for the virus and put a person at much greater risk of HIV infection.

    And you don’t even need to have a current outbreak to experience this added risk:  http://std.about.com/od/herpes/f/hsvtreatmentHiv.htm

    As for the numbers, the CDC says 1 in 6 people between the ages of 14 and 49 have a genital HSV-2 infection (which is probably diluted by the inclusion of young teens).  Others say as many as 1 in 4 adults have it.  I take 1 in 5 as a consensus figure.

    http://www.cdc.gov/std/herpes/stdfact-herpes.htm

    http://www.herpes-coldsores.com/herpes_statistics.htm

  • crowepps

    Obviously it’s not impossible, nor, if one has a strong motivation, is it unreasonable.

     

    While certainly a person with strong religious beliefs might choose to do so, and that is their absolute right and choice, strong religious beliefs are NOT REASON, and so it would indeed be totally unreasonable to expect people who do not share their religious beliefs to do so.

  • colleen

    There are some people who would not avoid sex no matter how serious the hazards or how likely they are to experience them.

     

    Tell the Vatican. Their ‘no condoms’ policies are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of women in Africa whose only fault was having sex with their husbands.

  • colleen

    What’s unreasonable is holding yourself and your personal habits up as some sort of example we should all emulate.

  • mechashiva

    From the link you provided:

     Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer. To view regular updates on this topic, please go to http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/breast/HealthProfessional/page3#Section_280

    Enough said.

     

    The warnings about the risks of breast cancer and hormonal birth control have been known for years. That information is included on the info sheet in every package of pills. It’s been that way for as long as I have been taking birth control of some form (so, since 1999). What people may or may not know are the protective effects birth control has against other types of cancers, primarily in the uterus.

     

    Regardless, birth control pills work via a completely different function than abortion, so there’s no reason to link the two in a discussion of breast cancer. Unless of course your goal is to argue against anything that encourages non-procreative sex. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?

  • prochoiceferret

    There are some people who would not avoid sex no matter how serious the hazards or how likely they are to experience them.

     

    And their health would be in considerably greater danger if they didn’t know about the various ways one can reduce the risk of STD transmission and unwanted pregnancy that a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum teaches, and an abstinence-only one does not.

  • prochoiceferret

    My wife and I were both 34, and we both waited.  It’s not impossible, or even unreasonable.

     

    Neither is giving away all your worldly possessions and dedicating the rest of your life to help the poor. It’s great if you want to do that. Not so great if you want to go around and browbeat everyone else into doing the same.

  • crowepps

    He has a right to hold himself and his personal habits up as some sort of example everyone should emulate.  What I have a problem with is his idea that other people shouldn’t be given the knowledge they need to make an attempt to protect themselves because their FAILURE to emulate him should be punishable by disease and death.

  • colleen

    I wasn’t disputing his right to make an ass out of himself but I see nothing admirable about remaining a virgin untill marriage or holding off on having sex untill ones mid-30′s. When I look back on my own life  I’m profoundly grateful I did not follow the path Kevin recommends just as I’m profoundly grateful to be born at a time when contraceptives are reasonably effective and antibiotics usually work.

    The Christian right always had demanded a certain amount of human sacrifice to justify and prove it’s authority.

     

  • andenakker

    And their health would be in considerably greater danger if they didn’t know about the various ways one can reduce the risk of STD transmission and unwanted pregnancy that a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum teaches, and an abstinence-only one does not.

    Whatever additional risk there is in having unprotected vs. “protected” sex, it pales in comparison to the risk of having “protected” sex vs. abstaining until marriage.  This fact is made plainly clear in abstinence-only sex ed programs, but is cloaked and much harder to uncover (though it is there) in “comprehensive” sex ed programs.

  • plume-assassine

    Cite sources please.

    All of the information I referred to about the efficacy of condoms in preventing pregnancy or STI transmission can be found here. http://web.archive.org/web/20080531095926/http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com/table.html

    http://info.k4health.org/globalhandbook/index.shtml

    And I’m already aware that condoms are not very effective at preventing herpes transmission, because the location of the lesions may not be covered by a condom. 

     

      We only want scientifically accurate information on this site.

    LOL. Okay, then do us all a favor and stop linking to ridiculous, biased sources like an opinion piece from the Augustine Club, the Daily Mail (essentially a TABLOID!), and “Fight Planned Parenthood.org.” It’s embarrassing.

     

    The Daling study you refer to is only interview-based and much smaller than the studies that have demonstrated no link between abortion/breast cancer. All of the studies that have shown no overall risk for breast cancer are cohort studies, which are more accurate than interview studies. The largest, I think, was the Danish study on 1.5 million women. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201

    (It’s really funny to me that you think NCI, AMA, WHO, and ACOG are all wrong.)

  • ack

    But if we KNOW that people are having sex outside of the magical marriage relationship and don’t tell them how to protect themselves, how is that helping? There is a HUGE outcome difference between saying, “Abstinence is the only 100% effective protection against STIs and unwanted pregnancy. However, when you decide you’re ready to have sex, there are ways to make sex safer. We’re going to talk about those,” and “Abstinence is the only 100% effective protection.” 

     

    Leaving people ignorant about safer sex is harmful to society. I know you think people shouldn’t be having sex until they’re married, but wedding rings don’t magically protect against STIs or unwanted pregnancy. People NEED this information (and most will tell you they need it) and keeping people in the dark doesn’t help anything except your holier-than-thou attitude. Do you suggest that people wait until they’re absolutely ready for kids to get married? Cuz if you’re expecting them to be ready for pregnancy on the wedding night, you’re asking an awful lot. But… the bottom line is that YOU don’t get to ask anything of anyone else about their sex or reproductive lives. THAT’S where you’re missing the point. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Whatever additional risk there is in having unprotected vs. “protected” sex, it pales in comparison to the risk of having “protected” sex vs. abstaining until marriage.

     

    Which, in turn, pales in comparison to the risk of having sex in any form vs. not having sex at all ever and reproducing via IVF.

     

    This fact is made plainly clear in abstinence-only sex ed programs, but is cloaked and much harder to uncover (though it is there) in “comprehensive” sex ed programs.

     

    No, actually, comprehensive sex-ed curricula do include an “unprotected,” bareback discussion of abstinence, and how it is the most effective means of avoiding STDs and pregnancy. Of course, few people are going to remain abstinent all their lives. And even if some people begin having sex within marriage, their partners might not, and they’ll need that knowledge as well.

     

    I suppose abstinence-only programs might make sense for future seminary students, however. They would probably be more likely to actually follow the principles taught. (At least if they’re not Catholic.)

  • ack

    My health class in HS showed the infamous birthing video, featuring not one but THREE different births. I SO wish I could remember the particulars, but they’re overshadowed by the fact that one poor guy passed out. Our health teacher didn’t notice, and when we started trying to get her attention to point out the teen slumped on the floor, she told us to be quiet and watch the video. 

  • arekushieru

    Really?  What concoctions and contraptions would THOSE be?  I can use or not use these ‘concoctions’ and ‘contraptions’ whether or NOT I’m married.  Not everyone who is married wants kids, either.  Hate to burst your bubble, but there it is.

     

    Does a shield protect you from everything?  No, it does not.

  • beenthere72

    The only reason I believe you were able to hold off getting laid until you were 34 years old is because of your incredible knack for pissing women off. 

  • andenakker

    The warnings about the risks of breast cancer and hormonal birth control have been known for years….Regardless, birth control pills work via a completely different function than abortion, so there’s no reason to link the two in a discussion of breast cancer.

    The US study they are referring to is likely the Hutchison study, which has been grossly misinterpreted by people with a political agenda (it doesn’t show what they think it shows).

    The study (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.full) shows that recent or early use of oral contraceptives is a significant risk factor for breast cancer, which it sounds like you would agree with.  However, the same study shows a history of abortion to be close behind oral contraceptives in terms of being a risk factor.  How can we say that a study’s results are accurate for one breast cancer risk factor but completely wrong for another?  I don’t know in what ways this study has been “grossly misinterpreted,” but the same accusation could probably be made by those on both sides of the debate.  As for myself, I rely on the sentiments of one of the study’s better-known authors, who changed from being an ABC link denier to stating that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer by 40% based on its results.  While it appears that the National Cancer Institute has not changed its position on the ABC link as a result of this study – conducted by one of its own researchers, why that it is is anything but clear.  From my perspective, it seems that they simply chose to ignore it.

  • andenakker

    Which, in turn, pales in comparison to the risk of having sex in any form vs. not having sex at all ever and reproducing via IVF.

    Which could never sustain a population.

  • arekushieru

    Which was… uh… kind of her point…?

  • arekushieru

    Really?  I don’t see a discussion anywhere that indicates separate abortion and oral contraceptive studies.  Which would, y’know, be kinda relevant…?  Also, estrogen and progesterone receptors seem to be more commonly affected by oral contraceptives NOT abortion.  Hmmm….

    Also, what the study they are referring to WAS saying was that women who breastfeed will slightly reduce the chances of getting breast cancer. Which means that women who aren’t breastfeeding , which includes women who have had miscarriages, who aren’t pregnant, etc, etc… will have a slightly higher risk of getting breast cancer….  Which meeeaaanns, as we SAID, it is entirely irRELevant to the debate on abortion. 

    And I am certainly curious as to why anti-choicers always assume that peer-reviewed, accredited studies must be completely dismissed, when just one person WHO AGREES WITH THEM denounces the original study they themselves took part in and performs a new study that tabulates completely different results, one which is NOT peer-reviewed and accredited, I feel I HAVE to remind you…?  Maybe because, like YOU, they have an agenda…?

  • andenakker

    For most STDs, they reduce the risk of transmission by 85-95%

    All of the information I referred to about the efficacy of condoms in preventing pregnancy or STI transmission can be found here. http://web.archive.org/web/20080531095926/http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com/table.html

    http://info.k4health.org/globalhandbook/index.shtml

    The link you supplied indicates that “When used consistently and correctly, condom use prevents 80% to 95% of HIV transmission that would have occurred without condoms.”  For other STIs, they will only say, “Condoms reduce the risk of becoming infected with many STIs when used consistently and correctly.”  Even if HIV comprised “most STDs” – which it does not – your numbers would still be a bit more optimistic than those provided by your sources.  And claiming that condoms “reduce the risk” of other STIs says a lot more than people think.  If we can know condoms’ efficacy rates for HIV, we can know them for other STIs.  If the numbers for other STIs were anywhere near as good as they are for HIV, or even reasonably positive (i.e. 70% or better), surely the authors would want us to know what they are.  Yet, no numbers are provided.  Even if a condom decreases the chances of transmission of a particular STI by only 10% or 20%, you can still claim it “reduces the risk.”  The numbers, however, are hardly comforting.

     

    stop linking to ridiculous, biased sources like an opinion piece from the Augustine Club, the Daily Mail (essentially a TABLOID!), and “Fight Planned Parenthood.org.” It’s embarrassing.

    The page from the Augustine Club was not an “opinion piece.”  I have to admit that I’m not that familiar with British publications, but if you’re insinuating that the Daily Mail is merely heavily biased, then that would only put it in the same league as papers like USA Today.  I provided links to Fight Planned Parenthood’s site only to give them proper attribution, not because I expected those who comment here to take everything on their site seriously (much as they should.)

  • crowepps

    The study to which you link is a study of a particular subset of breast cancer cases comprising about 15% of total cases.  The study does not address 85% of breast cancer cases and provides no information on them.

     

    Small studies can be skewed by the fact that they are small – a disease found in 1 person out of 20 can skew the entire study which is why larger studies are done in follow up.  If a similar study of 2000 women also results in only 1 case instead of the expected 100 the results of the smaller study are considered insufficient to prove the case.

     

    There have been a large number of ’cohort’ studies where the health of large numbers of women have been studied (like the California Nurse Study) and in those studies no link was discovered.  It is also necessary to keep in mind that birth control pills as first formulated were much stronger than the ones prescribed now, so that a woman who took birth control in 1955 and is now 55 years old can only give information about the effects of a medication which hasn’t been prescribed in 25 years.

     

    You might find the following scientifically based analysis of this issue informative:

    Given the preponderance of evidence, although it is still possible that there may be a link between abortion and breast cancer, it is unlikely that there is, and, if there is, it’s likely to be very, very small, given that numerous epidemiological studies have failed to uncover it. In this, the evidence for the ABC link is not unlike the state of evidence regarding vaccines and autism. Early studies, not as large, well-designed, or rigorous, suggested that there might be an association, but the larger and better-designed the study, the smaller the OR became until it converged on 1.0. Current evidence does not support the ABC link, and there are enough studies to allow us to conclude either that there probably is none or that it’s very small. That’s as good as it gets in epidemiological studies, which, unfortunately, can never entirely eliminate the possibility of a correlation. They can only conclude that the chance of a significant correlation is very, very low. Moreover, contrary to the inflated claims of some activists, even Joel Brind’s own infamous meta-analysis from 2003 does not show a 30% risk of breast cancer if a young woman has an abortion before the age of 18, much less a virtual certainty that she’ll develop breast cancer if she has a strong family history as well. In fact, Brind’s own work, which is held up as “proof” of an ABC link, only suggests at the most an OR = 1.3 to 1.5, which is nowhere near high enough to produce the 30% lifetime risk of breast cancers claimed by overwrought activists like Dr. Lanfranchi.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2749

    This explanation of the results also does not support your 40% figure:

    In 2009, a case-control study of 187 triple-negative breast cancer patients by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center described a 2.5 increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer in women who used oral contraceptives (OCs) for more than one year compared to women who used OCs for less than one year or never.[17] Interestingly, the increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer was 4.2 among women 40 years of age or younger who used OCs for more than one year, while there was no increased risk for women between the ages of 41 and 45. Also, as duration of OC use increased, triple-negative breast cancer risk increased.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-negative_breast_cancer

    “Increased risk for TNBC was 4.2″ is NOT ’40% of women get cancer’.

    Researchers have also discovered there is a much stronger link between breast cancer and OBESITY.

    http://www.cancernetwork.com/display/article/10165/1552213

    Why aren’t you outside McDonald’s warning women that eating fast food will give them breast cancer?

  • arekushieru

    Really, we’re supposed to take a site, seriously, that can’t seem to distinguish between the more lucrative services (such as pregnancy continuation and contraceptive services) from the less lucrative ones (such as abortion)?  R. O. T. F. L. M. F. F. A. O.  

    Liberal papers tend to be biased in a different way than more Conservative papers.  They tend to question what they write first, before doing so, while Conservative papers tend to just regurgitate everything they’re told.  Too bad you didn’t think that response through, just a teeny little bit more clearly than you should have… eh…?

    Umm, abstinence-only doesn’t provide the numbers, either, OBviously.  They just say sex before marriage = bad.  And you are PROving what we said, aGAIN.  We never said anything about eliminating STI’s, we said reDUCing.  Learn the difference, please.  Btw, numbers will just confuse the younger kids, which is why it’s called AGE-APPROPRIATE…?  

  • plume-assassine

    While it appears that the National Cancer Institute has not changed its position on the ABC link as a result of this study - conducted by one of its own researchers, why that it is is anything but clear.  From my perspective, it seems that they simply chose to ignore it.

     

    I already explained to you in a comment below why Daling’s study is not sufficient enough to demonstrate a link. It has to do with interview-based vs. cohort study research. Cohort studies are more accurate, use a much larger population, and take more time. There is no “ABC link.” The consensus in the scientific community is clear. That you continue to assert the ABC claim in spite of all the evidence to the contrary is as ridiculous to me as “creation scientists” or global warming deniers. It is purely based on dogma. Then again, I am not surprised — there are a lot of science-illiterate people in the general population who do not understand how research is conducted, reviewed, or how results are measured.

  • andenakker

    And I am certainly curious as to why anti-choicers always assume that peer-reviewed, accredited studies must be completely dismissed, when just one person WHO AGREES WITH THEM denounces the original study they themselves took part in and performs a new study that tabulates completely different results, one which is NOT peer-reviewed and accredited, I feel I HAVE to remind you…?  Maybe because, like YOU, they have an agenda…?

    Perhaps you can explain how a researcher who to the best of my knowledge still supports legalized abortion and one who continues to be vilified by pro-lifers (http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php) despite the results of this study could have an “agenda” that is pro-life?

  • arekushieru

    Perhaps because she is being disingenuous…?  Perhaps you’ve heard of the term, before, too?

  • crowepps

    The vast majority of American parents want comprehensive sex ed, even in conservative TEXAS:

    AUSTIN — Eight of 10 Texans want high schools to teach contraception, including the use of condoms and abstinence, according to a statewide opinion poll

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/poll_texans_support_sex_ed_in_schools_98370739.html

     

  • andenakker

    Really, we’re supposed to take a site, seriously, that can’t seem to distinguish between the more lucrative services (such as pregnancy continuation and contraceptive services) from the less lucrative ones (such as abortion)?

    Sorry.  Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director, refuted that one live in front of me just recently.  Abortions are where the money is.

     

    Liberal papers tend to be biased in a different way than more Conservative papers.  They tend to question what they write first, before doing so, while Conservative papers tend to just regurgitate everything they’re told.

    So exactly how are the liberal papers biased?  They may ask the questions, but in the end they won’t print something that conveys a message they don’t like.  In the case of USA Today I have firsthand knowledge of this.

  • andenakker

    Eight of 10 Texans want high schools to teach contraception, including the use of condoms and abstinence,

    That could mean that 7 of 10 prefer that schools teach abstinence and 1 of 10 prefer they teach condoms and artificial contraception, leaving the other 2 preferring schools to stay out of the business of sex ed.

    (It’s kind of silly, but some “comprehensive” sex ed programs, such as Advocates for Youth’s Life Planning Education, actually refer to abstinence as a “form of contraception,” even though abstinence hardly fits the definition of the word contraception.)

  • mechashiva

    Crowepps said exactly what I was going to, actually. The results of this study have been widely misinterpreted by taking them out of context and inflating the statistical correlation coefficient. Unfortunately, you’d have to actually be educated and read the study itself to understand, so it is easy to manipulate the public with biased scientific journalism. This is often how popular opinions about science and medicine are formed (example: parents not having kids vaccinated because they think there’s some link to autism).

  • crowepps

    And how much was Abby Johnson’s speaking fee that time?  The real money isn’t in abortion, or contraception, or even medical care.  It’s in traveling around the country saying whatever people will pay to hear.

  • plume-assassine

     Even if HIV comprised “most STDs” – which it does not – your numbers would still be a bit more optimistic than those provided by your sources. 

    Calm down, I made a typo (oh shit, 5%!!!)… and now you are claiming that my statements are “not supported.”

    Here’s the thing, Kevin– HIV is transmitted through genital secretions, which is the exact same way that most other STD’s (not including genital ulcer diseases/HPV) are spread. That is why the risk-reduction percentages are expected to be the same for “most STD’s.” Latex is an “essentially impermeable barrier” for HIV. It is the same thing for other pathogens. There aren’t exact percentages (like there are with HIV reduction) because there aren’t as many studies about other STD’s as there are about HIV. That doesn’t automatically mean that they are below the percentages of risk-reduction for HIV (or hovering abyssmally around 10-20% as you would like to believe), it just means that more research is necessary to confirm what is already expected.

    More about that here- http://www.thebody.com/content/art17035.html

    With an important excerpt just for you! :

    Similarly, studies have shown that condom use reduces the risk of other STDs. However, the overall strength of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the risk of other STDs is not at the level of that for HIV, primarily because fewer methodologically sound and well-designed studies have been completed that address other STDs. Critical reviews of all studies, with both positive and negative findings (referenced here) point to the limitations in study design in some studies which result in underestimation of condom effectiveness; therefore, the true protective effect is likely to be greater than the effect observed.

     

    Let me know if you need help accessing the studies in the reference page.

     

     I have to admit that I’m not that familiar with British publications, but if you’re insinuating that the Daily Mail is merely heavily biased, then that would only put it in the same league as papers like USA Today.

     

    No, Kevin, I hate to break it to you, but the Daily Mail is actually a tabloid. In the same sense that The Sun is a tabloid. Or The National Enquirer. Or the Weekly World News. You can confirm it for yourself; it’s not that hard.

     

    As for the Augustine Club page and “Fight Planned Parenthood” — those are not scientific sources and there is NO reason for any of us to take them seriously. They – like another commenter said – have an ideological axe to grind.

  • crowepps

    The poll question was: Do you agree that “high school classes on sex education should teach about contraception, such as condoms and other birth control, along with abstinence.”

     

    ALONG WITH abstinence.  Sounds pretty clear to me.  80%, yes, teach about contraception.  That may have something to do with the current curriculum of ‘abstinence only’ contributing to the extremely high teen birthrate in Texas.

     

     The news about Texas in the latest Kids Count report isn’t good. Results out today show more than 54-thousand babies born to girls between 15 and 19-years old in 2007. That’s the third highest rate of teenage births in the country.

    The study from the Annie E-Casey Foundation also ranked Texas 34th for children’s well-being overall. The state ranks near the bottom in the number of children living in poverty.

    http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kera/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1680877/North.Texas/Texas.Ranks.48th.In.Teen.Birth.Rate..and..Midday.Roundup

    ‘Abstinence only doesn’t CONFUSE them’ is a nice theory, but most Americans are PRACTICAL.  When something so obviously also does not STOP them, they decide to try something else.

  • crowepps

     I have to admit that I’m not that familiar with British publications

    A good rule of thumb on British publications is to check for “Page Three Girls”.  If there is a scantily clad dream girl present, it tends to be a tabloid newspaper editorially aimed down to the uneducated sexist male of the lower classes.

  • prochoiceferret

    Why aren’t you outside McDonald’s warning women that eating fast food will give them breast cancer?

     

    Probably because “the McBLTBC link” doesn’t roll off the tongue so easily!

  • prochoiceferret

    While it appears that the National Cancer Institute has not changed its position on the ABC link as a result of this study – conducted by one of its own researchers, why that it is is anything but clear.  From my perspective, it seems that they simply chose to ignore it.

     

    Apparently, so have all the other mainstream cancer-research organizations. You do know what that most likely means, right?

     

    IT’S A PRO-ABORTION CONSPIRACY!!! (KRAKOOM!!) (*cue horror-movie music*)

     

    They’re all conspiring to deny the existence of this risk factor somewhat less significant than that posed by oral contraceptives so that millions of innocent women will have abortions without knowing that they are increasing their chances of breast cancer by some uncertain fraction of a percentage point. The fiends!

  • prochoiceferret

    Which could never sustain a population.

     

    Oh, now I see why you support abstinence-only education! If kids have sex without knowing how to use contraceptives correctly, then of course the female ones are going to get pregnant. Teen pregnancy is rampant in states that are big on abstinence-only, like Texas. We tend to think that’s a bad thing, but since you apparently have this great preoccupation about our population dwindling down to zero, I guess everything down there’s hunky-dory as far as you’re concerned.

  • prochoiceferret

    The numbers, however, are hardly comforting.

     

    You’re right. I guess people are better off not bothering with condoms, then. Those ab-only programs have a point! Condoms get in the way of all the yummy sexual sensations, anyway.

     

    but if you’re insinuating that the Daily Mail is merely heavily biased, then that would only put it in the same league as papers like USA Today.

     

    Judging from some of their front pages, I would say that’s a pretty below-the-belt hit to the fine folks of USA Today.

     

    (Ooh! One of those has a feature named “Why is it clever to be dumb?” Looks like another piece you’ve taken to heart!)

     

    I provided links to Fight Planned Parenthood’s site only to give them proper attribution, not because I expected those who comment here to take everything on their site seriously (much as they should.)

     

    You may as well give in to the urge to post Lifesite links. All “pro-lifers” succumb to its wiles sooner or later.

  • arekushieru

    EsPECially considering that she did a complete 180 in no time flat.  Gee, you really have a hard time figuring out what an agenda is, don’t you…?

  • andenakker

    The poll question was: Do you agree that “high school classes on sex education should teach about contraception, such as condoms and other birth control, along with abstinence.”

    I think that all sex-ed programs should teach about contraception, too, including those that promote only abstinence.  In fact, I believe that most of them do.

     

    Results out today show more than 54-thousand babies born to girls between 15 and 19-years old in 2007. That’s the third highest rate of teenage births in the country.

    Of course, pregnancy rates are only part of the picture.  While teen pregnancy (and out-of-wedlock pregnancy in general) is not a good thing, it is never a permanent condition and is not inherently unhealthy.  The bigger problem is actually STIs (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/07/nations-leaders-gather-uphill-struggle), which are always unhealthy, often permanent and result in much greater health (including mental health) issues.  As demonstrated in the comments above, the only really effective way to combat the spread of STIs is to practice abstinence.  And if teens practice abstinence, it will have a positive effect on teen pregnancy as well.

  • andenakker

    HIV is transmitted through genital secretions, which is the exact same way that most other STD’s (not including genital ulcer diseases/HPV) are spread. That is why the risk-reduction percentages are expected to be the same for “most STD’s.” Latex is an “essentially impermeable barrier” for HIV. It is the same thing for other pathogens.

    Other than HIV, nearly all of the STIs spread by genital secretions are curable, whereas those condoms tend not to protect so well against (e.g. “40% to 50%” for Herpes) are incurable.  It’s like going into battle wearing protective armor that is effective at stopping .22 shells but offers little protection against the .50 caliber bullets most commonly fired by the enemy, and thinking you’re protecting yourself.

     

    There aren’t exact percentages (like there are with HIV reduction) because there aren’t as many studies about other STD’s as there are about HIV.

    So what are we waiting for?  With STIs being as big a problem as they are (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/07/nations-leaders-gather-uphill-struggle), someone ought to be strung up for dropping the ball and not figuring out just how much protection these devices offer.  It’s not like these are new diseases.

  • andenakker

    the Daily Mail is actually a tabloid. In the same sense that The Sun is a tabloid. Or The National Enquirer. Or the Weekly World News.

    Then ignore the source, pretend that I myself wrote exactly what is contained in the article, and critique it from there.

  • mechashiva

    Or, you can actually talk to your partner about STIs before becoming physically intimate. Some couples make a date of getting STI-tested together and sharing results. You can choose to engage in some types of sexual activity, but not others if a person’s STI status is unknown. You can choose to have sex with someone who has no STIs. There are more options than just, “Have sex with anyone,” and, “Have sex with no one.”

     

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Then ignore the source, pretend that I myself wrote exactly what is contained in the article, and critique it from there.

     

    You seem to be under the presumption that we hold you in higher opinion than the Daily Mail. (Or, for that matter, the Weekly World News. You may as well write a puff piece on the latest sighting of Bat Boy.)

  • squirrely-girl

     

    the only really effective way to combat the spread of STIs is to practice abstinence.

    And the only really effective way to combat any communicable disease is for everybody to become hermits and never leave their houses… ever.

     

    And the only really effective way to combat car accidents is for everybody to never drive again.

     

    You do realize that burying your head in the sand doesn’t actually remove the threat… ostriches have had a hard time learning this lesson too. :/

  • crowepps

    I think that all sex-ed programs should teach about contraception, too, including those that promote only abstinence.  In fact, I believe that most of them do.

     

    Unfortunately, the references in Abstinence Only/Wait Until Marriage programs tend to be totally bogus stuff like ‘the birth control pill causes abortions’ or ‘condoms don’t work’ or ‘HIV is a virus and gets right through condoms’.  Studies have shown pretty conclusively that this discourages youth from using condoms/birth control but does NOT discourage them from having sex, making the teen birth rate go UP.

     While teen pregnancy (and out-of-wedlock pregnancy in general) is not a good thing, it is never a permanent condition and is not inherently unhealthy. 

    Teens have a higher rate of miscarriage, which can have permanent negative effects.  Babies born to teens have a higher rate of birth defects, which are permanent.  Children born when their parents are teens are subject to far higher rates of neglect and abuse, which can have permanent negative effects.  Teens who become pregnant are more likely to drop out of school, with severe negative effects on their education and the lifetime poverty rate of both themselves and their children.  And, of course, teens with unwanted pregnancies are far, FAR more likely to have abortions.

  • crowepps

    Actually, the best way to combat the spread of STDs, the way that has been shown in the past over and over again to work very well, is to TREAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INFECTED so that they will stop spreading the disease.  Unfortunately, programs to do precisely that are being cut from State budgets because of the hysterical phobias about sex that seem to motivate conservatives.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Of course, pregnancy rates are only part of the picture.  While teen pregnancy (and out-of-wedlock pregnancy in general) is not a good thing, it is never a permanent condition and is not inherently unhealthy.

    Pregnancy is, inDEED, inherently unhealthy, even moreso in the case of teens (and unwanted pregnancy) as another poster pointed out.  Btw, that makes saying that, “Of course, rape rates are only part of the (whole sexual health) picture.  While teen rape rates (and out-of-wedlock rape rates, in general) is not a good thing, it is never a permanent condition and is not inherently unhealthy,” more fitting since rape is much less physically damaging and is of much shorter duration that pregnancy EVer is or ever WILL be, in the near future.

    Unwanted pregnancy is much harder on one’s mental health and, perhaps arguably, on one’s PHYSical health, than STI’s since pregnancy is the second leading cause of death in women worldwide, behind AIDS, probably only because pregnant women are more vulnerable to AIDS.  

    If teens are taught abstinence-only and DON’T practice abstinence, it will NOT combat the spread of STI’s and will NOT have a positive effect on teen pregnancy, as well, since they are STILL having sex, only this time without the proper knowledge of contraception/sti prevention use. 

  • andenakker

    If teens are taught abstinence-only and DON’T practice abstinence, it will NOT combat the spread of STI’s and will NOT have a positive effect on teen pregnancy, as well, since they are STILL having sex, only this time without the proper knowledge of contraception/sti prevention use.

    Unless they weren’t paying attention, they have the proper knowledge.  They simply chose to ignore it and do otherwise.

  • arekushieru

    Umm, what proper knowledge does abstinence-only provide about contraceptives/sti usage?  That’s right, NOThing more than don’t use them.  Which means they DON’T provide proper knowledge when one is NOT abstinent.  Having trouble with your reading comprehension, again?

  • colleen

    I believe that the ‘proper’ knowledge is to remain a virgin untill marriage, to never use effective contraception and to do your best to make certain your wife never discovers that women are capable of  orgasms much less multiple orgasams and that sex can be an artform. ‘Proper knowledge’ has NOTHING to do with mutual respect or good relationships  which is one of the reasons why the domestic violence and divorce rates amoungst the religious right are so absurdly high.

    Why is Kevin still posting here? Was he not banned?

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Meh.  That’s the reason why I asked him if he was having trouble with reading comprehension, which now seems apparent when you bring that up.  Since he certainly seems unable to comprehend before and after, especially since I asked him what proper knowledge is conveighed in abstinence-only AFTER one has engaged in sexual intercourse.

  • colleen

    since I asked him what proper knowledge is conveighed in abstinence-only AFTER one has engaged in sexual intercourse

    Oh, sorry. I believe that poverty, sufferiing, disease and possible death are the ‘proper’ consequences for engaging in non-religious right approved sex unless you’re a Priest prone to raping small children or a ‘pro-life’ leader .

    I swear, these guys won’t be happy untill they bring back conversion hysteria.

     

  • crowepps

    what proper knowledge is conveighed in abstinence-only AFTER one has engaged in sexual intercourse.

    If you’re not a virgin you need to surrender to Jesus?  But that’s not ‘religion’, just ‘the truth’.

  • crowepps

    Why is Kevin still posting here? Was he not banned?

    This poster is a one-note wonder, obsessed with ‘sex is bad’, and apparently incapable of considering that he might be wrong, but I don’t think his posts are constructed in an abusive manner.  He does not use abusive tactics or personally insult other posters.  While it is necessary to ban people who are uncivil, it isn’t proper to ban people just because their respectfully stated opinions aren’t popular.

  • plume-assassine

    I’m almost certain that it’s the same guy. From what I recall, he was banned for posting coy victim-blaming/rape apologist comments, which was a third strike, after he had been warned previously for personally insulting other posters.

  • crowepps

    If he is the same guy, I’m sure he won’t be able to resist the temptation of becoming abusive to ‘punish’ those who won’t accept his extremist position, and then he’ll be gone again.

     

    The anonymity of the internet does not seem to actually promote ‘freedom’ but instead phoniness and incivility.  It’s really easy to make up a bogus ‘personality’, assign oneself an age, occupation and spirituality that sound attractive, assert that one is living a ’life of moral superiority’ even though that’s totally bogus, and then feel all self-righteous and superior and powerful because you have ‘fooled’ people.  The supposed power is as phony as the posts.

  • plume-assassine

    I wonder about your reading comprehension as well, because this is a lot of repeat stuff that has already been discussed. And I am wondering if you bothered to look at any of the studies on that reference page I made available to you. Do you read any books or journals aside from the Bible or James Dobson’s latest masterpiece?

     

    Anyway, I don’t know about you, but HIV is the nastiest disease you can get. And as you have already seen the percentages, using condoms is an excellent way of preventing transmission.

     

    those condoms tend not to protect so well against … Herpes

    We’ve already been over this. It’s called a) going to get tested with your partner before having any kind of sex, b) not having sex during an outbreak if you already have herpes, and c) still wearing a condom every time.

     

    Your “battle” analogy fails because herpes is not the most common STD. That would be chlamydia, which is curable. It is also spread in the same way that HIV is spread (through secretions) and therefore condoms give the same level of risk reduction/protection as they do for HIV.

     

    So what are we waiting for?

     

    There are many studies about the efficacy of condoms in preventing (non-HIV) STD transmission, but some of these studies have differing results, due to confounding variables that are specific to each individual study. In spite of this, they all report that condoms are exceptionally good (and statistically significant) for risk reduction and preventing transmission. Here are some to start with:

    http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2007/10000/Self_Reported_Condom_Use_Is_Associated_With.18.aspx

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15356939

    http://sti.bmj.com/content/82/3/265.1.extract

     

    And from (here) “There is no definitive study about condom effectiveness for all STDs. Definitive data are lacking on the degree of risk reduction that latex condoms provide for some STDs; for others, the evidence is considered inconclusive. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states, ‘It is important to note that the lack of data about the level of condom effectiveness indicates that more research is needed — not that latex condoms do not work.’”

     

    Furthermore, most of the focus remains on HIV/AIDs, because it is arguably one of the most deadly and devastating diseases of our time. The same cannot be said for diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, or even herpes.

     

    What this comes down to is that there is even more reason to use condoms if one chooses to have sex and to get tested with your partner– even if you are in a long-term monogamous relationship, because marriage or monogamy do not guarantee safe sex.

  • crowepps

    marriage or monogamy do not guarantee safe sex.

    Amen.  The only times I ever had STDs I got them from my husband.

     

    It doesn’t do a bit of good for WOMEN to be monogamous when men aren’t.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “This poster is a one-note wonder, obsessed with ‘sex is bad’,”

    ~Crowepps, I laughed when I read this, because it reminded me of a similar statement I read and laughed at earlier this year. Maybe you will think it is funny also. It is talking about Saint Jerome

    “Throughout his life Jerome never stopped railing against women. He believed in an ascetic life. He believed this was the one way to not think about sex, (although he did write about what he did not think about). Even his bishop counseled him about his obsession with sex. He turned on his bishop and attacked him, calling his bishop ignorant, brutish, wicked, well-matched to the worldly flock, and the unskillful pilot of a crazy bark ship. When someone is obsessed with sin as much as he was, it betrays, at least, a sick mind.” This came out of the book “Christian Woman Set Free”, by “Gene Edwards.”

  • crowepps

    Distinguishing the difference between sainthood and insanity is pretty difficult, I’m not even sure there is a distinguishable difference.  Sainthood seems to have a lot more to do with being using to the political efforts of the religion than anything actually useful.

     

    Every religion seems to have an ascetic branch that insists that the ‘world is evil’ and the ‘body is evil’ therefore enjoying food, drink, comfort, sex, life is wrong.  It is important to have a place in every social structure to harbor those with obsessive compulsive disorder, but it becomes dangerous when that subset is allowed to insist everybody else also has to do their ‘rituals’ and maintain a bizarre ‘purity’ and that those who won’t conform are ‘spoiling things for everybody’ and deserve punishment.

     

    “I love mankind.  It’s people I can’t stand.”  Lucy VanPelt

  • ahunt

    Oh heck…Crowepps….serves you right for not practicing safe sex with THE MAN YOU MARRIED.

     

    No really.

     

    (couldn’t resist, C….because irony is rarely lost on you.)

  • andenakker

    HIV is the nastiest disease you can get. And as you have already seen the percentages, using condoms is an excellent way of preventing transmission.

    Agreed that it’s the nastiest STI that you can get.  While I’m not sure there hasn’t been some political meddling with the numbers, I’ll accept that condoms are 80-95% effective in preventing the transmission of HIV, at least where no other STI is present.  I haven’t seen any claims that this level of protection holds up when another STI, such as Herpes, is present.  In fact, based on the physical manifestations of Herpes that make condoms less effective against it than HIV (i.e. its sores often appear outside the area protected by a condom), I’d say that it would be difficult for condoms to achieve that level of efficacy with HIV when other STIs – especially those like Herpes that manifest themselves on other parts of the body – are present.

     

    “those condoms tend not to protect so well against … Herpes”

    We’ve already been over this. It’s called a) going to get tested with your partner before having any kind of sex, b) not having sex during an outbreak if you already have herpes, and c) still wearing a condom every time.

    Right now, one in five American adults has Herpes.  a)  If you and your partner go and get tested (and I’m doing my math right), there is a 30% chance that at least one of you will have Herpes.  And that could rise to 70% in only 15 years if present trends continue (http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/herpes_explode_by_2025.shtml).  b) The higher risk of contracting HIV by someone with Herpes exists even when they’re not experiencing an outbreak (http://std.about.com/od/herpes/f/hsvtreatmentHiv.htm).  Asymptomatic virus shedding happens on about 5% of the days of the year, which means that on average about 1 1/2 days/month a person with Herpes and no current outbreak is still capable of passing it on to their partner.

     

    Your “battle” analogy fails because herpes is not the most common STD. That would be chlamydia, which is curable.

    Estimates are that 1 in 25 adults have Chlamydia at any one time.  1 in 5 have Herpes.  There are are about 6 times more new Chlamydia cases than Herpes cases in a year, but Herpes sticks around a lot longer (like forever), contributing to an ever-growing infected population.  The analogy holds.

     

    they all report that condoms are exceptionally good (and statistically significant) for risk reduction and preventing transmission.

    “Statistically significant” means only that the difference in STI transmission rates between those who use condoms and those who don’t is great enough that it isn’t likely to be due to normal variation.  It has no implications for just how effective condoms are.  Likewise, “exceptionally good for risk reduction” only means that they are very good at producing statistically significant results.

     

    Furthermore, most of the focus remains on HIV/AIDs, because it is arguably one of the most deadly and devastating diseases of our time. The same cannot be said for diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, or even herpes.

    Except that having any of those STIs increases the risk of contracting HIV, something that is starting to concern experts:  “it seems increasingly likely that increased syphilis infections – and other STDs such as gonorrhea – are exacerbating the HIV epidemic which itself remains a national health emergency.” (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/10/07/nations-leaders-gather-uphill-struggle)

     

    What this comes down to is that there is even more reason to use condoms if one chooses to have sex and to get tested with your partner– even if you are in a long-term monogamous relationship, because marriage or monogamy do not guarantee safe sex.

    Monogamy does guarantee that any STIs you have won’t spread beyond you and your partner.  Unfortunately, that’s not very comforting to a couple facing the situation where one has an incurable STI and the other doesn’t, who may have some very difficult decisions to make.

  • crowepps

    Practicing ‘safe sex’ would have made it kind of difficult to get the two pregnancies started, though.  I’ve got to say, the hysteria about STDs is getting kind of old.  A herpes virus is also the cause of ‘cold sores’ on the lips which affect approx. 25% of the population.  Anybody aware of organized groups asserting that people who have cold sores should be marginalized so they don’t ‘spread’ their loathsome disease?  Some people even get genital herpes by moving the virus from their own lips to their crotch during toileting.

  • arekushieru

    …just because something is only ’”exceptionally good for risk reduction” [because that] means that they are very good at producing statistically significant results’ means we shouldn’t attempt to reduce the rates at ALL??  Or, is it just that you believe that Comprehensive Sex Ed doesn’t tell us about these things, while abstinence-only does?  Yeah, a lot of people deny reality just like you do.  Since I’ve NEVER heard of a case where statistically significant = not at all.  TyVm.

  • andenakker

    I’ve NEVER heard of a case where statistically significant = not at all.

    And I’ve never made such a claim.

    One of the links provided by la plume to nih.gov indicates that, “Although condoms are not 100% effective, partial protection can substantially reduce the spread of STIs within populations.”  Again, “substantially” doesn’t necessarily mean a high percentage – 30% can be considered “substantial.”  More importantly, however, “reducing the spread” doesn’t mean “reversing the trend.”  In other words, all condoms can do is reduce the rate at which these diseases spread, not change the fact that ever-increasing numbers of people will have them.  So what that means is that if everyone starts using condoms perfectly, perhaps only my youngest son will be faced with the prospect that 50% of the women available for him to marry will carry Herpes, rather than this being true for all three of my sons – hardly comforting.

     

    is it just that you believe that Comprehensive Sex Ed doesn’t tell us about these things, while abstinence-only does?

    I’m not aware of any “comprehensive” sex ed programs that tell teens that condom use cannot actually reduce the percentage of the population that has STDs, especially incurable ones.  I’m not even sure that all abstinence-only programs do.  The fact is simply not that widely known or discussed – another recent article on this site calls it the “silent epidemic.”  The tragedy of “comprehensive” sex ed programs, however, is that they erroneously present abstinence and sex using artificial contraceptives as equally valid choices in preventing STIs, such as in Advocates for Youth’s Life Planning Education, which states, “sexually transmitted diseases should be prevented by abstaining from sexual intercourse or by using contraceptives, including latex condoms.”

  • princess-rot

    To me, “sexual freedom” means that my wife and I are free to engage in sexual intercourse whenever we mutually agree to it, and that we are both committed to accepting whatever results from that act.  It also means that we’re free from the effects (especially side effects) of any concoctions or contraptions that might reduce its meaning and power.  I honestly cannot conceive of how anyone could claim this kind of freedom outside of marriage.

     

    So, basically, what this boils down to is that sperm and PIV sex are powerful and meaningful. Any attempt to subvert these things either by not being married, not having PIV, being homosexual, not having sex exclusively for procreation, or using birth control so PIV doesn’t knock you up is subverting male domination and ownership of the female body and reaffirming a woman’s place in life as inferior to men, which is wrong, wrong, wrong according to fundnuts.

     

    Wax eloquently about “freedom” all you like, it’s still only “what about the men”.

  • prochoiceferret

    More importantly, however, “reducing the spread” doesn’t mean “reversing the trend.”  In other words, all condoms can do is reduce the rate at which these diseases spread, not change the fact that ever-increasing numbers of people will have them.

     

    Isn’t it awful that telling people to use condoms is the only thing we can do to address STDs?

     

    So what that means is that if everyone starts using condoms perfectly, perhaps only my youngest son will be faced with the prospect that 50% of the women available for him to marry will carry Herpes, rather than this being true for all three of my sons – hardly comforting.

     

    Indeed, if you don’t do something to stop all those females from sullying themselves with sex, there won’t be any suitable semen-receptacles for your son to break in!

     

    I’m not aware of any “comprehensive” sex ed programs that tell teens that condom use cannot actually reduce the percentage of the population that has STDs, especially incurable ones.

     

    Because it’s not the concern of the teens in question to reduce the percentage of the population that has STDs. Unless they’re contemplating a career in public health.

     

    The tragedy of “comprehensive” sex ed programs, however, is that they erroneously present abstinence and sex using artificial contraceptives as equally valid choices in preventing STIs,

     

    Incorrect. Comprehensive sex-ed programs present abstinence and the use of suitable barrier methods like condoms as options for preventing the transmission of STDs, along with various forms of contraceptives as options to prevent pregnancy (though not necessarily STDs).

     

    It seems to me that you could use a remedial course in comprehensive sex ed.

  • andenakker

    Isn’t it awful that telling people to use condoms is the only thing we can do to address STDs?

    Actually, it’s not, since, as you said later: “Comprehensive sex-ed programs present abstinence…for preventing the transmission of STDs”.

     

    it’s not the concern of the teens in question to reduce the percentage of the population that has STDs. Unless they’re contemplating a career in public health.

    To use a response typical of others commenting on this site, maybe they are.  Regardless, reducing the percentage of the population that has STDs ought to be a concern of those foisting this misinformation on teens.  Unless their concern for the overall health of the public is only ostensible?  Or did I misread them altogether and they’re not even pretending to be concerned about public health?

  • mechashiva

    One of the most important things to keep in mind with public health… you have to work within the parameters of reasonable expectations. It is unreasonable to expect the population to shift toward a primarily abstinent lifestyle. It doesn’t matter if public health would be better if people would just stop having sex with more than one person in their lifetime… that’s not going to happen.

     

    So, stop beating a dead horse, and pay more attention to what CAN be done. People are more likely to use condoms than they are to abstain. People are more likely to get tested regularly than they are to abstain. They’ll be receptive to programs encouraging that kind of behavior, while they will dismiss the ridiculous expectations put forth in abstinence-only programs.

  • prochoiceferret

    Unless their concern for the overall health of the public is only ostensible?  Or did I misread them altogether and they’re not even pretending to be concerned about public health?

     

    You’re right. If they really were concerned about public health, they would fit teens with long-term chastity belts that would be unlocked once they find a lifelong sexual partner. Because allowing people to make their own choices is insignificant next to the goal of reducing the prevalence of STDs!

  • andenakker

    you have to work within the parameters of reasonable expectations

    I think it’s quite reasonable to expect people to abstain until marriage, because I know so many who’ve done it.  It’s certainly far more reasonable than thinking that condoms will buy you anything but a bit of time when it comes to contracting STIs.

  • crowepps

    First, you know so many who SAY they’ve waited.  Whether or not their claims are true is something you cannot know.

     

    Second, studies consistently come up with results showing that only 5% of Americans reserve sex exclusively to marriage.  While it is possible that you and your friends all waited, you are not ‘normal’ but rather members of a tiny minority.

    Dec. 20, 2006 — Almost all Americans have sex before marrying, according to premarital sex research that shows such behavior is the norm in the U.S. and has been for the past 50 years.

    The new study shows that by age 20, 75% of Americans have had premarital sex. That number rises to 95% by age 44.

    Even among those who abstained from sex until 20 or beyond, 81% have had premarital sex by 44, the survey shows.

    The results showed that the vast majority of Americans have sex before marrying. For example, the 2002 survey showed:

    • By age 20, 77% of men and women had had sex, including 75% who had had premarital sex.
    • By age 44, 95% of men and women had had premarital sex; 97% of those who had ever had sex had had premarital sex.
    • Among those who had abstained from sex until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

    Despite public opinion that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, researchers say the number of Americans having premarital sex hasn’t changed much since the 1940s.

    Among women who turned 15 between 1964 and 1993, 91% had had premarital sex before age 30, compared with 82% of women who turned 15 between 1954 and 1963.

    In addition, nearly nine out of 10 women who turned 15 between 1954 and 1963 had had unmarried sex by age 44.

    Researchers say that though the likelihood that Americans will have sex before marriage hasn’t changed significantly since the 1950s, people are now waiting longer to get married. So they are sexually active and unmarried for longer than in the past.

    http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20061220/premarital-sex-the-norm-in-america?src=RSS_PUBLIC

  • crowepps

    thinking that condoms will buy you anything but a bit of time when it comes to contracting STIs.

    The thing is, if people are TESTED and it is confirmed that they do not have STI’s, then there isn’t any risk of catching anything at all.  You seem to take it for granted that people have dozens of partners and that MOST of those partners will already be infected.  Actually, the percentage of Americans infected with STI’s before the age of 45 is about 20%.

    http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/FAQ.html#STIs

    Condoms help protect against the 1 in 5 chance that your partner has an STI.  Testing, of course, can rule it out altogether.

  • prochoiceferret

    I think it’s quite reasonable to expect people to abstain until marriage, because I know so many who’ve done it.

     

    I’m sure there are many members of NAMBLA who would agree with your reasoning.

  • andenakker

    While it is possible that you and your friends all waited, you are not ‘normal’ but rather members of a tiny minority.

    I never claimed we were in the norm, only that waiting until marriage is a reasonable thing to do, and a reasonable thing to expect someone else to do as well.  It has to be, because the contrary is not reasonable – i.e. it is not reasonable to have sex outside of marriage like it’s reasonable to get an education before looking for a job.

  • prochoiceferret

    It has to be, because the contrary is not reasonable – i.e. it is not reasonable to have sex outside of marriage like it’s reasonable to get an education before looking for a job.

     

    Yes, andenakker, premarital sex is by no means reasonable, even though 95%+ of the population does it. Neither is divorce, childlessness, anal sex, masturbation, and pooping. Why can’t everyone be as reasonable as you?

  • arekushieru

    …to expect that someone who doesn’t ever WANT to get married (such as myself, due mainly to patriarchal attitudes such as yours) to never have sex?  I am non-sexual (meaning uninterested in sex), but, I assure you, I have MANY friends who DON’T want to get married, yet are VERY interested in sex.  Whoops, what was that about it being a reasonable thing to expect someone else to do?  Just blew that theory out of the water, eh?

  • arekushieru

    Actually, it’s not, since, as you said later: “Comprehensive sex-ed programs present abstinence…for preventing the transmission of STDs”.

     

    You just proved MY point.  Thanks!  Compared to abstinence-only ed, Comprehensive Sex Ed presents one MORE option to reduce STI’s.  AND they at least MENtion the failure rates, as opPOSEd to Ab-only.  AS I said. 

    To use a response typical of others commenting on this site, maybe they are.  Regardless, reducing the percentage of the population that has STDs ought to be a concern of those foisting this misinformation on teens.  Unless their concern for the overall health of the public is only ostensible?  Or did I misread them altogether and they’re not even pretending to be concerned about public health?

    How are these two things related, AT ALL???  One population is alREADY infected, the other population is not.  This is about preVENtion.  Maybe you should learn the difference between it and TREATment, next time…?

  • plume-assassine

    It may be reasonable to expect yourself to remain abstinent until marriage, but to expect that of everyone else is ridiculous. That would be pushing your sexuality and sexual standards on others. There is a lot of sexual variation among people, and we certainly do not all have the same sexuality as you. What may be right and good for you may not be right for others. There’s nothing wrong with that because sexuality is not tied to one’s morality.

     

    And I’m guessing you’ve never heard the phrase, “you should test drive the car before you buy it…”

  • arekushieru

    EsPECially considering people’s idea to promote sex for procreational purposes only could, POSsibly, be one reason that makes me GLAD I don’t have any interest in sex.

  • arekushieru

    We never said anything about condoms reducing the numbers alREADY infected.  Oy….

    Btw, would you tell your two sons, in that scenario, that DIDn’t have Herpes that it wasn’t comforting that they don’t…?  How sad.

    You also seem to be quite forgetful: Of what you just said earlier, that condoms reduce the incidence of STI’s.  And, now, of providing evidence for your case that they DON’T reduce STI’s.  Ooops…?

  • plume-assassine

    perhaps only my youngest son will be faced with the prospect that 50% of the women available for him to marry will carry Herpes

    oh no, not enough Grade A livestock available for your sons’ precious seed. God forbid that he fall in love with someone in spite of their STD status or sexual history! Those foul, impure women don’t deserve him!

  • beenthere72

    it’s reasonable to get an education before looking for a job.

     

    Derp.   So then how is it unreasonable to get comprehensive sex-EDUCATION before having SEX?

     

    You really need to get off this ‘until marriage’ thing.   We’ve already explained a million times that not everybody gets married.  It is UNreasonable for you to expect EVERYBODY to get married, let alone wait until marriage to have sex.

     

  • andenakker

    Compared to abstinence-only ed, Comprehensive Sex Ed presents one MORE option to reduce STI’s.  AND they at least MENtion the failure rates

    I’ve not seen where “comprehensive” sex education programs mention failure rates, except perhaps in the case of HIV, and even there you have to figure out the failure rates for yourself from the “success” rates they give you.

     

    One population is alREADY infected, the other population is not.  This is about preVENtion.

    If the “prevention” being used is effective, then as more young people grow into adults, the greatly reduced numbers of infected parties among them should bring the overall percentage of adults who carry STIs down, even if none of the adults who currently have them are ever cured.  There is no evidence that condoms could be effective enough to accomplish this, however.

  • prochoiceferret

    I’ve not seen where “comprehensive” sex education programs mention failure rates, except perhaps in the case of HIV, and even there you have to figure out the failure rates for yourself from the “success” rates they give you.

     

    Comprehensive sex ed is usually taught after the kids have learned addition and subtraction, so calculating (100 – successRate) isn’t particularly difficult for them. Of course, I can’t speak for you.

     

    If the “prevention” being used is effective, then as more young people grow into adults, the greatly reduced numbers of infected parties among them should bring the overall percentage of adults who carry STIs down, even if none of the adults who currently have them are ever cured.

     

    Maybe one day, when most adults have had quality comprehensive sex ed taught to them in their younger years, we’ll get to that point.

     

    There is no evidence that condoms could be effective enough to accomplish this, however.

     

    So I guess there’s no point in using them.

  • crowepps

    It’s my understanding that when something is ’reasonable’, it is ‘sensible. not extreme, immoderate, or excessive’.  Therefore, your use of the word ‘reasonable’  is questionable.

     

    ‘People should be virgins until they meet another virgin and then never have sex with any other partner in their entire lives because there’s a risk of DISEASE’ is not reasonable.  It is an extreme view, immoderate and excessive.  It is no  more ‘reasonable’ than ‘People should be required to drive cars at speeds below 15 miles per hour AT ALL TIMES because at higher speeds there’s a risk of INJURY’.

     

    The ordinary process of living exposes people to all kinds of risks all the time.  People who take ordinary sensible precautions against those risks live healthier lives.  It is ‘reasonable’ of a government promoting public health to be sure people are aware of what are known to be ordinary precautions.

     

    It is ‘reasonable’ for government to spread the message ‘avoid drinking more than 3 drinks at one time’ or ‘take a cab if you’re going out partying’ or ‘don’t mix medication and alcohol’ but it would be unreasonable for government to take the attitude ’15% of the population thinks it’s immoral to drink alcohol at all, so we’re not going to FACILITATE that.  No advice available here about how the 85% who drink alcohol can be safer, because if they want to be 100% safe they shouldn’t drink at all.’

  • andenakker

    People should be virgins until they meet another virgin and then never have sex with any other partner in their entire lives because there’s a risk of DISEASE’ is not reasonable.

    You’ve got it backwards.  I don’t need to provide a reason for avoiding something that is not necessary.  For example, I don’t need a reason to avoid skydiving, driving my car 100MPH, or shooting my neighbor’s cat.  If I wanted to do something thrilling but risky, however, like climbing Mt. Everest or having sex with someone other than my wife, then I would need a reason to do it.  If I could not come up with a reason that shows that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs and the risks, at least subjectively (though preferably objectively as well), then what I wanted to do could not be considered reasonable.

     

    The ordinary process of living exposes people to all kinds of risks all the time.  People who take ordinary sensible precautions against those risks live healthier lives.

    That’s reasonable, as long as those things are necessary or the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

     

    It is ‘reasonable’ of a government promoting public health to be sure people are aware of what are known to be ordinary precautions.

    It’s also reasonable to dissuade people from unnecessary activities where objectively the benefits couldn’t possibly outweigh the costs and risks involved.

  • crowepps

    avoiding something that is not necessary

    Most humans absolutely do find satisfying their sex drive ‘necessary’ and believe the ‘pleasure’ from doing so far outweighs the risks or costs.

     

    Your proposition is doomed to failure, unless you’re promoting the idea that the government should chemically castrate everybody until they get married and want children.

     

    Oh, but that wasn’t your idea was it.  You don’t actually want to make having sex illegal or take steps to monitor people so they don’t have an opportunity to have sex.  You just want to make sure they’re ignorant so that if they do have sex, they get horrible diseases or become pregnant, because, by golly, it will SERVE THEM RIGHT!

  • squirrely-girl

    …we all realize that sex/libido as a basic life function is obviously outside the realm of your consciousness and beliefs. So it’s okay… nobody here is going to make you become a “sex crazed liberal” if you don’t want to be… we just expect the same in return. Seriously. While sex is apparently unnecessary to YOU, plenty of other people disagree. Guess what?! Your opinion is no more important than that any of those other people… well… actually… considering that your position is in the minority, your opinion may actually count for less. Hmmmmm…

  • ack

    Beyond expecting people to have sex with consenting partners…

    YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S SEX LIVES.

  • ack

    But linked to a Jezebel article that did a much better job than I can do on the fly. Yet there was never any response…

  • ack

    The poster continuously talks about how sex outside of marriage is wrong and dangerous. About how people with untreatable STIs should never have sex again. I’m not sure how he feels about treatable STIs, but there’s an undercurrent of hostility toward anyone who has experienced an infection.

     

    I’d be insulted as a woman who’s had (GASP!) multiple partners. I’d be insulted as a woman who has had sex with men who’ve had (OH NOES!) herpes or treated chlamydia. But the thing is…

     

    I have repeatedly, and without response, expressed the belief that he does not get to have an opinion, or an expectation, about other people’s sex lives.

     

    Is he abusive? Maybe not. But he is certainly trying to be insulting. And Mr. Judgey-Pants, you have yet to present a realistic argument that you can win.

  • colleen

     He has a penis and God gave him dominion over women. We’re just breeding livestock,  we aren’t entitled to an opinion and we’re certainly not entitled to disagree with his righetousness.

    I believe that for most of the religious right being aggressively ‘pro-life’ and socially conservative is their substitute for a joyful social and sex life. Where else would such men be able to discuss human sexuality with strange women for free and surrounded by the patina of fake respectability.

  • crowepps

    Just happened to read this right before I read your comment:  (and, yes, it’s about Nazis, but it’s a good case in point)

    It portrays the Nazis’ dual approach of making the German masses feel included in their movement while excluding those whom they had identified as enemies, such as Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled.

    Nazi exclusion policies are is driven home by photos of Jewish deportations and of hospital patients being taken away for euthanasia — exhibited alongside an order signed by Hitler for the “incurably ill” to be granted “mercy death” — along with a note from a German company about equipment being supplied to the Auschwitz death camp.

    Such exhibits help emphasize the fact that “the persecution of political opponents, the persecution of Jewish fellow citizens, the deportation of Jewish citizens took place in front of everyone’s eyes,” said Thamer, a history professor at the University of Muenster.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101014/ap_on_en_ot/eu_germany_hitler_exhibition

    (Bolding added)

    Attempts are made to force Muslims to dig up their dead, pork is smeared on Muslim buildings, gay teens are killing themselves, gay adults are being attacked by hoodlums, pregnant women are being jailed, women seeking legal birth control are harassed, doctors are shot, and this is all taking “place in front of everyone’s eyes” and being EXCUSED and MINIMIZED because those people, the argument is plainly made, shouldn’t be considered part of ‘America’.  America is exclusively the province of STRAIGHT WHITE CHRISTIAN MEN and the women/children under their control — nobody else.

     

    And then they wave the Bible around, talk about their ‘religious freedom’, and the media CAVES and talks about ‘both sides of the controversy’. 

  • andenakker

    Your proposition is doomed to failure, unless you’re promoting the idea that the government should chemically castrate everybody until they get married and want children.

    You’re like a guy I used to ride snowmobiles with – his throttle was always either wide open or completely closed, never in the middle.  For someone who decries extremes, you seem to have a hard time contemplating public policy that lies somewhere between doing nothing at all and going utterly overboard.

     

    we all realize that sex/libido as a basic life function is obviously outside the realm of your consciousness and beliefs.

    As well as outside the realm of common sense.

     

    You just want to make sure they’re ignorant so that if they do have sex, they get horrible diseases or become pregnant, because, by golly, it will SERVE THEM RIGHT!

    No amount of knowledge will save them from the diseases, but at least pregnancy isn’t permanent.  Nature itself suggests the correct behavior.  (And some think there’s no intelligent design behind it all.)

     

    Your opinion is no more important than that any of those other people… well… actually… considering that your position is in the minority, your opinion may actually count for less.

    Actually, since I’m not merely appealing to people’s base instincts and certainly not trying to win a popularity contest, I’d say my opinion carries a little more weight than that of some others around here.  But that’s just my opinion.

  • arekushieru

    You’re like a guy I used to ride snowmobiles with – his throttle was always either wide open or completely closed, never in the middle.  For someone who decries extremes, you seem to have a hard time contemplating public policy that lies somewhere between doing nothing at all and going utterly overboard.

    Seriously, teaching people about condoms and condom use is going overboard?  Who knew???

    As well as outside the realm of common sense.

    No, I’LL tell you what’s outside the realm of common sense, expecting that YOUR belief about common sense is the TRUE version.

    No amount of knowledge will save them from the diseases, but at least pregnancy isn’t permanent.  Nature itself suggests the correct behavior.  (And some think there’s no intelligent design behind it all.)

    Really, then why do we have ANYthing to do with doctors, at ALL???  Hmmm…?  What does that have to do with intelligent design?  Oh, that’s right, NOthing….

    Actually, since I’m not merely appealing to people’s base instincts and certainly not trying to win a popularity contest, I’d say my opinion carries a little more weight than that of some others around here.  But that’s just my opinion.

    No, you’re appealing to your own little fantasy and trying to get as many people infected with disease as possible.  I think that should carry LESS weight, but, then, that’s just my opinion, eh…? 

  • plume-assassine

    LOL. You are so ridiculous.

    I don’t need a reason to avoid skydiving, driving my car 100MPH, or shooting my neighbor’s cat.

    All of these risky, thrill-seeking activities are outside of the realm of normal behavior. Having sex with more than 1 person in your lifetime is NOT outside the realm of normal behavior and is certainly NOT risky or indicative of “thrill-seeking.” You cannot compare climbing Mount Everest or shooting your neighbor’s cat to “premarital” sex/having more than 1 sexual partner. That is the most hysterical nonsense I have seen from you yet.

     

    The only way this comparison of yours could work is if you are talking about someone who repeatedly engages in unprotected sex with random strangers. (And even then, such behavior would still not be nearly as extreme as sky-diving or driving at 100mph or shooting your neighbor’s cat.)

     

    There is no “objectively right” choice when it comes to one’s sexuality. As I have been saying, sexuality and morality are two different spheres. That you think you have any right or position to judge others on their private, sexual choices is crude, arrogant, and demeaning.

     

    We are not telling you how to have sex, or to go out and have multiple sexual partners, or forcing you to use condoms if you wish to be so “morally” and ignorantly opposed to them. Enjoy your ascetic asexual bubble, but do not try to tell others how to live their life as though you are a holy example that we must all emulate.

  • arekushieru

    I see even now you’re still waffling.  First you say subjective benefits are admissible then you say they aren’t.

    Btw, I would say subjective benefits outweigh the risks of sexually transmitted infections.  Never heard of oxytocin’s have you?  Occur 100% of the time.  STI’s, not so much.

    Sorry that you lost that argument.

  • andenakker

    I would say subjective benefits outweigh the risks of sexually transmitted infections.  Never heard of oxytocin’s have you?  Occur 100% of the time.  STI’s, not so much.

    Sorry that you lost that argument.

    If STIs’ effects disappeared in minutes or hours like oxytocin’s do, then you might have won it.  Really.

  • arekushieru

    And, like I said, STI’s don’t occur 100% of the time.  STI’s don’t occur 100% of the time, some of THOSE do disappear relatively quickly = obviously risks of STI’s outweigh benefits of Oxytocins…?  Sorry, nope.

  • andenakker

    YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S SEX LIVES.

    Regardless of whether it lines up with what you or I think is right, society does view some behavior as proper and some as not, and people are generally expected to behave properly.  In some cases this means that a particular behavior is always wrong no matter where it happens, and in others it means that behaviors that are proper in some contexts may not be proper in others.  For example, while trimming your toenails is perfectly fine when you do it at home in your bathroom, society would frown on someone who decided to do it in the middle of the bread aisle at the supermarket.  Sex is like that.  Obviously sex is viewed by the vast majority of people – religious and not – as perfectly permissible within marriage for the purposes of procreation and mutual pleasure.  But outside that context the agreement on its propriety is far from universal.  In fact, as recently as 1969, 75% of American adults said that sex outside of marriage was wrong.

    Society’s views can and do change, though, as they obviously have regarding sex outside of marriage.  And if they can move in one direction, they can move in the other.  It’s my job (and I hope yours) to influence public opinion in such a way that society expects behaviors that are healthy rather than destructive.  I do this through reasonable arguments based on largely observable facts.  There are those who argue against me, and that’s fine.  Then there are those who don’t like what I say but can’t really counter my arguments, so they resort to calling me things like “misogynist” and trying to make it sound as if my arguments are only relevant from a religious perspective, in the hope that they can get others to ignore me.

  • prochoiceferret

    Society’s views can and do change, though, as they obviously have regarding sex outside of marriage.  And if they can move in one direction, they can move in the other.  It’s my job (and I hope yours) to influence public opinion in such a way that society expects behaviors that are healthy rather than destructive.

     

    Yes, which is why we work to teach behaviors (via comprehensive sex ed) that help keep sexually active people healthy in mind and body.

     

    I do this through reasonable arguments based on largely observable facts.

     

    It would be nice if you did that here, instead of spout nonsense about how the 95% of the population that has engaged in non-marital sex should knock it off and adopt your tiny-minority view of sexual morality.

     

    There are those who argue against me, and that’s fine.  Then there are those who don’t like what I say but can’t really counter my arguments, so they resort to calling me things like “misogynist” and trying to make it sound as if my arguments are only relevant from a religious perspective, in the hope that they can get others to ignore me.

     

    Oh, I don’t think people need any help from us to ignore your silly arguments.

  • beenthere72

    It’s my job (and I hope yours) to influence public opinion in such a way that society expects behaviors that are healthy rather than destructive.

     

    Can you please go do your “job” somewhere else?  

  • princess-rot

    Do y’all know what I’m getting from all this abstain-until-marriage-PIV-happy-pro-ignorance arguing?

     

    Conquest. Domination.

     

    “You poke it, you own it. That’s the end of it.”

  • squirrely-girl

    In fact, as recently as 1969, 75% of American adults said that sex outside of marriage was wrong.

     

    Are you seriously using social views from the 60s to make your point? In medicine and academia at least, you have to have a really good justification why you’re referencing material outside of the last decade otherwise it’s just considered poor scholarship. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Are you seriously using social views from the 60s to make your point? In medicine and academia at least, you have to have a really good justification why you’re referencing material outside of the last decade

     

    Well, hey, Mad Men is pretty popular these days…

  • crowepps

     It’s my job

     

    It’s your JOB?  Really?  Who is paying you to police public morality and shame others?  Are you a Pastor or Priest?  Do you receive donations from other sexophobes that support you?  Does promoting fringe ideas like this bring in a decent living?  What credentials do you have?  Doctorate in Psychiatry?  Psychology? Sociology?  Public Health?

     

    If you’re not educated and qualified as an expert, not actually getting paid and are just some guy who likes to spout off on the internet, sorry to tell you, but that isn’t really your ‘job’, like most busybodies, you’re a VOLUNTEER.

    Prig:  Someone with a precise sense of morals but no sense of proportion.

  • crowepps

     you seem to have a hard time contemplating public policy that lies somewhere between doing nothing at all and going utterly overboard.

    Let’s see, “doing nothing at all” would be abstinence only education, right?

     

    And “going utterly overboard” would be actually doing something so people would BE abstinent.

     

    So to sum up, your ‘plan’ is to censor full and accurate information because nobody needs it if they aren’t married, and since the only reason people should get married is to have children so nobody needs to know it then either!

     

    We can return to the ‘traditional’ methods of telling everybody to not have sex knowing the whole time that it isn’t going to be effective, excuse the men’s behavior because it’s the women’s ’responsibility’ to ‘guard their chastity’ by not leaving the house, then label ’unmarried mothers’ as sluts who aren’t moral enough to raise children.  That makes it possible to ‘harvest’ the resulting babies and sort them into two groups, the healthiest white CUTE ones to be adopted by ‘good families’ and the rest off to ‘traditional’ orphanages with a traditional 95% mortality rate.

     

    We tried that.  It was pretty much a disaster all the way around for women and children.  But then, that doesn’t matter, since you seem to feel that the way to promote morality is make everyone as miserable as possible.  Did you know that the Puritans used to whip children for laughing on Sunday?  Because the little tykes were SUPPOSED to spend the whole day agonizing over how unworthy they were of God’s love and their likely damnation.  You’d fit right in.

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing  over and over again and expecting different results.  Albert Einstein

  • heather-corinna

    In fact, as recently as 1969, 75% of American adults said that sex outside of marriage was wrong.

    …and yet it’s been well-documented that even in the 1940′s, the vast majority of Americans were having sex premaritally and extramaritally regardless.

     

    What people say is right or wrong, particularly around sex and marriage, has very frequently had nothing to do with people’s actual behavior, nor what people clearly feel is right or wrong in practice.  In fact, it seems relatively safe to say that a lot of the time, people who report what they find morally incorrect around sex in general, what they actually mean is that they find it morally incorrect for everyone else, but not for themselves.

  • crowepps

    Now 60% of people no longer feel that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and 51% don’t think it’s immoral to have a child when unmarried.  People’s opinions change and evolve over time.

     

    http://www.pollingreport.com/values.htm

  • ahunt

    Again Princess Rot…how many us would like  to repeat our “first” experience on our wedding night? Married my “first” but please believe the “big event” left an enormous amount to be desired.

     

    The honeymoon, however, rocked!

  • katwa

    If Kevin’s wife divorces him or dies, does he plan on never having sex ever again? If not, then remarrying is exactly the same as getting a different girlfriend/boyfriend. This “disease prevention” idea of “abstinence until marriage” only works if there was no such thing as divorce or death. Or are he and his wife immortal?

     

    For what it’s worth, I’ve never been married, I don’t plan on marrying, I have a lot of sex, I have no STDs, and I’ve never been pregnant. Condoms, depo prevera and frequent testing are the reason. The same result as if I wasn’t having sex, but with a great sex life? Totally worth it.

     

    I take more risks for death driving to work every day than fucking my boyfriend. Yet no one is saying we shouldn’t do that.

     

    (Doesn’t it sound like a recipe for bad sex to commit to LIFE to someone you’ve never had sex with? I mean, it took me a few boyfriends to find one who I totally rock with.)

  • katwa

    my first time was very clumsy and i didn’t even KNOW about lube! (why don’t they teach THAT in sex ed!! Seriously, sex with lube is sooooo much better.) In fact, it took a whole weekend to even happen fully.

     

    I’m my current boyfriends only partner, and he took awhile to learn how to do things too, so it’s not just girls who’s first time isn’t that great.

     

  • squirrely-girl

    So what that means is that if everyone starts using condoms perfectly, perhaps only my youngest son will be faced with the prospect that 50% of the women available for him to marry will carry Herpes, rather than this being true for all three of my sons – hardly comforting.

     

    This is all assuming, of course, that your son is heterosexual AND has a desire to marry AND is marriage-worthy to women AND didn’t already contract Herpes from any premarital sexual relations…

     

    Assuming all of those things, you’ll still have to deal with the possibility that meeting the future father-in-law could lead to a “change of heart”…

  • squirrely-girl

    …he has reason to believe that if young people knew the truth about pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting they wouldn’t never willing choose to get pregnant and have a child… so apparently “tricking” them is the only way to “save the world.”

     

    :/

  • squirrely-girl

    Lube is actually a staple topic in the university Human Sexuality courses I teach. I sing it’s praises regularly. Even better?! I regularly have students, both female and male, come up to me after class or communicate through their written work that they’ve personally incorporated lube into a variety of sex acts and greatly improved their’s and their partner’s experience. YAY! 

  • squirrely-girl

    I think it’s quite reasonable to expect people to abstain until marriage, because I know so many who’ve done it.

     

    So, not to get all up in your business but I’m curious as to how old you are. Mostly because there’s pretty good data out there that the marriage rate has dipped in the last few decades and people are waiting longer to get married if they get married at all. 

    In previous eras, when puberty occurred around age 15 and individuals left school, got married, and went to work just a few years later, “waiting,” at least by these markers, lasted only a few years.

    In 1960, the average age of marriage was 20 for women and 22 for men. Today it is 26 and 28, respectively.  In 1960, about 20 percent of 22 year old women and 30 percent of 22 year old men lived with their parents. In 2000, the figures were 35 percent and 40 percent.* 

    The time between the age when individuals became sexually mature and when they marry was much shorter in previous generations than it is today – because sexual maturity takes place so much earlier now and marriage takes place so much later. As a result, the admonition to “wait until your married” to have sex was perhaps a lot easier to do 150 years ago than it is today. 

     

     

    http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html#ht

     

     

     

  • andenakker

    Doesn’t it sound like a recipe for bad sex to commit to LIFE to someone you’ve never had sex with? I mean, it took me a few boyfriends to find one who I totally rock with.

    It guarantees that there never has been and never will be anyone that I enjoy having sex with more than my wife.  Whether sex might be more pleasurable with someone else is immaterial.  I took a vow, and having no one to compare my wife to means that sex can contribute to keeping it, rather than breaking it.  The repeated bonding and breaking entailed in finding someone who can “provide” me with more enjoyable sex – whether before or after I was married – could only hurt my marriage.  That’s a high price to pay to find someone who may not even exist.

  • oodlenoodle

    Shiva answered this well, but having any STI, including herpes, compromises your immune system, making it less likely to fight off all future infections. Yet another reason to teach students how to put on a condom and get tested!

  • oodlenoodle

    Telling people condoms don’t work needs to become a punishable offense already. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Lube is actually a staple topic in the university Human Sexuality courses I teach. I sing it’s praises regularly.

     

    I hope you include a section on how to make your own, because the stuff tends to be pretty expensive! $1 on up per ounce? Ouch!

     

    (I’ve had success in the past with a formula combining xanthan gum and water, and sometimes glycerine…)

  • prochoiceferret

    That’s a very interesting philosophy! I wonder how well it might work in the gustatory realm…

     

    It guarantees that there never has been and never will be anything that I enjoy eating more than Big Macs.  Whether some other food might be more delicious is immaterial.  I took a vow, and having nothing to compare my greasy hamburger to means that eating can contribute to keeping it, rather than breaking it.  The repeated tasting and judging entailed in finding a restaurant that can “provide” me with more enjoyable food – whether before or after I started lovin’ it – could only hurt my diet.  That’s a high price to pay to find a meal that may not even exist.

  • arekushieru

    See, that’s what you always seem unable to grasp, andenakker.  Sure society frowns on it, but that doesn’t mean it’s unhealthy or unacceptable.  And sure unhealthy activities should be regulated.  But you don’t get to define an activity as unhealthy simply because there’s a risk to it.  Why not define other activities as healthy, then, simply because there are benefits to it?  (Oo, I think the penny finally dropped…?)  Because… it doesn’t work that way.  Neither of which really delves into the heart of the matter of what we are actually discussing, though….  What you fail to understand  (conTINuously) is that you are attempting to impose YOUR expectations on society.

    Then there are those who don’t like what I say but can’t really counter my arguments, so they resort to calling me things like “misogynist” and trying to make it sound as if my arguments are only relevant from a religious perspective, in the hope that they can get others to ignore me.

     

    And maybe… JUST maybe… there is some truth to what they’re saying…?

  • arekushieru

    Either someone just admitted to having mediocre sex or they admitted to having a mediocre diet… but I can’t tell which….  :P

  • andenakker

    Either someone just admitted to having mediocre sex…

    I don’t know about that, but plenty of people around here have admitted to having the wrong priorities, which makes it more difficult to live a healthy and happy life as well as build the stable families that contribute mightily to the raising of healthy, happy and well-adjusted children.

  • beenthere72

    healthy, happy and well-adjusted children.

     

    Because when it comes to your children:  ignorance is bliss.

  • pilar608

    plenty of people around here have admitted to having the wrong priorities, which makes it more difficult to live a healthy and happy life as well as build the stable families

     

    According to you.  You really seem to have problems with the idea that your personal values and morals are just yours, and that people can have and live by others and be healthy, and happy.

     

    There are millions of people who have premarital sex and/or who have more than one partner and whose families turn out just fine.  There are even millions of parents who don’t teach their kids to be abstinent until marriage, and those kids turn out just fine.  Unless you really believe that the 95% of people who have sex before marriage have the wrong priorities and will permanently damage any kids they may have.

  • colleen

    Kevin you wouldn’t know happy or well adjusted if they smacked you upside the head.

  • colleen

    It guarantees that there never has been and never will be anyone that I enjoy having sex with more than my wife.  Whether sex might be more pleasurable with someone else is immaterial

    It guarantees a number of things. Your wife will never know that sex can be something fine and beautiful, she will never know what it is to be loved as an equal. She will never know what it’s like to have a partnership with a normal man who does not spend all his time posting on reproductive health websites about his immense distaste for sex and broadcasting his conviction that we should all be as repressed and neurotic as he is because, after all, that’s what Kevin and God, in that order, would want. I pity your wife but not as much as I pity your children. They had no choice in this.

     

  • andenakker

    Shows how much you know.  (Or rather, don’t know. :-)

  • ack

    Was going to reply to this, but I think everyone else did a beautiful job.

     

    But… an opinion poll from 1969? Really?

  • ack

    Thank you, pilar, for getting to the crux of the matter. People who have premarital sex or who support or have abortions aren’t inherently unhealthy, unhappy. I know that Kevin likes to believe that we’ve all had/have STIs and that we’re somehow incapable of having a healthy relationship, but it just proves how out of touch with reality he is. I’d pity him if I wasn’t so concerned about the people in his sphere of influence.

  • katwa

    Wow, sorry to hear about your depressing sex life. Thinking that there will never be anything more enjoyable is an awfully pessimistic attitude though!

  • katwa

    Based on his other posts I’m pretty sure she also won’t know how it feels to have an orgasm with a partner, or maybe at all. 

     

    He probably thinks getting knocked up results in orgasms for women.

  • crowepps

    Never being sure if there might be something more enjoyable is a fair trade for being absolutely sure that your WIFE won’t figure out it’s actually supposed to be fun.

  • arekushieru

    Apparently you can have uterine orgasms, though….  Who knew…?