[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I'm aware of that. But as I said, it's a matter of controlling the worst case. Worst case, despite being taught you should be abstinent, you have sex anyways and encounter unwanted pregnancy or STDs.

actually, why prepare to fail. When you make a contingency for failure, you show 2 things.
1) an acceptance of failure as an option.
2) an open-ness to it's occurence.

That is foolhardy. The worst case really ends with the sex.

Teaching safe sex practices can't eliminate these entirely, but it can at the very least bring the numbers down lot. Hence "controlling" it, not eliminating.

And if you fail to internalize the one and spend time planning contingencies for when you fail. (because you do not plan contingencies that are never going to occur. I do not have my machete for a zombie raid at tonight's new years party)

Agreed. My statement wasn't to say that I'm waiting for the right this and the right that and then I'm planning on throwing out my desire to be abstinent. My statement was merely a realistic look at the fact that sexual urges can be very difficult to ignore, especially for some people, and when push comes to shove, I'm most definitely a flawed, imperfect human being. So I couldn't with 100% certainty say I wouldn't screw up. I'm not planning on it, I'm just being realistic here.

However, you can take steps to armor your flaws and make no quarter. In fact, I would say, that by knowingly not carrying a condom and knowing the worst case scenario, (potentially resulting in death) you are making a conscious decision to prevent screwing up.

The number of kids having sex despite their abstinence only education, and thus contracting STDs and having unwanted pregnancies.

Was sex ed doing any better? I seem to recall otherwise, but I did grow up in one of the worst teen pregnancy counties in the nation. As I recall at the initial start of the abstinence only wave there was a decrease in sexual activity.

However, my concern is more personal.

Any of us can ignore the statistics or become one. You can avoid sexual immorality personally. You can. I just think personally, making provision for the flesh is a piss poor idea.

True. But it's a matter of what is easier to internalize.

But is it? I really can't go into specifics or I would have to ban myself, but lets just say from my experience with coworkers, I am not entirely sure either is internalized.

Like I said, abstinence should certainly be taught as the best method, and moreso than just a passing mention of it before getting to the "good stuff". It should be described as something that's worth the immense amount of effort it takes to stick to. But no matter how well you teach it, some kid is going to either say, "That's lame," and not listen, or find themselves in the heat of the moment giving up whatever pledge they might have made because, let's face it, kids are stupid and screw up a lot as it is, and sex is a very powerful biological urge. But, it's much easier to say, "Wait, let me take 10 seconds to put this condom on," than "Wait, let's wait 5 years until we're adults and can get married." That's why it would be more successful (though certainly not perfect, as I doubt anyone claims it to be).

People ignore good counsel. People are self destructive. Teaching people methods that are morally corrupting, and emotionally corrupting, seems pretty poor. (Yeah, you may prevent herpes, but is the real damage much worse than that internally in the emotional structure of the average person who loses their virginity, gets abandoned, feels used and useless, and lives life in light of that?)

It seems as if we are perpetuating a dangerous cycle to me, that ultimately leads to a mess.

My point is not about sex education. Sex education is, and will always be a joke, until someone knows a friend who died of aids.

Want to know why I didn't have sex in high school?

I knew a girl who innocently contracted aids through a compound fracture in Junior High. Seeing someone die of it put a good bit of fear in me.

When that seat at youth group where she used to sit was empty and her sister was crying, it gave things more teeth. And yes, I had every chance to fall.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by beanbag

seriously though. while I agree that the conviction to remain pure must come from the heart, I disagree that purity programs don't have any impact.

They have an impact: They raise the rate of unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Frankly, no sex ed program will prepare you for all contingencies. Condoms break. And I happen to be quite glad that birth controls fail. (I am a result of failed bc)

Most often they fail through misuse.

Why do you say abstinence only does not work? Obviously, if it were followed, it would, but the problem with it is people not internalizing it, which, I might also add is just as big a deal as any sex ed. If you do not internalize it, it does nothing.

There's a saying in the millitary: "if it's stupid but it works: it's not stupid".

I suppose the corrilary is "if it works but no one does it: it doesn't work"

To put it another way (for the nerds)

abstinance = FALSE
IF abstinance = TRUE THEN pregnancy=FALSE
ELSE pregnancy=TRUE

Thus the problem is a lack of internalization with abstinence only. If that is the point of breakdown... what makes anyone think that other systems will not have the same point of failure?

The fault is that the program fails to achieve the desired results.

OTOH, carrying condoms is preparing to fail.

Like putting life-rafts on ships.

Point 1: It absolutely does fail. No denying of that reality with apologetics changes that. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. The net result of no condoms? STD and pregnancy

Point 2: Actually, one of the best ways to not do something is to say "I can do it, but I'm not going to do it right now". I carry plenty of things for the purpose of not using them. It's a bit reassuring.

actually, why prepare to fail. When you make a contingency for failure, you show 2 things.
1) an acceptance of failure as an option.
2) an open-ness to it's occurence.

That is foolhardy. The worst case really ends with the sex.

When you fail to accept that failure is a possability, given the overwhelming proof that it is, then you are out of touch with reality (in denial) and cannot possibly make rational decisions.

However, you can take steps to armor your flaws and make no quarter. In fact, I would say, that by knowingly not carrying a condom and knowing the worst case scenario, (potentially resulting in death) you are making a conscious decision to prevent screwing up.

And yet there's all those pregnant teens.

What do you do when the conclusions neccessairy to your logic fail to align with observed reality?

Want to know why I didn't have sex in high school?

I knew a girl who innocently contracted aids through a compound fracture in Junior High. Seeing someone die of it put a good bit of fear in me.

I wonder how many people contracted HIV because their abstinance-only sex-ed told them that a condom would not reduce the risk of getting it and therefore didn't wear one.

Or maybe they did know that but when their willpower did fail, they lacked that "backup plan for failure" you mentioned.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Most often they fail through misuse.

*Shrugs* I am not entirely sure what my mother was on, but it required surgery for removal. Just a guess, but I think it would be real hard for user error to account for that.

There's a saying in the millitary: "if it's stupid but it works: it's not stupid".

I suppose the corrilary is "if it works but no one does it: it doesn't work"

If it works and noone does it, they are stupid would be the logical corrolary.

To put it another way (for the nerds)

abstinance = FALSE
IF abstinance = TRUE THEN pregnancy=FALSE
ELSE pregnancy=TRUE

The fault is that the program fails to achieve the desired results.

The real flaw is that individuals fail. A program never got pregnant, had sex, or got an std. People do. The simple fact is, if I were talking to a Christian teen, I would not encourage them to carry a condom, period.

Like putting life-rafts on ships.

ridiculously non-sequitor. Ships sink and people fall off of boats. The reasons can be myriad. However, people have sex because they make sequences of choices. I have yet to meet anyone who intentionally sunk a ship. I have yet to meet anyone who unintentionally had sex (without crime as a factor). You put in contingencies for what is beyond your control. If sex is beyond your control, that would be rape, and most rapists are not going to ask if you have a condom...

Point 1: It absolutely does fail. No denying of that reality with apologetics changes that. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same. The net result of no condoms? STD and pregnancy

The net result of carrying condoms? Is it really any different? Not from anything I have seen. To be crass, people still have unprotected sex. And I have known more than one coworker shocked to find out certain stds are not really prevented by condoms.

Point 2: Actually, one of the best ways to not do something is to say "I can do it, but I'm not going to do it right now". I carry plenty of things for the purpose of not using them. It's a bit reassuring.

But you carry them, I assume, to halt situations out of your control. Meaning it is completely disanalogous. No guy ever carried a condom so as not to use it.

When you fail to accept that failure is a possability, given the overwhelming proof that it is, then you are out of touch with reality (in denial) and cannot possibly make rational decisions.

Or you have determined to make a conscious set of decisions leading to a separate outcome. What a person does with their genitals is a choice.

And yet there's all those pregnant teens.

Who made choices, most of them, those who didn't would be victims of violent crime. You are viewing stats as prescriptive, rather than descriptive. which is fallacious.

What do you do when the conclusions neccessairy to your logic fail to align with observed reality?

That assumes they do not.

I believe that with each temptation comes a way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. I also believe that statistics describe what people have chosen and they are in no way prescriptive of what I will do.

Thus, someone else's choices, even if they are vastly outnumbering my own, do not constrain me, or others.

I wonder how many people contracted HIV because their abstinance-only sex-ed told them that a condom would not reduce the risk of getting it and therefore didn't wear one.

Got stats, or is this just an appeal to a hypothetical for support from nowhere?

Or maybe they did know that but when their willpower did fail, they lacked that "backup plan for failure" you mentioned.

Choices. It always comes down to individual decisions, not programs. But what if say, they were broke and couldn't afford a condom, or they do not like condoms, or they are anaphylactically latex allergic and die from safe sex. (It has happened, being anaphylactically allergic to latex myself, I hear some wacked out tales from people like me)

Hypotheticals do not matter. You make choices, and you live and die by the virtues of those choices. People are self destructive and choose what they choose. Ultimately, that is their own fault.

[Demon_Hunter]

This is for the christians reading the thread.
Paul agrees with Bill.

Romans 13: 11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.


That section of romans is one of my favorites, and the last verse is especially applicable. When we as christians make room to fulfill our lusts, then we are inviting trouble. You dont invite trouble by avoiding sexually charged situations and not carrying condoms. You invite trouble when you carry condoms with you to make sex "safe" and then find yourself in situations or places that could encourage sexual activity, or atleast make it more convenient.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

This is for the christians reading the thread.
Paul agrees with Bill.

Romans 13: 11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.


That section of romans is one of my favorites, and the last verse is especially applicable. When we as christians make room to fulfill our lusts, then we are inviting trouble. You dont invite trouble by avoiding sexually charged situations and not carrying condoms. You invite trouble when you carry condoms with you to make sex "safe" and then find yourself in situations or places that could encourage sexual activity, or atleast make it more convenient.

Agreed, and I really think any form of sex ed is really useless.

My point is to the Christians on cgr who think they should carry something in case they fall. I say, make a point not to put yourself in those places, and as sun tzu would say, smash the cooking pots on this one.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by beanbag

while I agree that the conviction to remain pure must come from the heart, I disagree that purity programs don't have any impact.

Impact is a very general term. Of course there is some impact. But of all the studies I've seen, it appears they don't cause students to stop having sex...and no curriculum will ever have the power to do that.

I signed a purity pledge when I was 12 that the furthest I would go is "nowhere" (that is exactly what I wrote) and as of yet...I've still basically gone nowhere, unless you count holding hands as a compromise of purity.

Statistically, you're very much in the minority. It's also very difficult to pin point causes. You may have gone nowhere without the pledge.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

If it works and noone does it, they are stupid would be the logical corrolary.

But people *are* stupid. And, as proven by reality, they are whatever they need to be to not practice abstinance.

So what does that make someone who promotes a system which relies on people being different than they actually are???

The real flaw is that individuals fail. A program never got pregnant, had sex, or got an std. People do. The simple fact is, if I were talking to a Christian teen, I would not encourage them to carry a condom, period.

And that choice my result in their death.

ridiculously non-sequitor. Ships sink and people fall off of boats. The reasons can be myriad. However, people have sex because they make sequences of choices. I have yet to meet anyone who intentionally sunk a ship. I have yet to meet anyone who unintentionally had sex (without crime as a factor). You put in contingencies for what is beyond your control. If sex is beyond your control, that would be rape, and most rapists are not going to ask if you have a condom...

A: Kids are getting pregnant. What do we do?
B: Tell them not to have sex.
A: OK. Done. Just as many are having sex, but more of them are getting pregnant than before. What now.
B: They shouldn't have sex.
A: Umm.. OK.

A different conversation:
A: We told kids that condoms work and less are getting pregnant.
B: Don't do that! It will encourage them to have sex.
A: But we checked, and the same number are having sex as before, only now less are pregnant.
B: Didn't you hear me [long rationalization about why having a condom makes you more likely to have sex]!
A: But the statistics don't bear that out!
B: Repeats rationalization.

The net result of carrying condoms? Is it really any different? Not from anything I have seen. To be crass, people still have unprotected sex. And I have known more than one coworker shocked to find out certain stds are not really prevented by condoms.

What!

There's no higher rate of sex with proper sex-ed vs. the "don't do it" of "abstiance-only" sex ed, so any use of contraceptives is a clear improvement.

More specifically: places which offer comprehensive sex ed have lowe pregnancy and STD ratres than those with "abstinance only" sex ed.

http://stats.org/stories/contrac_v_abst_dec12_06.htm

But you carry them, I assume, to halt situations out of your control. Meaning it is completely disanalogous. No guy ever carried a condom so as not to use it.

Really? I know people who carry cigarettes for that reason.

I've routinely gone out with money to not buy things and not baught them. I get a lot out of knowing I could and saying "later" that I don't get when I can't (I don't enjoy window shopping poor, even though I enjoy going out and deliberatley not buying".

But we could trade logic back and forth: it's silly when there observed results.

Or you have determined to make a conscious set of decisions leading to a separate outcome. What a person does with their genitals is a choice.

And when we choose to give them abstinance only education, their choices more often result in prgnancy and that death by HIV you mentioned earlier.

Who made choices, most of them, those who didn't would be victims of violent crime. You are viewing stats as prescriptive, rather than descriptive. which is fallacious.

And you are arguing that reality is irrellevent in favor of asserted logic.

That assumes they do not.

No it states it. Do you need me to start making statistical cites? I guarentee you that they are on my side.

I believe that with each temptation comes a way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. I also believe that statistics describe what people have chosen and they are in no way prescriptive of what I will do.

HUH?!?

So I watch 100 people walk by a $100 bill, and half bend down and pick it up, and you don't believe that means that half of people will bend down and pick up a $100 bill?!?

You seem to be claiming to ahve abandoned inductive logic. You'd better go make sure the sky is still there. Just because it was before doesn't mean it is now.

Thus, someone else's choices, even if they are vastly outnumbering my own, do not constrain me, or others.

Millions of people have told hundreds of millions "don't have sex", and a great percentage do anyway. That's simple fact. If you expect to go tell people the same thing millions of others have heard and get entirely different results then you are in denial of reality.

Agreed, and I really think any form of sex ed is really useless.

Not at all. Absitnance-only programs are useful for getting kids to stop using birth control by informing them they don't work. Conversly "proper" sex ed is useful for preventing pregnancy and STDs by teaching which contraceptives are most useful for what, how to use it, and the importance of STD screening.

I suppose you would say "having yourself tested is planning for past failure"?

My point is to the Christians on cgr who think they should carry something in case they fall. I say, make a point not to put yourself in those places, and as sun tzu would say, smash the cooking pots on this one.

I suspect he would say "know yourself"

[Sean]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And that choice my result in their death.

Likewise taking a teenager to McDonald's might eventually result in their death. There are an infinite number of things which do each day which may eventually result in the death of people around us.

There's no higher rate of sex with proper sex-ed vs. the "don't do it" of "abstiance-only" sex ed, so any use of contraceptives is a clear improvement.

More specifically: places which offer comprehensive sex ed have lowe pregnancy and STD ratres than those with "abstinance only" sex ed.

http://stats.org/stories/contrac_v_abst_dec12_06.htm

The article also says, "He concedes that abstinence-only programs have not been deemed ineffective." They don't share your extreme negative feelings towards abstinence only.

[slap_j]

My sex-ed teacher told us to avoid carrying condoms around because keeping one on your person for long periods (in your wallet or whatever) could diminish it's structural integrity. Instead of keeping one as a backup you wouldn't want to carry them around unless you're specifically looking for some (sky rockets in flight) afternoon delight. And if that's the case, as a Christian, you've already veered off course.

So...anyway. Also he put a condom on a banana. FYI.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Sean

Likewise taking a teenager to McDonald's might eventually result in their death. There are an infinite number of things which do each day which may eventually result in the death of people around us.

That's a crock. There aren't 33.2 million dying, from a trip to McDonalds. There aren't a few million unwanted pregnancies each year from it either.

If you want an analogy (though one which fails to appriciate scope), let's say you've advised mountain climing without safety equipment.

The article also says, "He concedes that abstinence-only programs have not been deemed ineffective." They don't share your extreme negative feelings towards abstinence only.

"In 2004, Advocates for Youth released a report on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs in 11 states: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Missouri, Nebraska, and California. The study evaluated data provided by the states in areas of instruction like attitudes endorsing abstinence among students, intentions to abstain, and sexual behaviors. Advocates for Youth concluded, “Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state [Pennsylvania] did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation.”"

My sex-ed teacher told us to avoid carrying condoms around because keeping one on your person for long periods (in your wallet or whatever) could diminish it's structural integrity.

I think that's BS, and it sounds just like the BS put out by the abstinance programs that stops kids from using condoms. (bet you don't carry one around do you?).

Assuming it's accurate, for the sake of argument: he could have suggested regular changing, or storage in a different location, or pointed out that the risk of some failure of the condom was far lower than the risk of no birth-control at all.

It's an attempt to scare you into not having sex for fear of consequences: interesting since the portion of the brain responsable for looking at long-term consequences is the last to develop in puberty (somewhere in the 20s) and so is exactly what teens are bad at.

That and the fact that it simply does not work. Many states have and are trying it and their pregnancy STD rates went up relateve to normal sex-ed programs.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Assuming it's accurate, for the sake of argument: he could have suggested regular changing, or storage in a different location, or pointed out that the risk of some failure of the condom was far lower than the risk of no birth-control at all.

I'm pretty sure it's accurate. And they never discouraged condoms per se.

That and the fact that it simply does not work.

I'm not really interested in abstinence only programs. I think for most Americans sex is strongly entangled with romance. Why would kids view abstinence as sacrosanct if they found themselves in what they might describe as a steady relationship with someone they thought was swell. In the context of Christianity abstinence makes sense as sex is all about marital fidelity (cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh, etc.). But why should I expect the schools to teach this to children when parents often fail to (aside from their being secular institutions)?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's a crock. There aren't 33.2 million dying, from a trip to McDonalds. There aren't a few million unwanted pregnancies each year from it either.

And there aren't 33.2 million people dying because adults aren't putting condoms in teenage boys wallets. There are millions of people dying from heart attacks brought on by poor eating habits.

If you want an analogy (though one which fails to appriciate scope), let's say you've advised mountain climing without safety equipment.

Which sex-ed classes are advising people to have sex? I don't recall Bill saying he was advising teenagers to have sex without protecting. My analogy may be a crock, but yours is entirely bogus.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

In the context of Christianity abstinence makes sense as sex is all about marital fidelity (cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh, etc.).

And I have no problem with promoting abstinance. Even from a secular standpoint it is, when practiced, effective.

And there aren't 33.2 million people dying because adults aren't putting condoms in teenage boys wallets. There are millions of people dying from heart attacks brought on by poor eating habits.

Actually there are. 33.2 million people currently have HIV. That ignores deaths to other STDs, and it ignores deaths of infants (and abortion rates)

And I would agree that encouraging someone to eat a diet of fatty foods has some similarities. We've taken kids away for parents over-feeding them.

Which sex-ed classes are advising people to have sex? I don't recall Bill saying he was advising teenagers to have sex without protecting. My analogy may be a crock, but yours is entirely bogus.

Bill encouraged people to not carry condoms. Many A-O sex-ed classes discourage condom use.

More than rock climbing, sex is a fact. You tell a class of kids something and you can know with certainty that you are talking to many who will at some point have sex. It's similar to saying why seat-belts don't work and wondering why more drivers die.

[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think that's BS, and it sounds just like the BS put out by the abstinance programs that stops kids from using condoms. (bet you don't carry one around do you?).

Assuming it's accurate, for the sake of argument: he could have suggested regular changing, or storage in a different location, or pointed out that the risk of some failure of the condom was far lower than the risk of no birth-control at all.

Actually, that is true. If you read a condom box it will even tell you that prolonged storage will damage the structural integrity of the condom and increase the likelihood of condom failure.

Secondly, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying abstinence is stupid, and encouraging sex before marriage. This is Biblically unsound, so I'm not sure why you are promulgating that idea.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by The wirerat

Secondly, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying abstinence is stupid, and encouraging sex before marriage. This is Biblically unsound, so I'm not sure why you are promulgating that idea.

Ummm... guess you didn't read the post right before yours.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And I have no problem with promoting abstinance. Even from a secular standpoint it is, when practiced, effective.

Even if he were encouraging that, he's not a Christian, so no reason why he would be bound to make "Biblically sound" statements.