Stupid Letters to the Editor mark II

[InnerBrat]

I know I son't usually visit this forum, but this REALLY pissed me off:

Daily Mail, Wednesday 30th April
It's right to raise the alarm about the sexual catastrophe in this country. In giving children more information about condoms and thier availability, the Government assumes the 'choices' they make might include early sex. Recreational sex is the message, and sex eductaion starts at teh age of five.
In stark contrast and as the result of years of rising teenage pregnances, the chastity message federally funded in the U.S. is producing results. There, the young see chastity as the way to avoid bad health and emotional distress

Anyone want to tear this apart?

[Lord of the Farce]

I know I son't usually visit this forum, but this REALLY pissed me off:

Daily Mail, Wednesday 30th April
It's right to raise the alarm about the sexual catastrophe in this country. In giving children more information about condoms and thier availability, the Government assumes the 'choices' they make might include early sex. Recreational sex is the message, and sex eductaion starts at teh age of five.
In stark contrast and as the result of years of rising teenage pregnances, the chastity message federally funded in the U.S. is producing results. There, the young see chastity as the way to avoid bad health and emotional distress

Anyone want to tear this apart?

Well for starters how many 10 year olds, nevermind 5 year olds, really want to do something like that with someone of the other gender? [pre-teen mentality]ewww, gross[/pre-teen mentality].

[weemadando]

Tear is apart, too easy.

Sex is fun. Why shouldn't we?

[Darth Wong]

It's right to raise the alarm about the sexual catastrophe in this country. In giving children more information about condoms and thier availability, the Government assumes the 'choices' they make might include early sex. Recreational sex is the message, and sex eductaion starts at teh age of five.

Ah yes, because ignorance is always the best solution. Instead of letting young people make informed choices about their lives, we should withold information in the hopes that they will never hear about condoms on their own. This way, they can make bad choices based on false information, innuendo, and rumour instead of facts

In stark contrast and as the result of years of rising teenage pregnances, the chastity message federally funded in the U.S. is producing results. There, the young see chastity as the way to avoid bad health and emotional distress

Obviously, this idiot does not live on this side of the ocean. Otherwise, he or she would realize that nothing of the sort is happening. Consider the following comparison:

(Source: The Progress of Nations, 1998)

The US teen pregnancy rate is HIGHER than that in most countries which have a more pragmatic and less religious approach to the issue, and more than twice that of Canada, which has no such federally funded chastity program.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

See? Abstinence != Results.

Stupid fundies. I hate them...

[Col. Crackpot]

See? Abstinence != Results.

Stupid fundies. I hate them...

i can understand where their logic comes from. (other than that whole silly vengefull god shit) if sperm does not enter a vagina, there is no chance of prenancy. that is a medical fact. their real failure lies in their complete lack of understaning of adolescant psycology.

[Queeb Salaron]

It's right to raise the alarm about the sexual catastrophe in this country.

What country are we talking about? Wong mentioned Canada (but Wong ALWAYS brings up Canada... )... is that where we are now?

In giving children more information about condoms and thier availability, the Government assumes the 'choices' they make might include early sex.

Newsflash: Teenagers were having sex long before the government started pushing condoms. The government RIGHTLY assumes that a teenager has the ability to choose to have sex. And because when a person is of a legitimate age it is legal for them to have sex, the government can't rightly say, "don't have sex," any more than they can tell 21-year olds in America not to drink. The ABSOLUTE BEST thing that the government can do is push condoms. I'll address the issue of abstinence in a minute.

Recreational sex is the message, and sex eductaion starts at teh age of five.

You're arguing that the government is telling kids to go out and buy condoms so they can have sex. That's ridiculous. A government stands to gain nothing with a high teenage sex rate. They would not, therefore, tell teenagers to go out and have sex for fun.

And yes, sex ed starts at the age of 5. But since the age of 5, Americans in public schools are taught that abstinence is the absolute best way to avoid pregnancy, STDs, and any theoretical emotional burden that comes with having a sexual relationship. When a highschool student graduates, he's essentially had 13 years of the same messages crammed down his throat: Don't have sex, and you won't get pregnant. If you do have sex, even if you have sex with a condom, spermicidal lubricant, and your girlfriend is on the pill, she might still get pregnant. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. And yet, according to Wong's chart, America has the HIGHEST rate of teenage pregnancy! Preaching abstinence simply does not work. End of discussion.

In stark contrast and as the result of years of rising teenage pregnances, the chastity message federally funded in the U.S. is producing results. There, the young see chastity as the way to avoid bad health and emotional distress

What federally-funded chastity message? The government has been relatively tight-lipped in recent years concerning teen pregnancy. Public schools (at least in these parts) have kept their safe-sex programs relatively standard. This is the SAME message that I heard when I was in elementary school. And even if there IS a federally funded program that preaches abstinence, America STILL has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world. There are no two ways about it: America's mission of preaching abstinence, a process that is very consistent with our Puritan heritage, has (like most Puritan endeavors) FAILED MISERABLY.

Your argument has been debunked. Thank you for playing.
[/quote]

[Knife]

I know I son't usually visit this forum, but this REALLY pissed me off:

Daily Mail, Wednesday 30th April
It's right to raise the alarm about the sexual catastrophe in this country. In giving children more information about condoms and thier availability, the Government assumes the 'choices' they make might include early sex. Recreational sex is the message, and sex eductaion starts at teh age of five.
In stark contrast and as the result of years of rising teenage pregnances, the chastity message federally funded in the U.S. is producing results. There, the young see chastity as the way to avoid bad health and emotional distress

Anyone want to tear this apart?

Ah yes, another "remember the good old days when...." bull shit. 'Kids' of teenage years have fucked each other since the dawn of time. As short as 100 or 150 years ago, a 14 year old chick being married (and persumably having sex) would not have even been blinked at let alone worried about.

They are starting on the BS assertion that teenage kids having sex in unnatual and therefore must be stopped instead of helping to limit the undesirable effects of two people doing what is not only natual but a biological imperative.

Note, not that I am crazy about the thought of my kids fucking when they are 14,15 or so but I am under no illusions that they will want to and I will take percausions to prevent children from coming out of this (literally). This is better than sticking my head in the sand and expecting them to follow.

[Glocksman]

Let's look at the latest CDC statistics.

The birth rate for teenagers 15–19 years declined 2 percent to
48.5 per 1,000 in 2000, another record low for the Nation. This rate has
declined 22 percent from 1991 when the rate reached a peak (62.1)
(table A). The declines in the 1990s through 2000 in the teenage birth
rate reverse the 24-percent increase that occurred from 1986 (50.2 per
1,000) to 1991. The reductions in teenage birth rates since the mid-
1990s primarily reflect declines in the first birth rate, meaning that
fewer teenagers are becoming mothers for the first time.

From here on page 4.

We do have a documented significant drop in the teen pregancy rate.

Now the question becomes when did abstinence education start and would it be responsible for the documented drop in pregancies in the US, or were there other factors at work.

[Faram]

From the CIA World Factbook

USA:
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.61% (1999 est.)

Canada:
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.3% (1999 est.)

Sweden:
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.08% (1999 est.)

Guess sexed is good for somthing.

I had my first sexed class in 3~4th grade can't remember when, and sexed is not a taboo subject here.

And that shows in Teenage Pregnancys and number of HIV/AIDS cases.

Guess your moral majority rather have teenagers with kids and a lot of people dying in STD's than having an "imoral" subject in shool.

[Queeb Salaron]

We do have a documented significant drop in the teen pregancy rate.

Now the question becomes when did abstinence education start and would it be responsible for the documented drop in pregancies in the US, or were there other factors at work.

I'd bet it was other factors. For example, the pill has become more widely used for non-medicinal reasons. Certain Japanese condoms have been developed in the past few years that are stronger than American-made condoms, and they have become extremely popular in the past few years. Silicone-based spermicidal lubricant hit the market a few years ago, and that was (and is) enormously popular now. Teens have access to all of these methods of birth control now, whereas previously they were only sold to 18-year olds. We do preach birth-control alongside abstinence, as well, and it could be argued just as easily that it is the BIRTH CONTROL portion of this education that lead to a decrease in teenage pregnancy since 1990.

I think that METHODS are more reliable than MIND-FRAMES, not the other way around. Methods are certainly easier to suggest to people. And unless one was to argue that the USA is slowly becoming more and more abstinent (which is fantastically ludicrous), there is no other explanation than a greater implementation of these methods.

[Glocksman]

Queeb Salaron wrote:

I'd bet it was other factors. For example, the pill has become more widely used for non-medicinal reasons. Certain Japanese condoms have been developed in the past few years that are stronger than American-made condoms, and they have become extremely popular in the past few years. Silicone-based spermicidal lubricant hit the market a few years ago, and that was (and is) enormously popular now. Teens have access to all of these methods of birth control now, whereas previously they were only sold to 18-year olds. We do preach birth-control alongside abstinence, as well, and it could be argued just as easily that it is the BIRTH CONTROL portion of this education that lead to a decrease in teenage pregnancy since 1990.

I would guess that abstinence based on fear of STD's (as opposed to religious/moral reasons) might play a role. But the true reason probably has multiple causes and all of the abovementioned factors probably played a role.

I'm sure the abstinence education reaches some teens (blossoming fundies if nothing else), just how many teens it reaches would be the question.