Bush's Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Program Full of Baldface Lies.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-02 05:32pm

Ok, but teens are getting AIDS because they feel invincible not cause the hate condoms.

Hey those stats are great. Too bad the US teen pregnancy rate really is down across the board-http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193727.html

Noone's denying Europe has a lower teen pregnancy rate. But there's a lot more going on than "US sex ed sucks!" Do you honestly think black kids in the inner city don't know how condoms work? Don't you think their relatively higher birth rates are due to a feeling that they're doomed anyway? I mean, if you don't think you're ever going to have a higher education, maybe not even finish high school, what difference does it make if you get pregnant at 17? Have you SEEN the asian teens pregnancy rates? They're LOWER than most Western European countries'! And that's not cause asian kids are being shown how to put a condom on a banana and black kids aren't. I think this illustrates a much bigger issue than OMG! Sex Ed is the answer. It's not. Hello.

Propaganda is good if it encourages people to kill Hitler and such. It's all in the results.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-02 05:37pm

But it is due to abstinence only education? Fuck no

Possible factors accounting for the decline include decreased sexual activity reflecting changing attitudes toward premarital sex, an increase in condom use, and the adoption of newly available hormonal contraception, implants, and injectables.

The Europeans and asians have dultural issues that wrk in their favor I will admit.

However, your own source just destroyed your fucking argument

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-02 05:38pm

*Lantern Archon appears*

Hi, I'm the Common Sense Angel. You are a fucking dipshit

*Smacks uther with a 15 inch dong*

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-12-02 05:40pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:But it is due to abstinence only education? Fuck no

Possible factors accounting for the decline include decreased sexual activity reflecting changing attitudes toward premarital sex, an increase in condom use, and the adoption of newly available hormonal contraception, implants, and injectables.
The Europeans and asians have dultural issues that wrk in their favor I will admit.

However, your own source just destroyed your fucking argument

I was just taking aim at that flaw when you hit it first. Excellent!

Uther wrote:Propaganda is good if it encourages people to kill Hitler and such. It's all in the results.

Replace "hitler" with "The President" and see how that reads. Propaganda is evil INTRINSICALLY!

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-02 05:42pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:But it is due to abstinence only education? Fuck no

Possible factors accounting for the decline include decreased sexual activity reflecting changing attitudes toward premarital sex, an increase in condom use, and the adoption of newly available hormonal contraception, implants, and injectables.
The Europeans and asians have dultural issues that wrk in their favor I will admit.

However, your own source just destroyed your fucking argument

What the devil are you babbling about man? I never claimed that using condoms isn't an effective way of controlling pregnancy. I merely made a monstrously tongue in cheek argument that scaring kids out of having sex might work too.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-12-02 05:42pm

I would like to formally request splitting of this thread at Uther's first post and HoSing of the resultant turd, please.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-02 05:43pm

Uther wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:But it is due to abstinence only education? Fuck no

Possible factors accounting for the decline include decreased sexual activity reflecting changing attitudes toward premarital sex, an increase in condom use, and the adoption of newly available hormonal contraception, implants, and injectables.
The Europeans and asians have dultural issues that wrk in their favor I will admit.

However, your own source just destroyed your fucking argument
What the devil are you babbling about man? I never claimed that using condoms isn't an effective way of controlling pregnancy. I merely made a monstrously tongue in cheek argument that scaring kids out of having

sex might work too.

I have no sense of humor when it comes to people's lives

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-02 05:43pm

Edit:Unless I am talking about nukes, but I dont actually advocate it

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-12-02 05:44pm

Uther wrote:Ok, but teens are getting AIDS because they feel invincible not cause the hate condoms.

Did you even check the source of that statement you google-commando?

The source is a virginian newspaper, not a fucking serious study. Care to give some real evidence or will you just keep desperately googling and hope for the best?

Hey those stats are great. Too bad the US teen pregnancy rate really is down across the board-http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193727.html

Noone's denying Europe has a lower teen pregnancy rate. But there's a lot more going on than "US sex ed sucks!" Do you honestly think black kids in the inner city don't know how condoms work?

And, how the fuck are you deciding that since you're all for lying to them about how it works rather than ensuring they do know.

Don't you think their relatively higher birth rates are due to a feeling that they're doomed anyway? I mean, if you don't think you're ever going to have a higher education, maybe not even finish high school, what difference does it make if you get pregnant at 17?

Ah, of course...social factors are sooo much more important than education...and I do love how you break this down by race rather than social situation shit head.

Have you SEEN the asian teens pregnancy rates? They're LOWER than most Western European countries'! And that's not cause asian kids are being shown how to put a condom on a banana and black kids aren't. I think this illustrates a much bigger issue than OMG! Sex Ed is the answer. It's not. Hello.

You are saying it isnt a factor. Fucking prove it, US has shite education regarding sex, Europe has better education regarding sex, one has a higher teen pregnancy rate than the other. Simple no?

Propaganda is good if it encourages people to kill Hitler and such. It's all in the results.

The ends justify the means...except here, the means result in quite a few ends. A generation poisioned on bullshit is one of them.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-02 05:44pm

Also, I WOULD use scare tactics if I taught a sex ed class. But it wouldnt be abstinence only

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-12-02 05:44pm

Uther wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:But it is due to abstinence only education? Fuck no

Possible factors accounting for the decline include decreased sexual activity reflecting changing attitudes toward premarital sex, an increase in condom use, and the adoption of newly available hormonal contraception, implants, and injectables.
The Europeans and asians have dultural issues that wrk in their favor I will admit.

However, your own source just destroyed your fucking argument
What the devil are you babbling about man? I never claimed that using condoms isn't an effective way of controlling pregnancy. I merely made a monstrously tongue in cheek argument that scaring kids out of having sex might work too.

What are YOU Babbling about? The only thing I hear is some weird Red Herringian Fallacyspeak translating roughly to "Please accept my concession".

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-02 05:54pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Uther wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:But it is due to abstinence only education? Fuck no
The Europeans and asians have dultural issues that wrk in their favor I will admit.

However, your own source just destroyed your fucking argument
What the devil are you babbling about man? I never claimed that using condoms isn't an effective way of controlling pregnancy. I merely made a monstrously tongue in cheek argument that scaring kids out of having

sex might work too.
I have no sense of humor when it comes to people's lives

Ooo you are DARK. I bet you LARP Vampire: the Masquerade too.

Anyway the point is, abstinence only education might work. But a mixed approach, teaching about safe sex methods as well is probably better. At the same time, I don't think Bush is effectively giving kids AIDS.

All that said, of course, what it comes down to is that this whole sex ed thing is something of a red herring. Economic status, social class, attitudes towards familial responsibility and higher education, what's culturally acceptable and what's not, these things are of far greater importance.

I'd like to leave you all with an anecdote that I think illustrates this issue rather nicely. I went to a public high school that had a nearly even split between hispanic kids and then the white/asian kids. Now, the hispanic kids were mostly first and second generation, they lived in a different part of the city, they spoke both spanish and english, I imagine they were generally in lower economic brackets, and they certainly weren't in any of my AP classes. Now, there were other hispanics who were in accelerated classes, but these were kids whose families had been here a while, were upper middle class etc. The point is, both the upper middle class (UPC) kids like me and the hispanic kids all had to go through the same rigamarole state mandated Health class, which of course included sex ed. Now, my memory is pretty fuzzy but the class mostly emphasized scary STDs and that "absitenence is the only 100% effective method!" but we also learned about condoms and stuff. What's my point? Well, I know of several hispanic girls who got pregnant over the course of the 4 years, and not a single UPC girl did. Granted, this is merely an anecdote, but we had the same sex ed! With different results. Why? Because of what's culutrally acceptable and what's not, and what's expected or OK and what's not, and because all these pretty little UPC girls were going to college, and a lot of the pretty little hispanic girls weren't. That's what it comes down to.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-02 06:02pm

Ooo you are DARK. I bet you LARP Vampire: the Masquerade too.

My role playing habits have no relevance in this argument

teaching about safe sex methods as well is probably better

That it would

At the same time, I don't think Bush is effectively giving kids AIDS.

His policies are. Therefore he is responsible in part.

<snip>

Or it could be that those in the lower income brackets cant generally afford contraceptives

It isnt cultural, it is economic in these cases. But f you control other variables, then letting the teens know what options are open to them as far as contraceptives go is preferable to other methods

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-12-02 06:05pm

Uther wrote: Anyway the point is, abstinence only education might work.

Despite countless years of evidence to the contrary. Oh sure.

But a mixed approach, teaching about safe sex methods as well is probably better. At the same time, I don't think Bush is effectively giving kids AIDS.

Then you're ignorant. Not that that surprises me.

All that said, of course, what it comes down to is that this whole sex ed thing is something of a red herring.

Translation:I've talked myself into a corner I can't get out of so let's pretend it doesn't really matter.
How pray tell can sex ed be a red herring in a debate about sex ed?
I REALLY would like to hear your reasoning.

Economic status, social class, attitudes towards familial responsibility and higher education, what's culturally acceptable and what's not, these things are of far greater importance.

Which is relevant to the fact that proper sex ed reduces unwanted pregnancies and STDs how exactly?

I'd like to leave you all with an anecdote that I think illustrates this issue rather nicely.

Oh yes. Anecdotal evidence. We all know how extremely valuable that is.

I went to a public high school that had a nearly even split between hispanic kids and then the white/asian kids. Now, the hispanic kids were mostly first and second generation, they lived in a different part of the city, they spoke both spanish and english, I imagine they were generally in lower economic brackets, and they certainly weren't in any of my AP classes. Now, there were other hispanics who were in accelerated classes, but these were kids whose families had been here a while, were upper middle class etc. The point is, both the upper middle class (UPC) kids like me and the hispanic kids all had to go through the same rigamarole state mandated Health class, which of course included sex ed. Now, my memory is pretty fuzzy but the class mostly emphasized scary STDs and that "absitenence is the only 100% effective method!" but we also learned about condoms and stuff. What's my point? Well, I know of several hispanic girls who got pregnant over the course of the 4 years, and not a single UPC girl did. Granted, this is merely an anecdote, but we had the same sex ed! With different results. Why? Because of what's culutrally acceptable and what's not, and what's expected or OK and what's not, and because all these pretty little UPC girls were going to college, and a lot of the pretty little hispanic girls weren't. That's what it comes down to.

Uh huh. Let me get this straight: there will be differences in the approach to sex depending on social factors anyway so let's not bother with proper sex ed since that wouldn't affect those social differences.
You realise that makes no sense, does it?

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-12-02 06:57pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Here ya go numbnuts

Teen birth rates, you will not it corresponds to the sex ed policy of the vrious states.

and this

Does any site go into the state by state policies? The trend is interesting. Heavily geographic - the southern states have higher rates than northern - note California is also part of this trend. The lowest are the New England and the North Dakota, WI, etc... (does this area have a name?). Interesting that the four northern states near Michigan are a real mixed bag politically - split between Kerry and Bush. Not sure what the common theme for these states are.

It is interesting that every single state with the highest rates voted for Bush -most (with the exceptions of NM and NV) heavily. So obviously values don't transfer to youth that well.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-02 07:13pm

Translation:I've talked myself into a corner I can't get out of so let's pretend it doesn't really matter.
How pray tell can sex ed be a red herring in a debate about sex ed?
I REALLY would like to hear your reasoning.

Oh please. I'm arguing the type of sex ed probably doesn't matter very much, and other factors are of much greater importance. But this godawful debating style of quoting individual sentences and then responding to them with pithy little comments is awesome so let's keep doing it.

Uh huh. Let me get this straight: there will be differences in the approach to sex depending on social factors anyway so let's not bother with proper sex ed since that wouldn't affect those social differences.
You realise that makes no sense, does it?

Did I say that pooper scooper? Did I say that sex ed doesn't have any effect at all? I specifically stated that a mixed approach is probably best. It might have some effect on pregnancy rates. It wouldn't hurt, and it's worth doing. But it's not going to come close to solving the problem. There are bigger issues that need to be addressed here.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-02 07:14pm

Actually, it's somewhat common people to marry young here. I note the graph doesn't seem to factor in wheter or not the lady in question is married?

The fact that alot of kids get married also factors into our high divorce rate has well has you can guess.

I am not suggesting that Abstinence is working all that great. There is still a high rate of unwedd pregency and STDs, that could be prevented with wider degree sex education.

The fact of life is that the majority of people are going to screw like rabbits no matter how you feel about it, it's better to just deal with that fact and limit the damage(again speaking about STDs okay?) it can do.

Has an aside note, Birth Control does not promote promiscuity, puberty does.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-12-02 08:17pm

frigidmagi wrote:Has an aside note, Birth Control does not promote promiscuity, puberty does.

I have to remember that line - excellent. Cuts to the heart of the matter.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-02 08:34pm

Joe wrote:Um, I'm sympathetic, but it doesn't work that way. You have to back up your claim with numbers first, then you can demand that the other guy disproves it.

There's ample statistical data, particularly in Louisiana and Texas - both mandating abstinence only education - showing a strong correlation between high rates of STD infection and teen pregnancy with abstinence education. Several studies have even directly negatively linked condom usage with abstinence education.

People have sex regardless. People told condoms aren't useful aren't going to subject themselves to them, have sex anyway, and get pregnant and get STDs more than the kids who are using them (because they were taught). Some of those kids are going to be acquiring HIV, and are going to die. QED.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-02 08:38pm

I have to remember that line - excellent. Cuts to the heart of the matter.

Thanks, feel free to use has often has needed. It has served me well.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2004-12-02 10:30pm

Perhaps we should just stick with the kindergarten policy of sex education. Just tell each sex that the other has cooties. Kindergarten pregnancy rates are extremely low which means it's working!!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-12-02 11:18pm

jcow79 wrote:Perhaps we should just stick with the kindergarten policy of sex education. Just tell each sex that the other has cooties. Kindergarten pregnancy rates are extremely low which means it's working!!

LOL!!!!~!!!1

Alright, who's got the sockpuppet? Darth Wong?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-03 12:08am

Uther wrote:I thought the kind of working assumption of this message board was that people are generally pretty stupid?

They are. Attitudes like yours don't help. Only in Idiot-Land can someone seriously believe that ignorance can be fought by spreading misinformation in the hopes of synergistic interaction between one misconception and another.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-03 12:55am

Destructionator XIII wrote:What, pray tell, specifically are the bigger issues you keep referring to, Uther?

Poverty, class expectations, cultural norms (culture is the sense of trailer park culture, ghetto culture), stuff like that.

egyptfrk · Post by **egyptfrk** » 2004-12-03 01:57am

Uther wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote:What, pray tell, specifically are the bigger issues you keep referring to, Uther?
Poverty, class expectations, cultural norms (culture is the sense of trailer park culture, ghetto culture), stuff like that.

"babies having babies" -phenomena common to lower socio-economic areas

Yes, kids raised in low socio-economic areas (ie ghettos, projects, etc) clearly have fewer resources. Many of these kids were also accidents themselves because their parents didn't get the truth about sex from school or anyone else. So why wouldn't an all-encompasing sex ed class in school help prevent that? Obviously there aren't going to be too many people in their neighborhood who could or will give them a truthful and realistic sexual education.