I’ve been acutely aware that the Democratic Party has been primarily composed of a bunch of ADD plagued eunuchs for quite some time now. However, I always assumed liberal leaders had “the greater good” in mind as they grabbed their ankles for Republican bipartisanship. Now that the santorum from our nation’s eight yearlong conservative reaming has splattered across the pages of the new health care bill, I’m starting to have my doubts.
As part of an effort to placate conservative concerns about being able to pander to their religious extremist voting base, the new health care bill provides another $250 million in funding to abstinence-only “education.”
Allow me to rephrase that last part so it may properly sink in: Democrats are now actively funding abstinence-only education, which contributes to ignorance, the spread of STDs, teen pregnancy and death.
Wow. I’m sorry. That must be my liberalism flaring up again. It happens sometimes when I type sitting in the middle of my satanic pentagram. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so quick to mock the plan of God without looking at the great things that abstinence education has done for the U.S. Certainly godless, weed-whiffing, prostitute-pumping countries like Holland could benefit from a little good old-fashioned American sexual repression right?
Wrong. Holland is kicking our holier-than-thou American system by every measure. All the statistics below come from Advocates for Youth and are based on percentages to account for population differences. Our teen pregnancy rate is six times as high. Teen birth rate is almost 10 times as high. Teen abortion is more than twice as high. Teen syphilis is almost three times as high. Teen gonorrhea is almost 33 times greater. Teen chlamydia is almost 20 times greater. Abstinence-only education seems to delay sex in participants by an average of only six months and contributes to a greater likelihood of engaging in unsafe sex. Still, it seems odd that a culture that legalized cannabis consumption and call girls is fairing better than our preciously prudish U.S. of A.
There is a very simple reason why the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all support comprehensive sex education: You can’t stop people from having sex.
Just for a moment though, let us assume that abstinence-only “education” worked. Lets say every student who participated in the program really bought into the idea that sex is a repulsive, despicable and dangerous act that we should save for the person we want to marry. What about those who can’t marry? Should we just ignore the high school students that identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual? Is it realistic to assume you can teach them to live out the rest of their lives without having a sexual experience? Isn’t there an implicit derogatory labeling in such practices? Or does it just not matter since they’re all going to hell anyway?
Most people intuit that people have the right to be educated about their health. Even the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights dictates that governments are responsible for “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic diseases.” What better way to prevent an epidemic than information? Put another way, which doctor would you prefer; the one who fully informs you of all available treatments or the practicing Jehovah’s Witness who believes God will be happier if you aren’t aware that a blood transfusion could save your life?
People are going to have sex before marriage. People who will never marry are going to have sex. In all likelihood, people will have multiple partners. Merely explaining that birth control can be over 99 percent effective when used properly is not going to turn a group of chaste Christians into nefarious nymphomaniacs. It’s going to create more savvy, sexually safe students, reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and perhaps teach some of the more misguided abstinence pledges that anal sex may not be the smartest way to try to preserve their “virginity.”
Footnote: If you are sexually active, make sure to get regular STD screenings. A little blood in a vial and pee in a cup is your price to pay for this beautiful human expression.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
brandeis 2 years, 1 month ago
All of this is just silly. They should teach comprehensive oral and manual sex courses so everyone is a superstar at stuff that won't get them knocked up. It's a win/win.
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
Dental hygiene is, BTW, a terrible analogy for the abstinence/condom ed debate.
Terminate_Damnation 2 years, 1 month ago
WRONG. If you pray REALLY REALLY REALLY hard, God will keep you from having sex. I did that, and I've only had sex with my girlfriend like 164 times. If I hadn't prayed and not received my abstinence-only education, that number would be HIGHER, at like 170 times.
leimapapa 2 years, 1 month ago
This is boring, regurgitated crap. Bread was your punishment too, you know...
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
@dio,
--Do you know you can have STDs and be a virgin?
Yes, you can get them from other risky behaviors or from freak unusual occurrences, or even from birth. But that's quite rare. Plus you won't be TRANSMITTING any of them to anyone else if you're abstinent.
--Anyway, you fail to understand that there is a majority of people that do not listen to abstinence speeches and have sex anyway.
Anyway, you fail to understand that there is a majority of people that do not listen to condom ed speeches and have sex w/o condoms anyway. You still don't get my point, and at this point it's becoming sort of pitiful.
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
@PChem
True, but that does not mean that sex-ed should be abstinence-only.
For example, if people are not aware that tooth brushes/dental floss/etc exist, how do you expect them to take care of their teeth? Maybe some of them will choose to do nothing and have rotten teeth, but most people with a minimum of self respect will listen and integrate the information.
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
@Rhology
"Plus you won't be TRANSMITTING any of them to anyone else if you're abstinent"
You can carry a STD without knowing it. Therefore you can be abstinent, marry, and give an STD to your wife/husband. Your ignorance in the matter is mind-boggling.
"you fail to understand that there is a majority of people that do not listen to condom ed speeches"
I already answered that to PChem.
"Dental hygiene is, BTW, a terrible analogy for the abstinence/condom ed debate"
It is a perfectly valid one. A disease is a disease, so it does not matter if it is localized in your mouth or on your genitals.
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
Grogan said: --Democrats are now actively funding abstinence-only education, which contributes to ignorance, the spread of STDs, teen pregnancy and death.
Actually, if you actually follow the guidelines of abstinence, it's 100% successful in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc. The problems start when you STOP ABSTAINING.
By contrast, if you use a condom or something, then you have a, what? Let's be generous - 90% success in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc. You start getting lower %s when when you STOP USING CONDOMS. So you can go with 100% if yes and a lot lower results if no. Or you can go with 90% if yes and the same lot lower results if no.
This isn't that hard, but it is common sense and logic, which are not liberals' strong points.
--the idea that sex is a repulsive, despicable and dangerous act
Show me anyone who says that sex is REPULSIVE. Or DESPICABLE. It certainly IS dangerous, kind of like fire, if used outside of its intended context. Fire's great for my fireplace or my stove, but not in the middle of my bedspread. Like sex. No interaction with this obvious fact from Grogan.
--Should we just ignore the high school students that identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual?
Depends on what you want. Are you trying to prevent unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc? If so, abstinence has a 100% success rate. Why is Grogan moving the goalposts in the middle of his column?
--People are going to have sex before marriage
So why are you complaining about abstinence-only education?
People are also going to have unprotected sex. I guess that means that condom ed is hopeless and shouldn't be done, since some ppl won't wear 'em.
Wow, this column was a crappy and sappy expression of love for and blind faith in liberalism. Thanks for sharing, but leave the thinking to someone else, dude.
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
We should give the opportunity to all good christians to opt in a sterilization program, if they feel that sex is such an abomination. What about a genital excision combined with a lobotomy? No genitals and no sex drive: case solved. Plus evolution skeptics will be able to see how natural selection really works.
jssooner4 2 years, 1 month ago
I recently heard a story from a clinic in Norman about the numerous people who had come in with horrible rotting teeth who had never heard of flossing. Every child has it drilled into their heads that flossing is important. Why? Because its understood that flossing is good for one's health and not flossing could lead to serious issues.
Take the same idea and apply it to sex. Currently, all students are taught is sex is bad and we should abstain or bad things will happen. Then, when kids grow up and decide, hey whats the worse that can happen, they haven't learned about condoms or birth control. The result: babies and STIs.
I was an ardent supporter of health care legislation, and when I heard that this was included in the bill, I was displeased. But, along with the anti-abortion legislation, these articles were required to get enough public support to pass the bill. Whose to blame? Both parties, and Americans lack of intelligence.
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
Hi dio,
--IF YOU FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES.
Yes, now ask the same question about condom education. What if the ppl DON'T follow the guidelines? Same problems, but I don't find condom ed proponents are generally willing to engage their own double-edged swords.
--A rate of success over 99% is not enough for you
Wait just a second. 1) The success rate of condom usage is not over 99%. 2) The success rate (for the intended effects - preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs) of abstinence is 100%. Yes, IF YOU FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES. So, if you follow the abstinence guidelines, 100% success. If you follow the condom guidelines, <100% success.
If you don't follow the abstinence guidelines, low success. If you don't follow the condom guidelines, low success.
This isn't that hard.
--So we should discard the whole thing because of an insignificant failure rate?
No, but one reason you should discard it is b/c a better method exists. Abstinence has 100%, condoms don't. Simple as that (since Grogan is talking about success rates).
--Really? Then you should instruct people of the dangers and provide the means of protecting them...
I do! I tell them to get and stay married and have sex with that one person for life, and to abstain outside of that relationship. And guess what? 100% success!
--Gay marriage is prohibited in many state, so if you have to be married to have sex then gay and lesbians are going to be banned to have sex forever.
You forgot to explain how that's not irrelevant and moving the goalposts. Yours is an outraged assertion waiting for an argument.
--If you decrease the proportion of people having unprotected sex, then you decrease pregnancy and contamination rates. Is it difficult to understand?
But (again, since we're talking about ratios) you ELIMINATE pregnancy and contamination rates with abstinence.
So, do we prefer to reduce rates, or eliminate them altogether?
You say logic isn't my strong point, but you haven't even understood the point I made yet. I urge you to try again.
SoonerDutch 2 years, 1 month ago
Regardless of how effective abstinence-only education is, the author is complaining about 250 million of a 940 billion dollar piece of legislation...
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
Rhology, you are an imbecile.
"if you actually follow the guidelines of abstinence, it's 100% successful".
IF YOU FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES. Now to think that everybody will follow a moronic pseudo-religious speech prohibiting primal instincts is so ludicrous that anyone with a decent amount of education wonder how mentally challenged you have to be to believe in such a nonsense.
"You start getting lower %s when when you STOP USING CONDOMS (...) This isn't that hard, but it is common sense and logic, which are not liberals' strong points."
A rate of success over 99% is not enough for you? So we should discard the whole thing because of an insignificant failure rate? That is by far the most retarded statement you ever made. Your justification of your made-up percentages is so confused that is makes no sense to anyone who finished elementary school. Seriously, learn to count, you are a shame.
"It certainly IS dangerous"
Really? Then you should instruct people of the dangers and provide the means of protecting them...
"Why is Grogan moving the goalposts in the middle of his column?"
Gay marriage is prohibited in many state, so if you have to be married to have sex then gay and lesbians are going to be banned to have sex forever. Apparently, logic is not your strongest point either.
"People are also going to have unprotected sex. I guess that means that condom ed is hopeless and shouldn't be done, since some ppl won't wear 'em."
The point is to instruct them so the proportion of people having unprotected sex decreases as much as possible. If you decrease the proportion of people having unprotected sex, then you decrease pregnancy and contamination rates. Is it difficult to understand?
"this column was a crappy and sappy expression of love for and blind faith in liberalism"
What is liberalism supposed to do with sex-ed??? Rhology, you are insane.
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
@PChem
Sex is a private matter, and people are not to be pushed to have a particular sexual behavior. If people want to be abstinent, fine, that is their own business. If people choose not to be abstinent, then access to comprehensive sex-ed should be available.
Abstinence is the best way only on paper. First, it does not prevent someone from having STDs. Second, its rate of success (convincing people not to have sex before marriage) is far worse than you can imagine. If people do not follow the abstinence sermon, then comprehensive sex-ed is one of the best alternatives to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
Sex is a primal instinct, hormones push people to do it. If we were not driven by it, then the survival of our species would be seriously compromised. So you have to take it for granted that people will have an urge to do it, that they will eventually do it and that you cannot prevent it to happen. On the other hand, drug abuse is not a primal instinct: you hormones are not pushing you to finish that bottle or to take a high on Ritalin. Also, having sex is not a destructive behavior, unlike drug abuse and violence.
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
@Rhology
Your point is no sex equals no pregnancy (which is true all the time) and no STDs (which is wrong). Do you know you can have STDs and be a virgin?
Anyway, you fail to understand that there is a majority of people that do not listen to abstinence speeches and have sex anyway.
That is why you need sex-ed, condoms and contraception methods to reduce pregnancy and contamination rates.
Let me dumb that down for you.
One way to avoid tooth decay is to stop eating. Unfortunately, there are people who will eat anyway.
That is why you need tooth paste, dental floss, mouthwash, etc. and teach them how to use all this. Also, marrying your piece of cake will not prevent foodborne diseases to contaminate you.
Do you get it now?
PChem 2 years, 1 month ago
Dio: Anyway, you fail to understand that there is a majority of people that do not listen to abstinence speeches and have sex anyway.
That is why you need sex-ed, condoms and contraception methods to reduce pregnancy and contamination rates.
Me: Doesn't this assume that those people will pay attention during a sex-ed class involving condoms and other contraception? I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a stab that if they won't listen during abstinence-based education they won't listen during non-abstinence-based education.
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
@dio
--You can carry a STD without knowing it. Therefore you can be abstinent, marry, and give an STD to your wife/husband. Your ignorance in the matter is mind-boggling.
It's difficult to blv you're still listening to yourself.
So, let me get this straight - if you're NOT ABSTINENT (ie, have sex with someone), you might pass a STD to someone? Wow, do tell!
--I already answered that to PChem.
Yes, and very badly.
--True, but that does not mean that sex-ed should be abstinence-only.
Now you're just resorting to naked appeals to dio-awesomeness. Your way or the highway, by dio fiat. Sorry, I'm looking for ARGUMENTS, not naked assertions.
--For example, if people are not aware that tooth brushes/dental floss/etc exist, how do you expect them to take care of their teeth?
How is that helpful? I can give someone a 100% effective method and say "Do this and you'll be fine. Don't do it and you won't." Or I can give someone a ~80% effective method and say "Do this and 80% chance you'll be fine. Don't do it and you have less of a chance." Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 100 vs 80. HmmmmmMMMMMmmmmmmm...
--A disease is a disease, so it does not matter if it is localized in your mouth or on your genitals.
But you've completely lost track of the analogy. Sorry. I'm not sure if it's totally b/c you're a sold-out flaming liberal tool, but I'm sure that's contributed somewhat.
PChem 2 years, 1 month ago
One other thing. Abstinence-based education does mirror the other risk-avoidance messages we send to youth concerning alcohol, drug abuse, tobacco, and violence. Why shouldn't we advocate a similar message to avoid risks here?
PChem 2 years, 1 month ago
Dio,
I don't think the issue is breakage, but misusing the device. Here is a link from the WHO. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/
I agree that sex education is a tricky deal. However, I think the overwhelming push needs to be towards abstinence. That is, we educate with the goal of emphasizing that abstinence is the best and ONLY way to guarantee prevention of unwanted pregnancies and prevention of getting/passing STDs. How do you view comprehensive sex ed? Is it a similar model?
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
@Rhology
Sorry, I only write in English here. You have to make an effort to comprehend your own language and the words that I wrote before writing your replies. I said that you can be the carrier of an STDs, without knowing it, and without ever had sex with anyone.
And your point is? I can spot many assertions in your own replies.
It is their problem which method they choose. Abstinence obviously fail at 100% for people who will have sex at least once in their life, that they married their partner before engaging in such activity or not. Condoms have no such constraint. Their effectiveness is still the same that you choose to have sex or not. FYI, the condom breakage rate is 0.4%.
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, really? Then, please, do elaborate.
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
@dio
-- I said that you can be the carrier of an STDs, without knowing it, and without ever had sex with anyone.
Yes (and if you'll recall, I granted that very point and laid out ways that someone could get an STD w/o sex), but you can't CONVEY the STD to anyone if you're abstinent. That's what you went on to say when you talked about the married couple.
--Abstinence obviously fail at 100% for people who will have sex at least once in their life
I can't believe you're being serious. So...abstinence fails when people DON'T PRACTICE ABSTINENCE? Wow, what a shocker! You know what? I bet condom ed fails when people DON'T USE CONDOMS too. Wouldn't that be something?
--Condoms have no such constraint. Their effectiveness is still the same that you choose to have sex or not.
?? No, if you don't have sex, your security from STD or pregnancy is 100%. If you use a condom and have sex, the safety drops to ~80-85%. If you do NEITHER, it drops a lot farther. You still don't understand what I'm saying, and by this point it's beyond pathetic.
braceyourself 2 years, 1 month ago
Good lord. I'm a safer sex educator, and guess what, PChem and Rhology...we don't say that abstinence is bad.
Abstinence is fine. There's nothing wrong with it. In fact, we tell people that the only truly safe form of sex is masturbation and that if they want to be abstinent, they should be abstinent.
That said, we're not ignorant enough to think that everyone will stay abstinent. The problem with abstinence-only sex education is that it fails to acknowledge that people do have sex and should at least be aware of the protection available to them.
Get your head out of your asses and realize that saying abstinence is safe has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether or not abstinence-only sex education creates more problems from lack of information about protection for people who DO choose to not abstain.
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
Kind of lame for the OU Daily comment moderator not to post my pro-abstinence ed comment that I made like 4 days ago. "Independent voice" indeed.
dio 2 years, 1 month ago
@Rhology
You can.
Do you know how many people will never have sex in their life? Yeah, that low and that is the effectiveness of abstinence. Unwanted pregnancies and STDs are not avoided because you obtained the permission of your priest to fornicate. On top of that, abstinence left people ignorant and defenseless against unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
If you do not have sex, then your security from STD is below 100%. How long do I have to repeat it?
You keep claiming bogus failure rates for condoms. I gave a link earlier that you did not even check. Here are the real rates given by the National Institutes of Health (0.4% for breakage for example):
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf
The point is that you do not listen to health recommendations, you make up bogus claims, and you circle in your own ludicrous thoughts about the effectiveness of sitting duck.
Rhology 2 years, 1 month ago
@dio
--Do you know how many people will never have sex in their life? Yeah, that low and that is the effectiveness of abstinence.
Do you know how many people will never have unprotected no-condom sex in their life? Yeah, that low and that is the effectiveness of condom ed.
--Unwanted pregnancies and STDs are not avoided because you obtained the permission of your priest to fornicate.
But they are avoided if you don't fornicate.
--On top of that, abstinence left people ignorant and defenseless against unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
Um, no. NOT ABSTAINING left people defenseless against unwanted pregnancies and STDs. You can be ignorant and behave correctly and not get STDs.
--If you do not have sex, then your security from STD is below 100%. How long do I have to repeat it?
Fine, 99+%.
You're just like most pro-death pro-fornication people - for you, the tiny exceptions are worth overthrowing the rule.
--I gave a link earlier that you did not even check. Here are the real rates given by the National Institutes of Health (0.4% for breakage for example):
Even if I granted that, it wouldn't change the fact that all your arguments are double-edged and don't help you.
@braceyourself
--we don't say that abstinence is bad.
Grogan says that abstinence ED is bad.
--That said, we're not ignorant enough to think that everyone will stay abstinent.
The question I've been asking from the beginning is, however, are you ignorant enough to think that everyone will use condoms?
And then use the "not everyone will _" argument as an argument FOR YOUR POSITION. It's stupid b/c the same question can be asked of your position, and the same answer must be given.
--The problem with abstinence-only sex education is that it fails to acknowledge that people do have sex
The problem with condom education is that it fails to acknowledge that people do have unprotected sex without condoms.