• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds

Gibberish said:
These are all situations that are assumed to have been learned before the student reaches a grade level that has actual "health class". You might as well add a class teaching how to tie your shoes as well. Personally I have yet to meet a high school student who didn't know how to not get the flu or how to eliminate it or the same with chicken pox.

In the matter of reproduction and STD's though, the age of the students when these items are taught are when they are able to start reproducing and also more likely to get an STD.
Click to expand...
Well, it is assumed wrong.
CNN.com - Health - People's hand-washing tales a whitewash, study says - September 18, 2000
Americans' Dirty Secret Revealed | LiveScience

So...about funding for Hygiene classes. Again, if your willing for your taxes pay for hygiene classes, then I'm willing to pay for sex-ed.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Well, it is assumed wrong.
CNN.com - Health - People's hand-washing tales a whitewash, study says - September 18, 2000
Americans' Dirty Secret Revealed | LiveScience

So...about funding for Hygiene classes. Again, if your willing for your taxes pay for hygiene classes, then I'm willing to pay for sex-ed.
Click to expand...

Where in those articles does it say the people are ignorant on how to wash their hands or what washing their hands does?

If you want to address the issues in your links then you would need a class on "How to not be lazy" not a Hygiene class.

The difference is the individuals taking the Health class don't know what STD's are or how to prevent them.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Where in those articles does it say the people are ignorant on how to wash their hands or what washing their hands does?

If you want to address the issues in your links then you would need a class on "How to not be lazy" not a Hygiene class.

The difference is the individuals taking the Health class don't know what STD's are or how to prevent them.
Click to expand...
ok then, to get back on topic, can you show many a study that shows kids do not know HOW to put on a condom?

EDIT: and not some study in africa. Be fair like I did, here in america.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
ok then, to get back on topic, can you show many a study that shows kids do not know HOW to put on a condom?

EDIT: and not some study in africa. Be fair like I did, here in america.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about showing how to put on? There are directions in the condom box for that.

I am saying a teacher should provide information that condoms and other such barrier providing contraceptives will help protect against such diseases and that they are the only contraceptives that do so and that intercourse is not the only method to obtain such diseases. We wouldn't want the students thinking "the pill" provides this type of protection or that they do other things besides intercourse and they are safe. They need to know even basic kissing can transfer such diseases.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
I don't know, maybe because it saves lives? That is the motivation behind it all, isn't it? I mean, you do agree, all diseases can kill if not treated correctly. So, why not save more lives by having Hygiene ed classes, or Worm classes! It'll SAVE LIVES!
Click to expand...

Your being silly, now. I realize you've backed yourself in a corner with the whole disease thing. Agree that it was an overreaction and move on.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
ok then, to get back on topic, can you show many a study that shows kids do not know HOW to put on a condom?

EDIT: and not some study in africa. Be fair like I did, here in america.
Click to expand...

A while back I posted an American study that showed that 8 out of 10 adult men put on a condom, incorrectly, even if give 3 chances to do so. I cannot locate the study or the post, but I'll keep looking. Assuming this is accurate, and if I recall I checked the test's validity and it seemed sound, I would think this refutes your assertion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A while back I posted an American study that showed that 8 out of 10 adult men put on a condom, incorrectly, even if give 3 chances to do so. I cannot locate the study or the post, but I'll keep looking. Assuming this is accurate, and if I recall I checked the test's validity and it seemed sound, I would think this refutes your assertion.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. Now THIS doesn't make sense. I just read a study that said condoms are very efficient. How is that if 8/10 men are not putting it on correctly?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your being silly, now. I realize you've backed yourself in a corner with the whole disease thing. Agree that it was an overreaction and move on.
Click to expand...
Not really, just pointing out the obvious, sex-ed has absolutely NOTHING to do with saving people from disease. It only has to do with pleasure. If everyone in the world waited untill they were married and never cheated. The AIDS problem would be virtually nonexistent. Just isolated instances of Aids via-blood transfusions and what not, and even then it would be rarer. Why doesn't anyone encourage that behavior? I'll tell you why: "Its too dang hard!I dun wanna wait till marriage!"
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Wait a minute. Now THIS doesn't make sense. I just read a study that said condoms are very efficient. How is that if 8/10 men are not putting it on correctly?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the efficient study only counted those instances where the condom was used properly?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Not really, just pointing out the obvious, sex-ed has absolutely NOTHING to do with saving people from disease.
Click to expand...

Really? Not even the part about "practicing safe sex" with condom's?

DarkWizard12 said:
It only has to do with pleasure.
Click to expand...

:confused:

DarkWizard12 said:
If everyone in the world waited untill they were married and never cheated. The AIDS problem would be virtually nonexistent. Just isolated instances of Aids via-blood transfusions and what not, and even then it would be rarer. Why doesn't anyone encourage that behavior? I'll tell you why: "Its too dang hard!I dun wanna wait till marriage!"
Click to expand...

You can replace that with "if everyone in the world used condoms" and the desired result would be the same.

The difference is you can get people to use condoms easily, teaching abstinence however fails in terms of effectiveness.

We're never going to have a world where everyone waits until their married, nor should we (how awful.) So we should rationally deal with the world have, using methods that are proven effective, rather than proven failures.

DarkWizard12 said:
Wait a minute. Now THIS doesn't make sense. I just read a study that said condoms are very efficient. How is that if 8/10 men are not putting it on correctly?
Click to expand...

Perhaps someone should teach them how to put one on correctly... I wonder what kind of class would cover that...
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
Not really, just pointing out the obvious, sex-ed has absolutely NOTHING to do with saving people from disease. It only has to do with pleasure.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with pleasure. It has to do with educating people on risk and safety.

DarkWizard12 said:
If everyone in the world waited untill they were married and never cheated. The AIDS problem would be virtually nonexistent. Just isolated instances of Aids via-blood transfusions and what not, and even then it would be rarer. Why doesn't anyone encourage that behavior? I'll tell you why: "Its too dang hard!I dun wanna wait till marriage!"
Click to expand...
And those people that never get married?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Who's talking about showing how to put on? There are directions in the condom box for that.

1. I am saying a teacher should provide information that condoms and other such barrier providing contraceptives will help protect against such diseases.and that they are the only contraceptives that do so and that intercourse is not the only method to obtain such diseases. We wouldn't want the students thinking "the pill" provides this type of protection or that they do other things besides intercourse and they are safe. 2.They need to know even basic kissing can transfer such diseases.
Click to expand...
1. So, you want teachers to basically market condoms. Cause, you know thats what you would be doing. Like the commercials, only not as sexy.

2. No you can't, unless your gums are bleeding. (See: tooth brush) and even then, its a small risk.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Wait a minute. Now THIS doesn't make sense. I just read a study that said condoms are very efficient. How is that if 8/10 men are not putting it on correctly?
Click to expand...

Efficiency and safety are mutually exclusive. Everything one reads about condoms discusses their efficiency with the contingent that they are used properly.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
1. So, you want teachers to basically market condoms. Cause, you know thats what you would be doing. Like the commercials, only not as sexy.
Click to expand...

I don't quite remember any brand being pushed, just the importance of latex.

I wouldn't regard it as "marketing" unless you're claiming that teachers "market" books as well. It isn't their purpose at all... in fact in the case of books I'd say teacher's deter people from reading later in life.
 
Gibberish said:
It has nothing to do with pleasure. It has to do with educating people on risk and safety.
Click to expand...
Then you would have to teach them abstinence. Condoms are only 97% effective. It does DECREASE the risk, no mistake about it, and that is worth noting in sex ed. But it is not 100% effective by no means.
And those people that never get married?
Click to expand...
Who? Who did I say don't get married?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Not really, just pointing out the obvious, sex-ed has absolutely NOTHING to do with saving people from disease.
Click to expand...

Says you. Inaccuracy certainly does not equate to certainty. You are being inaccurate, so your certainty is debunked.


It only has to do with pleasure.
Click to expand...

Not in any sex-ed class I've been in. Or taught. it's always about understanding ones body, from a reproductive sense, and understanding how to be safe. You are spewing inaccuracies.

If everyone in the world waited untill they were married and never cheated. The AIDS problem would be virtually nonexistent.
Click to expand...

And if the queen had balls she'd be king. If you'd like to deal with the fantasies of what might happen, be my quest. I'll deal with reality.

Just isolated instances of Aids via-blood transfusions and what not, and even then it would be rarer. Why doesn't anyone encourage that behavior? I'll tell you why: "Its too dang hard!I dun wanna wait till marriage!"
Click to expand...

You're doing it again. Straw manning. Please stop, it makes your argument look weaker than it is on it's own merits. No one is saying that abstinence should not be encouraged. It should. But it should NOT be the only thing taught. That is unsafe.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Then you would have to teach them abstinence.
Click to expand...

Abstinence only needs to be taught to anyone stupid enough not to get that "if you don't have sex you wont get X" is implied by "people get X through sex."

EVERYONE who doesn't believe in the stork theory of child birth understands abstinence. There is NO need to teach it, nor does teaching it yield effective results.

DarkWizard12 said:
Condoms are only 97% effective. It does DECREASE the risk, no mistake about it, and that is worth noting in sex ed. But it is not 100% effective by no means.
Click to expand...

Are you under the assumption that abstinence education is? I don't think you understand how high 97% is, that's a SUBSTANTIAL decrease.
 
Lachean said:
I don't quite remember any brand being pushed, just the importance of latex.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, they would be marketing a product, not a brand.
I wouldn't regard it as "marketing" unless you're claiming that teachers "market" books as well. It isn't their purpose at all... in fact in the case of books I'd say teacher's deter people from reading later in life.
Click to expand...
They actually kind of do. At least with any school with a library with late-charges. It is business (although not a "marketed" business...)
 
The point of teaching children about sex education early is so that they have the knowledge before they have the desire to become sexually active. Also, sex education is not just about condom use, but in learning about your own body and the changes (physically and emotionally) that are taking place over the course of puberty. It is a very confusing time for many young people, and the purpose of the education is to help them to cope with the experience and normalize the process of actually investigating and asking questions about it.

Sex education occurs outside of the classroom in every day life, but its sources are dubious and inconsistent. How many urban legends exist about aspects of sexuality? Even before I became a doctor, I was reading stories about people who thought the most ridiculous things could be used for contraception.

Growing up, my male friends were always giving me varying advice on women. In hindsight, none of them knew what the hell they were talking about. It is far better for children to receive a standardized, accurate version before street education confuses them and leads to them to unknowingly risky situations.

I understand religion's attempt to ensure sex before marriage, but this philosophy can also co-exist with sex education. It is about empowering young people with knowledge so that they can make educated decisions. Clearly there are still people in favour of sex after marriage even after receiving sex education, so the system is not watering down their philosophy and trying to run it out of town.

A lot of my young patients ask very intelligent questions about sexuality to fill their knowledge gaps, and this is after they have already received the standard education in the school system (which, in my opinion, is still lacking).

The sex education system in schools should be given more funding, not less, because right now I feel it focused too much on the clinical side and less on the psychosocial side. However, it will likely remain more technical because social conservatives tend to believe that schools are trying to interfere in the psychosocial upbringing of their children.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
1. So, you want teachers to basically market condoms. Cause, you know thats what you would be doing. Like the commercials, only not as sexy.

2. No you can't, unless your gums are bleeding. (See: tooth brush) and even then, its a small risk.
Click to expand...

You're doing it AGAIN. Straw manning. Doesn't work.

1) No one is saying that. Teachers should be teaching what types of safety condoms create, when used properly during sex. Just the information. Similar to if religion was taught in school. Information, not judgment.

2) Read his comment. He didn't say HIV only. If you have mouth herpes, transmitting that via kissing is pretty easy.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
1. So, you want teachers to basically market condoms. Cause, you know thats what you would be doing. Like the commercials, only not as sexy.
Click to expand...
No I want teachers to educate on protective measures for avoiding STD's.

DarkWizard12 said:
2. No you can't, unless your gums are bleeding. (See: tooth brush) and even then, its a small risk.
Click to expand...
Bleeding or sores and it is a relevant risk. Herpes would be the most relevant to kissing.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I'm sorry, they would be marketing a product, not a brand.
Click to expand...

Alright, your point? I don't care if "this class was brought to you by Durex" so long as they demonstrably reduce the rates of infection/pregnancy.

DarkWizard12 said:
They actually kind of do. At least with any school with a library with late-charges. It is business (although not a "marketed" business...)
Click to expand...

IMO I don't regard any public service as a "business" and if you do, they sure don't turn a profit. Nor do i see your point even if you were right?

I regard Universities as a business, and if a paid class on safe sex only taught abstinence, I'd want my money back.

What does "pleasure" or "business" have to do with "efficacy" and why do you use the words in contempt? As if pleasure were a poor reason to do something safely?

You do know that people can get certain STD's like HPV without ever having had sex right?
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
Then you would have to teach them abstinence. Condoms are only 97% effective. It does DECREASE the risk, no mistake about it, and that is worth noting in sex ed. But it is not 100% effective by no means.
Click to expand...

Of course, Abstinence would be stated as the safest measure of all. There is no reason to leave out abstinence or contraceptives from the discussion along with the risk that is still present when using contraceptives vs abstinence.

DarkWizard12 said:
Who? Who did I say don't get married?
Click to expand...

You didn't. You said "If everyone in the world waited untill they were married and never cheated. The AIDS problem would be virtually nonexistent.".

Your scenario assumes everyone gets married. There are large numbers of people in the world that never get married so your scenario would never exist even if those people that were going to be married waited and never cheated.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Abstinence only needs to be taught to anyone stupid enough not to get that "if you don't have sex you wont get X" is implied by "people get X through sex."

EVERYONE who doesn't believe in the stork theory of child birth understands abstinence. There is NO need to teach it, nor does teaching it yield effective results.



Are you under the assumption that abstinence education is? I don't think you understand how high 97% is, that's a SUBSTANTIAL decrease.
Click to expand...
97% =/= 100%.

my beef isn't with condoms though. f your going to have sex, use a condom. Its the fact that, thats the only behaviour thats encouraged. Who's telling the kids "Hey kids, condoms are okay but only 97% effective. If you abstain, you'll be in just as good a shape". Hell, I wonder how many condom companies lobby for sex-ed?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
97% =/= 100%.

my beef isn't with condoms though. f your going to have sex, use a condom. Its the fact that, thats the only behaviour thats encouraged. Who's telling the kids "Hey kids, condoms are okay but only 97% effective. If you abstain, you'll be in just as good a shape". Hell, I wonder how many condom companies lobby for sex-ed?
Click to expand...

Um most health classes that talk about contraceptives? I don't think a single person has said don't promote abstinence as a safety measure in Sex-ed. The argument is that it shouldn't be taught as the ONLY safety measure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom