In 1992 we were subjected to endless discussion of whether or not a Presidential candidate had been in the presence of a lit marijuana cigarette and what that meant about his ability to hold the office. He says he tried it once. But he didn't inhale. And it's OK because he was in England and didn't break U.S. law. AH, but did he enjoy it?

The current 'Newsweek' mentions that Palin smoked marijuana. (While in Alaska, where it wasn't illegal, so she can use one of Clinton's excuses if necessary.) Obama wrote a book in which he says he smoked pot and used coke. And we all don't seem to care. Which I think is a great thing.

The 'Newsweek' article also states that Sarah and Todd eloped and she gave birth to their first child eight months later. I hope this is also something that we don't care about. I do think that her opinions about abstinence only sex education raise similar questions of validity that her daughter's pregnancy raised. But even though bringing her first pregnancy into the discussion can be defended as relevant, I hope the Democrats focus their criticisms on the ineffectiveness of her idea and not her possible past behavior. I hope this as a citizen and a Democrat.

Speaking of things that don't matter:

Quote:CORRECTED (see corrections below)
McCain Camp Offended by Obama Pig Remarks
Presidential candidate neither porcine nor cross-dressing, aides say

By M K Trout
1 hour, 54 minutes ago

RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) - Staff for Republican presidential candidate John McCain said yesterday in a statement that Democratic Rival was attempting to shift focus off issues with "scurrilous lies and playground insults."
ADVERTISEMENT

The flap arises in the wake of Mr. Obama's use of a colloquialism about putting lipstick on a pig to describe the policies of the McCain campaign.

The McCain camp originally indicated that Mr. Obama was making sexist remarks regarding the Republican running mate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. The latest volley indicates that they have changed tactics on the metaphor.

In a statement, campaign manager Steve Schmidt stated, "We are willing to take Sen. Obama at his word that he was not speaking about Gov. Palin in his comments on Tuesday. At the same time, though, we do not feel it makes the comments any less offensive that he was calling Sen. McCain both a pig and a transvestite in a single sentence. Sen. Obama must stop his campaign of scurrilous lies and playground insults and focus on what's important to our nation -- lies about earmarks and more giveaways to big corporations."

Former McCain rivals were no less vocal in their condemnation of the junior Senator from Illinois.

"As someone who is often compared to [cartoon loser] Droopy Dog and [children's cereal magnate] Frankenberry, I understand how these shallow insults can sting," former Tennessee Senator and actor Fred Thompson, who had previously challenged Sen. McCain for the Republican nomination, said in a hastily assembled conference call with reporters. "The man lived in a box in Vietnam for five years, but that doesn't make him a pig. This is a new low for the Democrat party."

Looking at the other side of the metaphor, former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani released a statement saying "As we remember the victims of 9/11 and how that day changed our country forever, it is unconscionable that a community organizer would accuse Sen. McCain -- an American hero -- of wearing lipstick... not even if the lipstick tube were shaped like the World Trade Center twin towers which we all -- as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans -- watched fall on that fateful 9/11 day."

In an odd twist, Giuliani's statement went on to say that McCain would never do anything that resembles cross-dressing "because he knows he couldn't look half as good as I do in drag. 9/11."

The Obama campaign's response to the latest kerfuffle was an uncharacteristically terse written statement of their own. The full text of the statement read, "We're speechless. This is astounding. If the voting public is so stupid as to buy this, we're all ****** anyway."

--

CORRECTION: A previously issued edition of this article incorrectly identified Frankenberry as a children's cereal mascot. Mr. Berry's press secretary indicates that, while he appears on the box it is as owner of Frankenberry, Inc., thus he is more properly identified as a children's cereal magnate. We regret the error.

(Editing by Eric T. Red)

* Email Story
* IM Story
* Printable View
*
Yahoo! Buzz

RECOMMEND THIS STORY

Henry Doorly Wrote:I hope the Democrats focus their criticisms on the ineffectiveness of [abstinence-only sex education] and not her possible past behavior. I hope this as a citizen and a Democrat.

As a libertarian, I'm right there with you.

article quoted by texd Wrote:The Obama campaign's response to the latest kerfuffle was an uncharacteristically terse written statement of their own. The full text of the statement read, "We're speechless. This is astounding. If the voting public is so stupid as to buy this, we're all ****** anyway."

Yep, they are; and yep, we are. Great article, though -- even if it's a little too believable!

lauramac Wrote:

Henry Doorly Wrote:I hope the Democrats focus their criticisms on the ineffectiveness of [abstinence-only sex education] and not her possible past behavior. I hope this as a citizen and a Democrat.

As a libertarian, I'm right there with you.

article quoted by texd Wrote:The Obama campaign's response to the latest kerfuffle was an uncharacteristically terse written statement of their own. The full text of the statement read, "We're speechless. This is astounding. If the voting public is so stupid as to buy this, we're all ****** anyway."

Yep, they are; and yep, we are. Great article, though -- even if it's a little too believable!

Does she advocate abstinence only?? I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. I don't care enough to look it up... as I'm not aware of the VP having more pull than anyone else in Washington on sex-education... and I'm certainly not aware that this is a priority for ANYONE running for election.

I do have to ask... why is telling children that the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is to avoid sex (abstinence) wrong? It is factually accurate. You can't really teach "abstinence only" without talking about the risks of sex... meaning they have to have SOME sex education... I tell my daughter and son that... and that while condoms and the pill are 99% effective, the consequences of being that 1% are pretty severe... and even THAT statistic assumes "proper use". Don't do it. If you do, use a condom AND the pill... use two... take the morning after pill and an anti-biotic just in case... get tested anyway... and make SURE you're ready for the consequences of being a statistic.

The fact is, regardless of WHAT you teach your children, by 17 or 18, and USUALLY much sooner... they're going to make their own decisions.

I'd equally argue that as a 17 or 18 year old girls and boys (speaking of people like Palin, her husband AND her daughter and boyfriend) all knew the risks of their behaviour... regardless of what they were "taught". Plenty of people who are given sex education get pregnant... plenty of people taught to "wrap that rascal" get STDs. We tell people every day that crime is wrong... yet they do it.

If this is a big issue for someone in this election, on either side... in any way... then I would REALLY be surprised if those people are "in play" for either party.

Hambone10 Wrote:Does she advocate abstinence only??

Doesn't look like it, unless she's reversed course in the past couple of weeks..

Quote:Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...8481.story

Hambone10 Wrote:as I'm not aware of the VP having more pull than anyone else in Washington on sex-education...

Somebody in Washington clearly has some pull in this matter, considering how much money the feds have doled out to AO programs ($50 million + per year since 1998) which often give out counterfactual information regarding sex with condoms.

Hambone10 Wrote:I do have to ask... why is telling children that the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is to avoid sex (abstinence) wrong? It is factually accurate. You can't really teach "abstinence only" without talking about the risks of sex... meaning they have to have SOME sex education... I tell my daughter and son that... and that while condoms and the pill are 99% effective, the consequences of being that 1% are pretty severe... and even THAT statistic assumes "proper use". Don't do it. If you do, use a condom AND the pill... use two... take the morning after pill and an anti-biotic just in case... get tested anyway... and make SURE you're ready for the consequences of being a statistic.

There's nothing wrong with telling someone that the only 100% method is abstinence, but what you describe above is not AO education -- that's comprehensive education (also known as safer sex education).

This is abstinence-only education as defined by our federal government:

Quote:(A) Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school children;
(C ) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child s parents, and society;
(G) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and
(H) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Many AO programs have been found to exaggerate condom failure rates, citing them as anywhere from 10-30%. The net result of such exaggeration (coupled with a complete lack of education regarding their use -- e.g. proper water based lubricant, proper application) is that students who receive AO have equivalent sexual activity rates as their comprehensive peers (both AO and comprehensive delay onset of sexual activity), higher teen pregnancy rates, and higher rates of STDs including HIV/AIDS. It turns out that if you teach a kid that condoms and other contraceptives don't work -- or even if you just omit information about their use -- they simply won't use them.

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/he...ed20m.html

Hambone10 Wrote:The fact is, regardless of WHAT you teach your children, by 17 or 18, and USUALLY much sooner... they're going to make their own decisions.

Exactly why more information -- and more to the point, information that will have them making informed decisions -- is so important.

Hambone10 Wrote:I'd equally argue that as a 17 or 18 year old girls and boys (speaking of people like Palin, her husband AND her daughter and boyfriend) all knew the risks of their behaviour... regardless of what they were "taught". Plenty of people who are given sex education get pregnant... plenty of people taught to "wrap that rascal" get STDs. We tell people every day that crime is wrong... yet they do it.

That's the thing... they DON'T know the risks of their behavior. If they think that condom sex vs no-condom sex is equally risky, then they don't know the risks. Think back to your time in adolescence and all the rumors that swirled about sex... ones I remember were "can't get pregnant your first time," "pulling out is fine," "douching with diet coke will keep a girl from getting pregnant" (Ew!). Those were all rumors which some of my peers believed and which were countered through safer sex education.

At Ease Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Does she advocate abstinence only??

Doesn't look like it, unless she's reversed course in the past couple of weeks..

Quote:Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...8481.story

That appears to be in direct conflict with what she told the Eagle Forum in that same 2006 race.

texd Wrote:

At Ease Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Does she advocate abstinence only??

Doesn't look like it, unless she's reversed course in the past couple of weeks..

Quote:Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...8481.story

That appears to be in direct conflict with what she told the Eagle Forum in that same 2006 race.

The chronology on this is probably important. She answered the questionnaire fairly straight-forward, but with a small bit of wiggle room, during the summer. (Newspaper quote of the answers here.) Money quote on question and answer:

Quote:3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

However, in a subsequent debate before being elected, she was also hit with a similar question. She gives a much more nuanced answer. (Article I found the info on is here. It links to CSPAN video of the actual debate.) Your money question and answer (which I take from the article - problems with any transcription are there) is the following:

Quote:It seems Palin had written in a questionnaire that she opposed "explicit" sex-ed programs, so she was asked:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

Palin's answer:

No, I don't think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I'm not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something that I would support also.

There is an indeterminate line here as to what is meant by explicit, it seems to me. But the position does seem consistent to what she publicly declared at the time. I also think the answers (especially when you look at the Eagle Forum questionnaire) are written to appeal to that target group. Pretty typical political response to an interest group.

BTW, I'm sure the partisans on both sides feel this way.

Hambone10 Wrote:I do have to ask... why is telling children that the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is to avoid sex (abstinence) wrong? It is factually accurate.

It's not at all wrong to tell them that, because it *is* factually accurate.

Hambone Wrote:You can't really teach "abstinence only" without talking about the risks of sex... meaning they have to have SOME sex education... I tell my daughter and son that... and that while condoms and the pill are 99% effective, the consequences of being that 1% are pretty severe... and even THAT statistic assumes "proper use". Don't do it. If you do, use a condom AND the pill... use two... take the morning after pill and an anti-biotic just in case... get tested anyway... and make SURE you're ready for the consequences of being a statistic.

See, though, right there you're going way past "abstinence only". As I understand it, "abstinence only" = "just say no (because I said so)". You, on the other hand, are telling your son & daughter that abstinence is best, but are also telling them *why* it's the only way to be sure -- and are giving them the information they need to make well-reasoned decisions.

Shame on you, Hambone -- trying to get me to say you're wrong, when you know I can't because you're not!

gsloth's article Wrote:My thoughts do not aim for your assent -- just place them alongside your own reflections for a while.
--Robert Nozick

I kinda like this quote. I don't follow it very often, but I like it.

texd Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:The fact is, regardless of WHAT you teach your children, by 17 or 18, and USUALLY much sooner... they're going to make their own decisions.

Exactly why more information -- and more to the point, information that will have them making informed decisions -- is so important.

Hambone10 Wrote:I'd equally argue that as a 17 or 18 year old girls and boys (speaking of people like Palin, her husband AND her daughter and boyfriend) all knew the risks of their behaviour... regardless of what they were "taught". Plenty of people who are given sex education get pregnant... plenty of people taught to "wrap that rascal" get STDs. We tell people every day that crime is wrong... yet they do it.

That's the thing... they DON'T know the risks of their behavior.

Yes, they do - it's just that they've decided the risk is worth it. Think about skydiving. The laws of physics tell us that free-falling from heights is hazardous to your health, yet plenty of people do it. They're willing to trade the pleasures of skydiving for the small yet non-negligible chance that they'll do themselves serious harm. If you want to make 100% sure that you don't die skydiving, then - well, don't skydive. The same is true about sex. The only people who absolutely don't want an unplanned pregnancy are the ones abstaining (because 100% > any other percent). Everyone else, at some, often deeply-buried level, has decided that it's an acceptable risk.

Jonathan Sadow Wrote:Yes, they do - it's just that they've decided the risk is worth it. Think about skydiving. The laws of physics tell us that free-falling from heights is hazardous to your health, yet plenty of people do it. They're willing to trade the pleasures of skydiving for the small yet non-negligible chance that they'll do themselves serious harm. If you want to make 100% sure that you don't die skydiving, then - well, don't skydive. The same is true about sex. The only people who absolutely don't want an unplanned pregnancy are the ones abstaining (because 100% > any other percent). Everyone else, at some, often deeply-buried level, has decided that it's an acceptable risk.

No, they don't. Knowing that there's a non-zero risk for every behavior in a set is not the same as being informed about the specific risks of the various types of behavior in that set.

AO education seeks to leave teenagers in the dark -- or often with incorrect information -- when it comes to non-abstinence. Teenagers who understand (1) how to use condoms or other contraceptives properly to reduce risk and (2) that doing so will reduce risk of STDs/pregnancy to specific levels know what the risks are. Teenagers who do not have this information only know that their risks are non-zero, therefore leaving little reason to use condoms or other contraceptives.

To use your example of skydiving: Yes there's a risk, but if you go out and teach everyone "Skydiving is dangerous, no matter how you do it. Having training does not help. Having a highly trained and experienced guide does not help. The only sure way not to die skydiving is not to skydive," you've done those people a disservice. Of course they know that skydiving is dangerous, but by obfuscating the risk differential you've led them to believe that the time and expense of getting training and hiring a guide if they do go skydiving is of little to no value... so if they do go skydiving they're less likely than a fully informed person to actually get training or go with a reputable guide.

Furthermore (again continuing the metaphor of skydiving education for sex education), if the studies show that telling people "Just don't skydive. Period," does no more to dissuade people from skydiving than giving them the complete data for not skydiving, skydiving solo, skydiving after taking a course and skydiving with a reputable guide, and that giving them complete data actually saves more lives than the "just don't skydive" message, then it's illogical and irresponsible to continue the "Just don't skydive" message.

But the skydiving metaphor misses the mark in an important way. By the time a person makes a decision about whether they want to skydive, they've been fully aware of gravity and its consequences for quite some time. By the time a person starts making sexual decisions, their sexual experience is practically nil. There's instinctual knowledge, but that tends to drive you more towards the very issues (sexual activity, early pregnancy) that sex ed of any sort is supposed to be addressing.

texd Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:as I'm not aware of the VP having more pull than anyone else in Washington on sex-education...

Somebody in Washington clearly has some pull in this matter, considering how much money the feds have doled out to AO programs ($50 million + per year since 1998) which often give out counterfactual information regarding sex with condoms.

How did Biden, McCain and Obama vote on those expenditures?? In all seriousness, how does this compare to what we spend on OTHER sex education expenses? And exactly what do you mean by counter-factual information? I understand completely that there are differences of opinion about what is acceptable and what is not... and that a 1% or less failure rate is darn good... unless you're in that 1%... or that the 1% failure rate assumes proper use, which can lead to a 100% failure rate... I'm seriously asking because other than through a church school, which is a completely valid and legal parental choice... I've never heard of or seen an AO program that wasn't presented with a counterpoint.

Quote:This is abstinence-only education as defined by our federal government:

Quote:(A) Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school children;
(C ) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child s parents, and society;
(G) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and
(H) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

I'm not sure I really see sunstantial differences between what I described and what you described... other than saying that not having sex is the expected norm for school children... Depending on what is meant by school children, I certainly hope we aren't in disagreement on this as a country... I can understand that the "in the context of marriage" comment might be troublesome... but that's a relatively new concern.

Quote:It turns out that if you teach a kid that condoms and other contraceptives don't work -- or even if you just omit information about their use -- they simply won't use them.

I don't doubt that, but I also believe that if you tell people they are 99% effective, that you encourage the activity... which increases the number subject to the 1% failure rate. What in the policy you cited says anything about teaching people that condoms don't work?? Even if they say the failure rate is 30%, that's still much less than 100%. People who do studies like this have agendas. The fact is, human beings are driven to have sex... and that teenagers are ALWAYS in a hurry to do what their older peers are doing... meaning that if you decide to teach 16 year olds proper condom use, you will find more 15 year olds thinking they're "big" enough to use them as well... without the training... so you move to 15... and the 14 year olds do it... and to 13 and so on. If you're a parent, you'll know this is true.

As I said... I doubt that Palin's 17 or 18yr old daughter didn't know the risks, or didn't know how to use a condom. Instructions come on the package... its really pretty simple. Sure, you can mess up, but if you do, you aren't following the clearly printed instructions.

What I've heard pretty often from my mother who used to volunteer at the county family planning clinic is that MOST of the pregnancies she sees are girls who get comfortable with safe sex, and find themselves in an unsafe position. Either they forgot, or the guy forgot, or her previous boyfriend ALWAYS carried a condom,and the new one didn't... and there they were... and she didn't want to say no... or he wouldn't take no... OR they were the 1% victims, or didn't properly use the contraceptive. (even with training, people screw up under pressure)

Quote:

Hambone10 Wrote:The fact is, regardless of WHAT you teach your children, by 17 or 18, and USUALLY much sooner... they're going to make their own decisions.

Exactly why more information -- and more to the point, information that will have them making informed decisions -- is so important.

MORE information?? I'm sorry... but my 13 year old daughter knows... There are PLENTY of sources of information... The schools... reputable sources on the internet. There are free counselors. There are private groups. There are books. I'm not calling for and end to sex education, but I can't buy into the argument that there isn't already enough information available. I DO believe that we should encourage our children to abstain, though I'm not stupid enough to think that will stop them from drinking either.

As I type that, it occurrs to me that we punish kids for drinking under age, but not for sex... and we SEEM to have more classes on sex than drinking.

Quote:

Hambone10 Wrote:I'd equally argue that as a 17 or 18 year old girls and boys (speaking of people like Palin, her husband AND her daughter and boyfriend) all knew the risks of their behaviour... regardless of what they were "taught". Plenty of people who are given sex education get pregnant... plenty of people taught to "wrap that rascal" get STDs. We tell people every day that crime is wrong... yet they do it.

That's the thing... they DON'T know the risks of their behavior. If they think that condom sex vs no-condom sex is equally risky, then they don't know the risks.

Who ever said they thought they were equally risky?? This is an assumption you are making, and IMO and IME (experience) an incorrect one. You can teach people things, but you can't learn it for them... People who steal know its wrong, but they think the need justifies it.

They know that having sex is risky. Having sex with a condom less so, but the desire at the moment, or the desire for acceptance is more important. Even if you were told condoms had a 50% failure rate 9the misinformation you allude to), that's still much better than a 100% failure rate on unprotected sex. Not that unprotected=pregnant, but if you get pregnant 75% of the time you have unprotected sex (everyone is different, and each couple will be different)... then 25% of the time your condom fails, you are still unlikely to conceive.

Quote:Think back to your time in adolescence and all the rumors that swirled about sex... ones I remember were "can't get pregnant your first time," "pulling out is fine," "douching with diet coke will keep a girl from getting pregnant" (Ew!). Those were all rumors which some of my peers believed and which were countered through safer sex education.

Agree... ew... but you make my point for me. The guy who said you can't get pregnant your first time probably knew better, but forgot his condom. Rumors still exist today... trust me...

Quote:

At Ease Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Does she advocate abstinence only??

Doesn't look like it, unless she's reversed course in the past couple of weeks..

Quote:Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...8481.story

That appears to be in direct conflict with what she told the Eagle Forum in that same 2006 race.

Perhaps because one involved her personal opinion, and the other her support for state funding in a "this or that" form. Questions are usually asked in a way to get a particular response, and that response is then plastered across someones web-site. The fact is, no matter WHAT her opinions, Sarah Palin is not running on a "sex-education" platform. NO candidate is.... and $1mm per state per year from the government is a rounding error, not a policy.


(not directed at anyone on this board)

Even if Sarah Palin were a devout Catholic who believed in abstinence, and no abortion and no contraception... there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in her record as mayor, school board member, governor or VP candidate to suggest that she insisted on legislating her personal views... PLENTY of issues pass Congress without the support of the Executive office... so even if she wouldn't personally support something one believes in, that doesn't mean she'd veto it. her votes on spousal benefits are a perfect example.

I'm sick and tired of politicians who claim to be pro-choice, but only if that choice is no... and sick and tired of reporters trying to turn every person lead by their religion into a zealot trying to legislate morality. She's pro-life and pro-abstinence. I'm pro-choice... but would FREQUENTLY (though not always) choose life... So are LOTS of people. As long as she doesn't criminalize sex or ban abortions (two things a President or VP can't actually do), why should we care?? And don't give me the 'she'll appoint pro-life judges". First, she isn't running for President... Second, Congress is there to see that doesn't happen, and even a super-majority of Republicans wouldn't en masse go for an obviously pro-life judge. While the religious right is generally Republican, Republican is not the Religious right. If it were, they wouldn't even get anywhere NEAR 50% of Congress.

texd Wrote:

Jonathan Sadow Wrote:Yes, they do - it's just that they've decided the risk is worth it. Think about skydiving. The laws of physics tell us that free-falling from heights is hazardous to your health, yet plenty of people do it. They're willing to trade the pleasures of skydiving for the small yet non-negligible chance that they'll do themselves serious harm. If you want to make 100% sure that you don't die skydiving, then - well, don't skydive. The same is true about sex. The only people who absolutely don't want an unplanned pregnancy are the ones abstaining (because 100% > any other percent). Everyone else, at some, often deeply-buried level, has decided that it's an acceptable risk.

No, they don't. Knowing that there's a non-zero risk for every behavior in a set is not the same as being informed about the specific risks of the various types of behavior in that set.

AO education seeks to leave teenagers in the dark -- or often with incorrect information -- when it comes to non-abstinence. Teenagers who understand (1) how to use condoms or other contraceptives properly to reduce risk and (2) that doing so will reduce risk of STDs/pregnancy to specific levels know what the risks are. Teenagers who do not have this information only know that their risks are non-zero, therefore leaving little reason to use condoms or other contraceptives.

To use your example of skydiving: Yes there's a risk, but if you go out and teach everyone "Skydiving is dangerous, no matter how you do it. Having training does not help. Having a highly trained and experienced guide does not help. The only sure way not to die skydiving is not to skydive," you've done those people a disservice. Of course they know that skydiving is dangerous, but by obfuscating the risk differential you've led them to believe that the time and expense of getting training and hiring a guide if they do go skydiving is of little to no value... so if they do go skydiving they're less likely than a fully informed person to actually get training or go with a reputable guide.

Furthermore (again continuing the metaphor of skydiving education for sex education), if the studies show that telling people "Just don't skydive. Period," does no more to dissuade people from skydiving than giving them the complete data for not skydiving, skydiving solo, skydiving after taking a course and skydiving with a reputable guide, and that giving them complete data actually saves more lives than the "just don't skydive" message, then it's illogical and irresponsible to continue the "Just don't skydive" message.

But the skydiving metaphor misses the mark in an important way. By the time a person makes a decision about whether they want to skydive, they've been fully aware of gravity and its consequences for quite some time. By the time a person starts making sexual decisions, their sexual experience is practically nil. There's instinctual knowledge, but that tends to drive you more towards the very issues (sexual activity, early pregnancy) that sex ed of any sort is supposed to be addressing.

I'm not trying to pick on you Tex... i like a LOT of what you say... but I just don't agree here...

In what public educational system is someone being taught that sex with a condom is no safer than sex without one? Even the "misinformation" you quote says they claim only a 30% failure rate... which is a 70% success rate. BOTH camps tell you sex without protection is bad... Both say that sex WITH protection isn't a guarantee... but one tells you you can reduce your risk to 1%, while the other says you can reduce it to 30%. NEITHER says there is an equal risk to protected versus unprotected sex... just that the results of being in that failure percentage, whatever it is... is problematic.

As to the miss... I believe that ALL forms of sex education, including AO education... make you aware of "gravity" and its consequences. In fact, AO probably makes you MORE aware of the consequences. Sex Ed = Jump School... Condom = Parachute. The difference is, there isn't some primordial urge to jump out of a perfectly good airplane... in fact, MOST people are afraid of heights and speed... so we don't really NEED to encourage people not to jump...

The issue of sex ed will ALWAYS be problematic... and that means regardless of who you elect, there will NEVER be an all or nothing solution... so I don't know why we bother with this... as to the header...

Telling someone there is a safe way to do something inherently dangerous encourages that behaviour. Telling people to "just say no" to something society is telling them to "just do it" risks them "doing it" improperly. NEITHER answer is right... and 51% of politicians will never vote for either extreme.

I guess I'd say it THIS way.... guys who do BMX are professionally trained. The guys who do ******* clearly state that protective steps are being taken, and don't try this at home... but youtube and the emergency room is FILLED with people without training imitating what they see.

You can't educate the stupidity out of people... if you could, we wouldn't need signs on paper shredders telling you to keep your fingers out of the holes.

You're right... 30% is not equal to 100%... so people should feel safer using condoms than not, even when given false information. The problem with that is that the HIV transmission rate for unprotected heterosexual sex is also not 100%. It's not even 30%. Most studies show it's less than 1%. The probability of pregnancy is also not 100%, but I don't know what it is.

The House minority report on AO programs in 2004 is where I got my 30% number. It was a study of the 13 AO programs that contracted with the largest grant recipient for federal grants for AO programs.

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/200...-50247.pdf

Quote:Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the
Effectiveness of Contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent the
effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and
pregnancy. One curriculum says that “the popular claim that ‘condoms
help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the data”; another
states that “[i]n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV
approximately 31% of the time”; and another teaches that a pregnancy
occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These
erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts.

As far as where candidates voted on the issue, I only know that McCain and Biden were in the US Senate at the time and Obama and Palin were not. Since it's part of the HHS authorizing act, I would suspect that it, like much in congress, was put on a bill in markup and then not allowed amendments on the floor. That's pure speculation, but would not surprise me. Now there have obviously been appropriations since Obama became a Senator, but I'd imagine that again it was presented as an omnibus appropriations and that by voting against it you were registering your hatred of children, the elderly, dogs, mom, and apple pie. It's an unfortunate way to do business.

There are lots of reliable sources for lots of information on the internet, but I'd be willing to bet that fewer than 50% of adults can distinguish them from the non-reliable sources. I'm not sure if kids would be more or less savvy in that regard, but the point is that they'll likely trust their peers more than anything else.

ETA: I agree that you can't teach stupid away, but you can teach ignorance away... and sexual ignorance is rampant among teenagers -- even the smart ones.

texd Wrote:You're right... 30% is not equal to 100%... so people should feel safer using condoms than not, even when given false information. The problem with that is that the HIV transmission rate for unprotected heterosexual sex is also not 100%. It's not even 30%. Most studies show it's less than 1%. The probability of pregnancy is also not 100%, but I don't know what it is.

The House minority report on AO programs in 2004 is where I got my 30% number. It was a study of the 13 AO programs that contracted with the largest grant recipient for federal grants for AO programs.

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/200...-50247.pdf

Quote:Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the
Effectiveness of Contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent the
effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and
pregnancy. One curriculum says that “the popular claim that ‘condoms
help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the data”; another
states that “[i]n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV
approximately 31% of the time”; and another teaches that a pregnancy
occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These
erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts.

As far as where candidates voted on the issue, I only know that McCain and Biden were in the US Senate at the time and Obama and Palin were not. Since it's part of the HHS authorizing act, I would suspect that it, like much in congress, was put on a bill in markup and then not allowed amendments on the floor. That's pure speculation, but would not surprise me. Now there have obviously been appropriations since Obama became a Senator, but I'd imagine that again it was presented as an omnibus appropriations and that by voting against it you were registering your hatred of children, the elderly, dogs, mom, and apple pie. It's an unfortunate way to do business.

There are lots of reliable sources for lots of information on the internet, but I'd be willing to bet that fewer than 50% of adults can distinguish them from the non-reliable sources. I'm not sure if kids would be more or less savvy in that regard, but the point is that they'll likely trust their peers more than anything else.

ETA: I agree that you can't teach stupid away, but you can teach ignorance away... and sexual ignorance is rampant among teenagers -- even the smart ones.

Agree... We all know that figures don't lie, but liars figure. you can make statistics say lots of things. I suspect that if it isn't an outright lie... some of those claiming these higher rates are extrapolating things... like some study shows that condoms are used 'wrong" 25% of the time... and unprotected pregnancies happen 80% of the time... so 20% (80% of 25%) of the time, people using condoms get pregnant. I'm certain that isn't the intent of the education, but you can't always help what teachers will focus on.

The problem is, kids are diven by hormones to do things even when logic, education and evidence tells them better. We ALL know that drinking impairs judgement, but many drink and drive... or drink and dial... or drink and date...

My question on the HIV transmission rate is this...
If the consequences of "failure" were needing a shot... we wouldn't even worry about it... but its not. And 1% is a small number, but if you consider that most of our what, 250+mm Americans will have sex a few times this year, even a 1/2 of 1% number is a lot of people. 1% implies that at just a few times a year... EVERYONE will be infected in just a decade or so. (pure extrapolation... not predicting or anything) IOW, if you have unprotected sex once, your chance of getting pregnant is say 25%... but if you have unprotected sex 10 times, you're probably pregnant... so does telling people that the chances of passing HIV in unprotected sex being very low encourage safe sex?? I would think not.

What I'd REALLY like to know is how many people get pregnant who at one time or another have used contraception... and why they didn't THIS time.

I don't think we're very far apart on this issue.

My main thrust is that AO education omits a great deal of essential information and ignores the fact that kids WILL have sex, whether you have given them the information to do it smartly or not. Add to that the misinformation spread by AO education as it has been implemented and you're really asking for trouble.

I've got no problem with programs stressing abstinence as preferred. The comprehensive sex ed I got in school (not publicly funded) certainly did that and also discussed at length the emotional issues that go along with sexual relationships of both monogamous and casual natures. (I don't know of any out there that's saying "Here's how to put a condom on; now that you've learned that, feel free to **** away.") I just don't like to see it done in a way that lies about science or ignores the hormonal reality of the situation to the detriment of those being taught.

If someone is teaching kids and posing as an authority on an issue, that person has a responsibility to the kids to teach them completely and correctly. If such is being done at taxpayer expense, there is further responsibility to the taxpayers.

(Almost entirely irrelevant to this discussion, I do also wonder if the pushing of childbearing to later in life doesn't have some effect on adolescent attitudes towards sex and pregnancy. As one grows up hearinig of adults having to go to medical lengths to have children -- fertility therapy, in vitro, etc. -- might one take from that the idea that it's not easy to get pregnant through normal intercourse, so it's okay to have sex once even though the condom Billy's been carrying in his wallet for the past 6 years waiting for this day has turned to dust, not realizing the vast difference in fertility for a 16-18 year old vs a 35-40 year old?)

How on top of the issues are we?

From yesterday's startle-gram
http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/...25604.html

texd Wrote:

Jonathan Sadow Wrote:Yes, they do - it's just that they've decided the risk is worth it. Think about skydiving. The laws of physics tell us that free-falling from heights is hazardous to your health, yet plenty of people do it. They're willing to trade the pleasures of skydiving for the small yet non-negligible chance that they'll do themselves serious harm. If you want to make 100% sure that you don't die skydiving, then - well, don't skydive. The same is true about sex. The only people who absolutely don't want an unplanned pregnancy are the ones abstaining (because 100% > any other percent). Everyone else, at some, often deeply-buried level, has decided that it's an acceptable risk.

No, they don't. Knowing that there's a non-zero risk for every behavior in a set is not the same as being informed about the specific risks of the various types of behavior in that set.

AO education seeks to leave teenagers in the dark -- or often with incorrect information -- when it comes to non-abstinence. Teenagers who understand (1) how to use condoms or other contraceptives properly to reduce risk and (2) that doing so will reduce risk of STDs/pregnancy to specific levels know what the risks are. Teenagers who do not have this information only know that their risks are non-zero, therefore leaving little reason to use condoms or other contraceptives.

Well, they could always actually abstain....

Yes, I know - not everyone will choose to do so. Hambone's right, though, when he writes

Hambone Wrote:Telling someone there is a safe way to do something inherently dangerous encourages that behaviour. Telling people to "just say no" to something society is telling them to "just do it" risks them "doing it" improperly. NEITHER answer is right... and 51% of politicians will never vote for either extreme.

I guess I'd say it THIS way.... guys who do BMX are professionally trained. The guys who do ******* clearly state that protective steps are being taken, and don't try this at home... but youtube and the emergency room is FILLED with people without training imitating what they see.

You can't educate the stupidity out of people... if you could, we wouldn't need signs on paper shredders telling you to keep your fingers out of the holes.

It's not so much stupidity as just irrationality. If you don't want to conceive a child or get an STD, don't have sex. That's the rational ideal. Of course, people can be awfully irrational about sex, so that ideal often doesn't get met. Just because that's so, however, shouldn't tempt us into lowering the bar on our expectations for people, given that people tend to live up to or down to them.

I happened to catch the Tyra Banks show (I know, but when all you have is basic TV now...) They had a dozen or so girls... all under 17... Mostly white, mostly from 2 parent homes (only mentioning that because when SOME people talk about unwed mothers, they assume a minority from a broken home)... all were pregnant, or were trying to become pregnant... some had had 2+ abortions already... some were doing it to get a guy... some to get welfare... some "just because"... some because they guys didn't want to wear a condom... and the pill made her sick... One girl was already a mother (at 14) and pregnant again... so you can't tell me that SHE didn't know the risks...

I was listening to these kids... and listening to experts tell them the risks... listening to them tell them how to avoid getting pregnant even if they had sex... listenting to other teens tell how having a child had ruined their lives... and after an hour, only a few of them had REALLY changed their minds.

Crazy