When there is a problem one can either address the cause or vie to nurse the symptoms. Sex educators at UNC have chosen the latter. If there are too many teen pregnancies or too many STD-infected students, the solution is not to hand out free condoms as they suggest.
First of all, among the many false premises of the sex education sycophants, sexual health is not a communal matter. One’s health is a private, personal matter. In dealing with health issues that students have control over (i.e. getting pregnant or transmitting an STD), personal responsibility is where one’s health education should begin and end.
Secondly, the idea that students are ignorant about sex education is just absurd because they are not. However, even if they were, that is no excuse for state-sponsored sex education in college. People who want to know things know them, especially people who are older than the age of 18. Students aren’t as stupid as people at Campus Health Services (CHS) want everyone to think.
Thirdly, Campus Health and the University continually take an irresponsible stance when it comes to pre-marital sex: they condone it.
Sex education advocates never tire of making fun of people who believe in teaching abstinence in schools. They claim that it is silly and backward to take such a dogmatic stance on the issue of teenage/pre-marital sex. In fact, the name calling involved is merely a way to marginalize people who disagree with their view that sex before marriage is a good and healthy thing. Not only does CHS think sex before marriage is a good thing, it goes so far as to give tips on how “To increase sensitivity and pleasure of the receiving partner during oral sex” and other like advice.
As a showcase for what it wrong with UNC’s take on sex education, check out CHS’s webpage on abstenence. In a tone most people reserve for morons, the all-knowing sex educators explain: “Depending on your personal definition of abstinence and reasons for abstaining, any type of sexual activity may be unacceptable. The decision to abstain is one that you can make at any point in your life, even if you have been sexually active before.”
Wowzers, I had no idea!
The webpage goes on to explain some of the disadvantages of abstinence. Included among the bulleted, adverse effects of not having sex (and I quote): “This method may be frustrating.”
And that’s where we are, I guess. If it’s frustrating for goodness sakes avoid it! Never mind that one’s body has the potential for being the temple of the living God — woop! Sorry, it seems I accidently posited a truth claim.
Thankfully, sex educators are not biased at all, unlike me.
"…sexual health is not a communal matter. One's health is a private, personal matter"
I suppose this could be true, if you're a virgin. Otherwise, it raises the eternal question: people who hate sex so much that they believe its discussion should be forbidden — are they ignorant, or evil?
What are you talking about? I never said sex should not be discussed. It should be discussed. I am discussing it right now.
You make a series of unfounded assertions: that sex education is based on false premises and myths, it's practiced by sycophants, and is really unnecessary at UNC anyway. Then you whine about how abstinence proponents don't get any respect. Maybe they would get some respect if there was any evidence that abstience-only programs are beneficial and effective, and not just a right-wing/religious hobby horse? To me, these are all strong indicators that you find sex to be rather icky and that given the chance, you would ban all sex education. So, that's what I'm talking about.
You missed the point of my post entirely, but whatevs
You are so full of crap. And once again, you cannot help but make a shot at all the virgins, as if it somehow makes you less of a person.
"Maybe they would get some respect if there was any evidence that abstience-only programs are beneficial and effective, and not just a right-wing/religious hobby horse?"
Yeah, teen pregnancies haven't gone up AT ALL since they started giving condoms to junior high kids. In fact, most studies, if you actually look at the results, they do not claim that abstinence only programs fail. I believe we had a discussion earlier on this. You create two standards.
"You make a series of unfounded assertions" I'm fairly sure that he explained the reasoning behind his assertions. You are the one making unfounded assertions like "I suppose this could be true, if you're a virgin."
By the way, the only sex that is "icky" are the one night stands that you seem to find so endearing. I'm sorry that you cannot seem to make any decisions without consulting with what is between your legs.
***In 2004, Advocates for Youth released a report on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs in 11 states: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Missouri, Nebraska, and California. The study evaluated data provided by the states in areas of instruction like attitudes endorsing abstinence among students, intentions to abstain, and sexual behaviors. Advocates for Youth concluded, “Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state [Pennsylvania] did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation.”***
Similar results have been found in myriad studies… ball's in your court, Team Anti-Sex Ed.
I am frustrated because I don't understand what people don't understand. It's like I write something and, no matter what, people make it what they want.
I never ever claimed that abstinence only sex-ed was better than inclusive sex-ed programs. Even if I think that, it's not what my post was about. And, even if it was what my post was about (it wasn't), I was only talking about college-age students.
The only reason people think I advocated for abstinence-only sex-ed is because I explained the attitude of sex-ed sycophants toward abstinence-based sex-ed advocates and why they belittle them. Also, I used the example of the CHS abstinence page. My use of that example was not an endoresement of abstinence, it was an example of how CHS 1. thinks we are stupid and 2. condones sexual activity outside marriage.
Nevertheless, that's not to say I don't endorse abstinence until marriage — I do. But, my post was meant to discuss CHS and UNC specifically.
Once again, you create these double standards. Abstinence only programs have failed just as much as those programs that hand out condoms for free. And yet, safe sex is a complete success, and abstinence only is an abysmal failure.
That we are forced into teaching sex ed is just an indication of how badly society has failed. We can't stop you from having sex, so at least wear a condom so she doesn't get pregnant. Sounds like an awesome plan to me. Teaching kids that they don't need to take responsibility for there actions is the PERFECT way to stop teen pregnancy. Couple that with teaching them that IF she gets pregnant, all you need to do is help pay for the abortion, and you've got a recipe for pleasure driven anarchy. Since this is what Johnny seems to advocate, I'm not surprised that he's in favor for teaching kindergartners about sex.
I didn't advocate helping pay for abortions. And I love your little jab at "teaching kindergartners about sex" — a lovely, false tidbit from the 2008 McCain Campaign. Obama wanted kindergartners to learn what appropriate and inappropriate touching was… how disgusting, right? I didn't advocate that either. Thanks for keeping things mature, NJR.
This goes to all of you: I'm not against teaching abstinence. The problem is that, like you said, we can't stop teens from having sex regardless of how much we encourage them to. So, it only makes sense to teach teens how to have safe sex if they choose to. I am not bringing up this example because I think it's funny, but isn't Bristol Palin a great example of why we should be teaching sex education? Sarah Palin has strong Christian convictions, taught abstinence until marriage, and couldn't prevent her daughter from having pre-marital sex. The Palin family story is the same story of countless teens who, even though are told to not have sex until marriage, still do and do not have safe sex.
I think teaching sex education is a no-brainer. It only speaks to "how badly society has failed" if you believe that pre-marital sex is wrong. Further, sex education IS about teaching responsibility. I'm going to take a gander and say that engaging in unsafe sex is viewed as more irresponsible than is safe sex by the vast majority of Americans.
"The problem is that, like you said, we can't stop teens from having sex regardless of how much we encourage them to."
Oh, really? Funny, it wasn't too long ago that teenage sex was very uncommon.
"So, it only makes sense to teach teens how to have safe sex if they choose to."
Several problems:
First, they will choose to, unless they are raised not to and watched carefully. They're teenagers. They think with their hormones.
Second, kids smell weakness a mile away. And, therefore, in this day and age, if a parent or a mentor whom they trust tells them that they can choose to have sex, they will choose to have sex, unless they are unusually smart and strong-willed, or unless some extant circumstance holds them back.
And I know you guys love to bring up Sarah Palin's shortcomings, but here's the thing: Your example doesn't prove anything. First, I don't think highly of her, so I would never use her as the standard of a great citizen. Second, you don't know enough about hers or Bristol Palin's circumstances, so using her as an example is just stupid.
Look, if you're old enough to have casual, recreational, extramarital sex, then you're old enough to live with the consequences, whatever they may be. That's part of growing up, and that's what kids need to understand. You screw up, you and your family should have to live with the consequences, not anyone else. I'm sick of paying for sex education for irresponsible, selfish, stupid kids. Let their parents teach them–that's FREE. I'm also sick of paying for the illegitimate children they produce and the treatment of the STDs they contract. Let their parents pay for all that. I could be spending MY money on a variety of other things. I don't have promiscuous kids.
Riley, your argument doesn't really hold water. You really think that if teens are just "raised not to" have sex, they won't? That sentiment is largely divorced from reality. And yes, simply pointing out Bristol Palin doesn't prove anything, but if you can't find a similar example, you're not looking. I have myriad anecdotal evidence from my ultra-conservative, uber Christian (nothing wrong with either) home town where teens have ended up pregnant even in homes that strongly discouraged pre-marital sex.
You can't force anyone to do anything — you can only give them information and advice. At the end of the day, the teen will choose (regardless of what you've taught him/her) whether or not to have sex, drink alcohol, do drugs, etc.
I'm not even going to get into the rest of your ramblings…
Well, I can only assume that teens "end up pregnant" because they have, at the end of the day, no real concept of the consequences. Why? Because their parents would let them get away with it, and, somewhere in the recesses of their minds, they know that. If they really had to live with serious consequences, they wouldn't do it. If I had knocked up a girl in high school? My parents would have made me pay. The full price–in one way or another. And I knew it.
Is that your professional psychological evaluation of all teens who end up getting pregnant? All 760,000 of them each year? Failed parenting? Generalizations like that do not help solve the problem of teen pregnancy.
So since there are over 1 million parents failing each year at preventing their teens from getting pregnant, I hope you're in favor of teaching comprehensive sex education in schools to make up for their shortcomings.
Let me ask you this, then Johnny. Why should the state get involved?
The only "sex ed" that I am against is the state run and mandated classes. The people who would be in the best position to judge if their child is mature enough to have sex explained to them would be the parents, no? But you seem (perhaps not) to be all for the state running sex ed, which I honestly don't understand.
"teaching kindergartners about sex" This wasn't an actual reference to be honest, but rather a exaggeration, since they start teaching sex ed in public schools at a ridiculously young age. I don't/didn't pay attention to smear campaign that both McCain and Obama were having because it was just a smear campaign.
The only problem with your reasoning is that we could apply the same thing to almost anything. I mean, we'll never stop stealing, so why don't we tell kids to wear gloves when they steal something, so that they don't leave finger prints.
I like this sentence: "isn't Bristol Palin a great example of why we should be teaching sex education?" What you imply is that teaching kids abstinence is NOT sex ed. Bristol Palin is now living with the consequences of her mistake. At least there is a chance that she'll learn something.
"It only speaks to "how badly society has failed" if you believe that pre-marital sex is wrong." Can I gather from this that you find pre-marital sex to be just fine? Or am I simply misunderstanding your statement?
NJR, I think this is simply a philosophical difference. I think the state should provide students (at an appropriate age) with comprehensive sex education. I do understand your point though. Parents should be able to weigh in on the sex education their student is receiving. That's why I'm also supportive of the waiver system that is in place in many schools (including my elementary school). When it comes time for sex education, something similar to a permission slip is sent to parents. If they don't want their kids to learn about it, they can pull them from the classroom. I think that's a great compromise between two very different philosophies.
"I mean, we'll never stop stealing, so why don't we tell kids to wear gloves when they steal something, so that they don't leave finger prints."
That's a poor analogy. First, you're equating pre-martial sex with stealing. In the realm of morals, that is at best debatable. Second, sex education is not the act of forcing a child to "wear" something — it's simply information; kids aren't then subsequently forced to wear body condoms.
"What you imply is that teaching kids abstinence is NOT sex ed."
What I imply is that simply teaching abstinence is not effective sex education. Comprehensive sex education — and I have zero qualms with abstinence being part of it — makes more sense and has a better track record.
"Can I gather from this that you find pre-marital sex to be just fine?"
Yes, that is precisely what you can gather.
Obviously we have a disagreement in terms of philosophy. It basically boils down to you believing that there is nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, while I find it to be wrong on multiple levels. That's why you find my analogy to be poor.
Teaching safe sex along with abstinence doesn't make sense, though. One train of thought says that you shouldn't do it, while the other gives you an out. At that point, why bother teaching abstinence. It's like teaching math. You don't teach the shortcut right along side the original idea. If you do, then there isn't much of a point in teaching the original, now is there?
Let me clear something up though. As a Catholic, I don't find sex to be inherently evil. Quite the contrary, in fact. Per-marital sex is wrong for a number of reasons, however.
Sex has two ends. Reproduction and pleasure. Safe sex is basically masturbation, as it is entirely about pleasure without any intention of reproduction. Pleasure for pleasure's sake is always wrong, in the sense that does more harm than good. To condone that is irresposible at best.
When a study doesn't hold up to your belief set, it's a great time to quibble with the methodology, haha. Teen pregnancy isn't solely tied to sex education — you should also factor in socioeconomic status, access to contraception (how easy was it to acquire condoms in your high school/small town?), environment, drug/alcohol usage, etc. However, perhaps you should Google or JStor some articles on the efficacy of comprehensive sex education vs. abstinence-only education.
You will find that greater success in reducing teen pregnancy, the transmission of STDs, etc. is found with comprehensive sex education. I know that sails contrary to your hierarchy of values, but perhaps you should put your country (all of it) ahead of your ideology.
But that isn't the kind of abstinence that you guys are arguing for. This is interesting:
***"Our program didn't focus on the moralistic issue of waiting until marriage. It focused on waiting until you're responsible to be able to handle the consequences of sex."
Jemmott also discussed how the "fear technique" of teaching that "if you have sex you're going to die" is ineffective for young people, noting that "the powerful message that works for young people is teaching them how to be proud of themselves and how to be responsible and make responsible decisions for their health." Abstinence is "a very positive message that goes right in with that."****
I 100% agree with all of that! While I still think there should be comprehensive sex education, this is how abstinence should be presented within it. I'm interested to know whether or not the comprehensive sex ed included abstinence, and if so, if it was also framed in this way (probably not).
I don't have anything against virgins and I wasn't taking a shot at them, just pointing out that once you become sexually active, your sexual health is no longer a "private, personal matter."
I really don't understand what liberals don't get. First, think back to when you were 16. Did you think about the consequences of your actions nearly as much as you do today? I used to get behind the wheel of my Camaro and downshift into second gear going 70 mph. I used to race people all the time. I didn't think about the gas I was wasting, I didn't think about the fact that my (parents') car could be taken away, I didn't think about dying, nothing. Now, I drive a car with a rabbit and a squirrel for an engine and I drive it like a granny. There have been studies that have shown that the brains of 16-year-olds do not have the decision-making capability that 20-year-olds have. In other words, it's not just "experience" that makes 20-year-olds smarter–it's Nature.
As a 22-year-old who's done a lot of soul-searching, it appalls me that liberals encourage 15-year-old girls to engage in a life-altering activity (notice, moron, that I didn't say "icky" activity) that they could just as well put off for at least a few years, to engage in behavior whose consequences they cannot possibly have the ability to comprehend. I'm sorry, but they simply don't understand that horny Johnny doesn't actually love them. They are going to look back on their "decision" and realize that it was immature, irrational, and impulsive. The problem, however, is that they can't take it back. And they wouldn't have made the decision if they hadn't been deceived by liberals who seem hellbent on getting everyone laid as soon as possible. You guys think Christians are hellbent on keeping people from having sex until marriage? You should look in the mirror. You guys are at the opposite extreme.
Also, there have been studies that have shown that there is a direct correlation between cognitive ability (i.e., intelligence) and the point in a person's life when he/she will engage in his/her first sexual encounter. People with higher I.Q.s tend to have their first sexual encounter later in life than people with lower I.Q.s.
But regardless of the points that I've raised, you missed Justin's point, as he has already pointed out. (I'm sure you missed it because you are so against abstinence that you probably didn't even read his whole post. You probably just thought "Christian…talking…about…sex…must…accuse…him…of…hating…it.") If you're smart enough to get into UNC, you're smart enough to learn about "safe sex." If we can't figure that out, then we have no business being UNC students. Oh, and if you're too embarrassed to ask your doctor for an STD test, then you are a huge wimp. Also, YOU are responsible for not getting an STD. And if you get one, don't blame the person who passed it on to you, don't blame "public health services," and don't blame Christians. Blame your stupid self.
Hmm, it seems like more of the assuming and generalizing seems to be done on the other end. Frankly, abstinence-only education in high schools is fine by me; so long as they are given decent information and moralizing is kept out of it. But we're talking about adults, in college, who can think for themselves.
Crowder's first point implies that medical professionals ought not to make information about sexual health readily available. If it's about "personal responsibility," why not empower people by giving them decent information?
I have never been forced to sit down and take a sexual health class in college. So what's there for you to complain about? If I'm going to the CHS website, I'm obviously seeking out health information of my own volition.
Providing information is not "condoning" anything, they just haven't chosen to subscribe to your particular stance, which is that pre-marital sex is bad. For them to do so is an unwarranted interference in someone's life.
To Crowder: there's a great professor, Dr. Lotchin, (heard of him?) that teaches a great deal in his AmCities class about those wastes of money called public health institutions. Those wastes of money have averted crises for over a hundred years.
"But we're talking about adults, in college, who can think for themselves."
Then look it up on the Internet or ask your doctor (whom I didn't pay for). Don't expect me or anyone else to pay for CHS. We're not so incompetent, and so we don't think that we should have to pay for your incompetence.
"If it's about "personal responsibility," why not empower people by giving them decent information?"
Instead of us "giving" people information that's already out there and that any idiot can acquire, whether they go to UNC or not, why can't they look it up for themselves (WebMD?) or pay a professional to answer their questions (out of their own pockets–after all, they don't HAVE to be sexually active, remember? That's their "choice." STDs are called STDs because you get them from having sex. If you don't have sex, you won't be at risk. Therefore, your recreational activities should be funded by your money, not anyone else's.)? If you can't keep your snake in your cage without being knowledgeable and acquiring the knowledge without it being handed to you on a silver platter, that's your problem, not mine.
In summation: I'd rather not use public money or student fees to help college students get laid without consequences. If you really want to "choose" your sex life, then choose it. But don't expect me or any other self-reliant person to pay for your lifestyle. Let's put it this way: You're smart enough to know that there are risks, even if you don't know exactly what those risks are. So be responsible, and, until you can figure out what the risks are (without taking my money to do so), restrain yourself. Or get an STD.
The hyperbole just obfuscates the discussion. Point is, lots of people in our western society consider it perfectly acceptable to have sex before they get married. It's nice not living in a theocracy. Lots of people do it and have very strong moral convictions about their sex life and about plenty of other things.
Certainly some people have lots of dangerous and excessive sex, but I'm not going to discuss the issue as if everyone who doesn't ascribes to your particular timeline is engaging in indulgent behavior. If people want to have sex with their partners, I don't have any problems with tax money going to provide them information that they know is coming from a medical and non-profit-oriented source rather than an online forum. Even if some tax money of mine is going to maintaining a website, that's plenty less than what I'd pay if that child ends up on welfare or is disabled and needs social services. And if a website saves them a trip to the doctor that will end up raising the risk factor in my insurance pool, it's saving me some money in my premium.
If sex education helps people understand that it's not a decision between extremes and that they can have sex and do so responsibly, I have no problem with it. It probably saves me money in private insurance, the fewer people on medicine there are.
The "abstenence" page you linked to is one of the better promoters of it I've seen, even giving those non-religious students legitimate reasons to consider it. This page is probably the first time some students have heard abstinence talked about without a lot of false information about sexuality and without all this "temple of the living God" nonsense.
When beef distributors dispense meat with e.coli, it's not my problem, because I've practiced meat-abstinence for seven years. Whether you end up on a respirator is not my problem.
Frankly, your post is just more proof of conservative lip-service when it comes to individual liberty. "You are free to act like me as much as you want."
Giving students the appropriate information about sex and sexual health is an appropriate public health response rather than suggesting that the best method for everyone is to proscribe to antiquated social mores. And frankly, in the event that someone gets an STI, if they are less ashamed to see a doctor about it, the better off everyone is.
I don't get it, Panzo. Who doesn't understand that they don't have to have sex? It is stupid to think that without seeing that website students wouldn't have heard abstinence talked about without a lot of false information about sexuality and without all this tempole of the living God nonsense.____And, yes, you are correct, it's not your problem.____Also, where did I say people shouldn't be free to act how they choose? I implied they shouldn't act in a certain way, but I am in no way advocating to stop them by use of force.____Lastly, if I hear "public health" as an excuse to waste money ever again I will throw up.
This has been a fascinating read, to say the least!
I’m a writer on a mission … I believe that everything is based on our own self worth and esteem and standing as an individual and in your truth, without fear, is the way to look at anything in life.
Sex seems to be the main topic where I’ve found we have no idea how to educate the youth about sex without instilling our old fashioned, stupid and laughable reasons why sex is bad, dangerous … blah, blah … blah!!!
Sex is fun … yet it has consequences! Consequence is neutral … so is sex!
Stop teaching about sex … start teaching about self worth, respect and mostly … about going out into the world and finding out that it’s not the fearful … you’re going to get sick, get pregnant, get punished place that we tell kids about! Kids want to play with guns because its fun … there is an attraction to the fearful side of life … so go figure … tell them all this bullshit and we’ll never ever solve it!
Have you noticed how we allow our kids to watch programs and movies and play games where we do the unnatural act of murder … yet we hide them from the natural and beautiful act of sex!!!
At this rate … everyone’s wrong!
You know, it's going to be really hard for conservative Christians to take people like __o_, Johnny Q, and you, Jodene, seriously when you insist that they think "sex is bad." Never have they said that. I'm sorry that EVERY society in the history of humankind has had rules and regulations on sex, written or unwritten, that have made certain types of sex either illegal or taboo. I challenge you to find a society that never had any social prohibition on any kind of sex at all. Nowadays, I hear some of my most nihilistic or liberal friends say such things as "that's messed up" when they hear about a certain sexual practice that shouldn't necessarily be taboo, given the state of our society today.
And learn basic English while you're researching.
You make it sound like the the world is a perpetually-happy, flowery place where no one gets sick or hurt or accidentally pregnant and sex never has any negative consequences.
…Right.
Congratulations! You have HIV and an unwanted pregnancy, but at least you have self-worth and can stand in your individual truth!
Mad props Crowder.