Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 17, 2008
Robert Knight :: Townhall.com Columnist
Media Silence on the Myth of 'Safe Sex'
by Robert Knight
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?



What if the government spent billions on a program over four decades and an authoritative federal study showed that the policy not only failed but may have contributed to spreading several incurable diseases?

Would the press connect the dots and warn the American people?

Not if that would threaten the widely administered and well-funded “safe sex” programs for kids.

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that one in four American teen girls and half of all black teen girls—half!—have at least one sexually transmitted disease (STD). This finding comes in the face of nearly 40 years of federally funded “safe sex” education that told the girls they would be “safe” if the boys used condoms.

The study of girls 14 to 19 tested for four infections: Chlamydia, trichomoniasis, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus (HPV).  The latter disease causes nearly all cases of cervical cancer, which kills about 4,000 American women each year.

Here’s the well-kept secret that the media reports are leaving out: Condoms are ineffective in preventing HPV. According to Dr. John Diggs, Jr., a Massachusetts MD who specializes in treatment of STDs, condoms are only partially effective, even when used perfectly, in preventing a host of STDs. That’s because many of the infections affect the entire genital region, not just the “covered” portion.  So why are the schools pushing condoms on kids as if this will make them “safe?”

With every announced failure, the answer is always the same: More “safe sex” education, and the earlier the better. Some school districts are targeting kindergarteners. If Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, had had her way, preschoolers would now be gazing at anatomy charts, cucumbers and condoms.

The CDC study was unveiled on March 12, but only ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson of the three major network news shows covered the story that evening. There was no mention of abstinence, only the usual “risk reduction” approach, which is centered around condom use and birth control pills.

ABC reported that 3 million girls have “infections that cause everything from infertility to cervical cancer.” The story focused on the need to educate teens better about how “to protect themselves,” as one interviewee put it.

A Washington Post story on March 13 that featured interviews with local teens, led with a quote from a medical expert who was “astounded” at the CDC figures. The expert, Elizabeth Alderman, adolescent specialist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said that although teens who come to doctors’ offices “tell you they or their partner are using a condom, obviously, many are not.”

Or maybe they are.

Medical authorities have known this for years. In 2001, the CDC released a study that concluded, “there was no epidemiologic evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection, but study results did suggest that condom use might afford some protection in reducing the risk of HPV-associated diseases, including warts in men and cervical neoplasia in women.” 

Since that time, more than 10 million girls and women have contracted HPV. Thousands of them will get cervical cancer. Hundreds of thousands more who practiced “safe sex” as taught in their schools have come down with some of the more than 30 STDs that are now rampant. Many face sterility or other lifelong complications. Here are a few cited by the CDC:

Many sexually transmitted infections can cause adverse pregnancy outcomes including miscarriages, stillbirths, intrauterine growth restriction and perinatal (mother-to-infant) infections. Some STDs can cause infertility or lead to ectopic pregnancy among women and one, the human papillomavirus, can cause cervical and anogenital cancer. Furthermore, other STDs facilitate HIV transmission.

Why aren’t the media asking the following questions of the educators, liberal Congressmen and Planned Parenthood “experts” who are working to eliminate abstinence programs while shoveling yet more tax dollars to their own programs?

  • Why are you still promoting the “safe-sex” approach that is in 75 percent of U.S. schools and has obviously been a failure and perhaps even a contributing factor in the epidemic?
  • Even condom advocates caution that condoms are effective only if used in a clinical fashion that might work in a Planned Parenthood lab. Why do you assume that kids, many of whom are impaired at the time by drugs or alcohol, will put on the condom before any emission or arousal, a wildly implausible scenario?
  • Studies show that the portion of the human brain that governs the ability to resist impulse behaviors does not fully develop until people are in their 20s. Why do you think teens will approach sex in a logical, clinical fashion?
  • Schools routinely teach kids not to smoke or abuse drugs, period. They do not teach them how to do it “safely.”  Why use that rejected approach when it comes to sex?
  • How much government funding does Planned Parenthood receive annually (answer: more than $300 million) and how much of it goes to this profoundly wrong approach of “safe sex” education?
  • Why aren’t you talking more about the consequences of these diseases?

If a foreign enemy of the United States conducted a campaign that effectively destroyed sexual morality and put millions of teens at risk for lifelong diseases, we’d consider it an act of war. Instead, Congress keeps throwing tax dollars at the folks who have been responsible for this assault on our kids.

“Safe sex” proponents justify the continued madness by pointing to surveys showing that “most” Americans want more “safe sex” education for their kids. Assuming the surveys are accurate, the findings are not surprising when the media have done their best to cover up the shocking facts about the “safe sex” failures while showcasing partisan attacks on abstinence programs.

Terrified parents, who are told over and over that “experts” know what’s best for their children, have been conditioned by a compliant media to reach for the same bottle of poison, year after year.

And as last week’s legal attack on home schooling in California illustrates starkly, the sexual revolutionaries do not intend to let any children out of their media-protected net.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Robert Knight is a Senior Writer/Correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and a Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Good Point
"Schools routinely teach kids not to smoke or abuse drugs, period. They do not teach them how to do it “safely.” Why use that rejected approach when it comes to sex?"

Abstenance is the only truly effective way to stop all STDs and the chance of teen pregnancy.

Perhaps we need a return to separate schools, or at the very least separate classrooms, for boys and girls.

But, Knight, "Abstinence Only" programs
in christian households are not working.

Apparently, the kids find oral & anal sex to be "OK" as no vaginal penetration is involved. Story after story regarding "abstinence only" has only revealed the dark underbelly of what really goes on with the teens.

Conservatives say "abstinence only" as if it were a magical incantation, a panacea that will solve the teen sex problem.

The adultery rate keeps going up among the parents of these "abstinence only" teens. It's DNA. Men are biologically programmed to procreate, married or not, with a variety of sexual partners. So society fights this. Teens are biologically ready to have babies at 14. So society fight this. We will ALWAYS be fighting this. There is no "answer".

One last
The average "marrying age" throughout the majority of the course of human history has been 13, 14, 15 years old.

This "experiment" we've been doing the past 300 years (as opposed to tens of thousands of years) of having teens wait to have sex until they're 18 or 21 or after goes against the wisdom of tradionalist history.

So, we have these problems that arise from raising the age for sex from 14 & 15 (when your body says its ready, traditional wisdom), to 18 or 21 (when modern, not traditional, society says its ready).

There is no safe sex
And, yes, Will, many of my classmates married before graduating high school or right after graduation.

Putting off sexual expression for indefinite periods of education is part of the current problem.

The other part is a segment of society that sees nothing but all sex all the time for all people without concern for the dangers sexual activity always entails. Condoms are simply a red herring in the mix.

Women in their late 20s and 30s are suffering an epidemic of infertility today. If you have any money, you'll make a good investment in fertility treatments. They are just one indication that prolonged sexual practice with numerous partners over long periods of time often create pelvic inflammation and hidden disesases or conditions that work against a woman's remaining optimally fertile into her late 30s when she finally decides to bear children. Then vast numbers are finding their cannot conceive and spend millions on allowing themselves bear children "natually."

Will
78.24% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Geez, you're a one trick pony.

Will, Are You Advocating...
Statutory Rape? Three Hundred Years ago, the average male died at around 30-35 years old. The Female was maybe a little bit higher (38-40). Infant mortality was about 1 in 5 children. Only 70% of children made it to adulthood. About 88% of Europeans were involved in farming. Only the aristocracy or the religious had any education beyond the 5th grade.

There was no such thing as childhood 300 or 1000 years ago. Children became adults around the age of 12-13. The average mother begat around 9-13 children if she lived to see 40. The family, as Western Society evolved was given protections that other societies fail to give. Promiscuity was punishable by death in many cases. Life was hard and the only family and church provided the individual with any relief. Marriage (Or the Sacrement of Motherhood -that is Matrimony) was for the elevation of both man and wife, and the Marriage Act elevated sex to something Holy. The laws not only protects husband and wife, but also children.

You are horribly wrong in your assertions. As a matter of fact, your assertions fail the test of both history and logic. Your answer for teenage promuiscuity is more promiscuity at an even earlier age. Both parents and schools already encourage or at least ignore teenage sex. To legally allow 15 years to have sex with whomever they wish (maybe a 50 year old?) is barbarous.


What makes society is the agreed
upon rules that govern it.

Radicals have always used sex as a means of undermining stable cultures. After the French Revolution, everyone became "comrade" and no one was responsible for families and children. The Rev. didn't work on many levels, but it created a vast pool of starving orphans no one managed and eventually ended up as the canon fodder of Napoleon.

The Russian Rev. did the exact same thing. "All equal," so men were no longer responsible for their children, and the USSR and Monogolia actually experienced wild packs of children like wild dogs, cannabalism, and collapse. The USSR shortly returned to the "old" pre-Rev. values and started giving awards to married women who bore children legally.

The difference today is that "equality" hasn't produced orphans, as birth control is much more perfected, but it is producing disease and disability.

When people are appropriately revolted enough, the trend will stop.

Then the answer must be
marriages arranged by parents to teenaged children? This allows the kids to have sex in a safe environment with a single partner. But we would also have to disallow no-fault divorce, so the kiddies have to actually work out their little problems.

Maybe we can actually have a culture that finds premarital and extramarital sex as unacceptable as smoking and simply enocurage young (and old) people to exercise some SELF-CONTROL!

Sex and healthcare
I guess this column proves what we always knew - sex is a health issue. When Obama (or Hillary) is pres and has his healthcare plan in place all these kids who are struggling with STDs will have access to free, high quality, government controlled medical care, which is their basic human right. It's a perfect synthesis - kids can acquire STDs practicing free love and the government care provide free cures. Starting Jan 20th of next year, all these problems will be solved.

P.S.
Maybe the federal government can provide free lipstick for rainbow parties too!

Now, now
If they don't teach "safe sex", they would have to teach "self-control." Can't do that, can they?

Just one of the many reasons we removed our children from public indoctrination institutions, aka, public schools.

Old fashioned
"
Maybe we can actually have a culture that finds premarital and extramarital sex as unacceptable as smoking and simply enocurage young (and old) people to exercise some SELF-CONTROL!"
----

Are you really this 'last century.' There's no such thing as self control. As soon as boys and girls become men and women they have no choice - they are compelled to have sex. Nothing can stop them, they have no control whatsoever. (Even this column suggested as much - before the age of 20 they can't control themselves). So more education of how to strap on rubber and disinfect might be the only thing to save them - plus free, cost free health care when they inevitably get sick (If you can't control yourself from having sex, how could you limit yourself to just one, two, three or more partners? - it's JUST NOT POSSIBLE).

For condoms to be effective...
...you have to USE THEM!

These girls are getting infected orally, because they are having *unprotected* oral sex. Oral sex is typically the first type of sexual experience that young people have.

Too many young people seem to think that oral sex is "safe" even when it's unprotected; and so they don't use condoms for oral sex. But it is not safe--infections are easily transmitted through the mucous membranes of the mouth.

Even for oral sex, you need to use a condom and/or a dental dam (depending on who is giving oral sex to whom).

This is NOT a new problem.

In the 19th century, syphilis was a virtual epidemic, destroying the lives of people of all ethnicities and classes worldwide. Despite a more Victorian approach to sexuality.

MORALITY HAS NEVER STOPPED ANY STDs in world history. Never.

Only effective vaccines and antibiotics have done that.

Sexploitation
Let's face it - there are huge industries in the West that lines the pockets of the Left, and it makes its money from the sexual exploitation of young people. They love rhetoric like "sexual expression" and hate the idea of sexuality being linked to reproduction. For these industries, sexuality is about consumerism. You need stupid consumers and exploited suppliers for things like pornography and sex-based marketing strategies.

As long as sexually exploited teens and ignorant 20-somethings can be used for sexual and financial profit things will only get worse. The pervert-lawyers and pervert-business-people want more vulnerable raw meet on the market. That means doing anything to promote the illusion of informed consent while at the same time keeping their sex-objects as infantile as possible - unable to make informed decisions of take personal responsibility.

This works perfectly with the Left's overall push to expand a permanent underclass of easily exploited government dependents.

for JPK
JPK writes: "To legally allow 15 years to have sex with whomever they wish (maybe a 50 year old?) is barbarous."

It was not considered "barbarous" throughout much of human history.

It is not considered "barbarous" in many parts of the world today.

It wasn't even considered "barbarous" in 20th century Utah, where marriage licenses have been given to 15 year old girls, whose Mormon parents married them off to wealthy older men when those girls became sexually active.

http://tinyurl.com/26pm7h


"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet (Mohammed) wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old; and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old; and she remained with him for nine years (ie till his death)."
-- Hadith 7:62 of Islam

spudmomof6
"Maybe we can actually have a culture that finds premarital and extramarital sex as unacceptable as smoking and simply enocurage young (and old) people to exercise some SELF-CONTROL!"

Now don't try to bring common sense into this debate. Remember, you're arguing with liberals....

P.S. In all seriousness -- AMEN!

The Answer is Education
How many of you honestly have discussed sex with your kids? I doubt many have, other than a very awkward "this is how it happens" speech. Parents talking to their kids about sex conjures up feelings of anxiety and embarressment. Instead of learning about sexuality from parents, kids learn from each other.

Inevitably some kid has an older brother who will tell him "everything" he needs to know; soon every other kid knows the hearsay and innuendo and no one knows the facts.

The point: a kid taught the wrong things will end up doing the wrong thing and yet, everyone seems surprised by this!


SteveL
"MORALITY HAS NEVER STOPPED ANY STDs in world history."

Neither has it stopped murder, robbery, and rape. Does that mean we should stop doing our best to teach that those are wrong?

I believe that it's not morality itself that is effective or ineffective. That's like saying a hammer laying on a workbench can't hit nails. Of course not! It's a tool that is effective if it is used correctly. It's societal acceptance and use of moral norms and values that makes abstinence effective. People live what they are taught to accept. The more our culture accepts the notion that people can't control their own behavior, the more people will not control their own behavior.

Vaccines and medical treatment are band-aids. Only morality, if heeded and applied, is the cure.

Not Silent
The media have NOT been silent at all. Regarding all the young girls with STD, media have been quick to point out that teaching kids not to use condoms multiplies the probability of STD transmission---all thanks to Abstinence Only, one of the most harmful accomplishments of the Bush administration.

Lilly
How many people have got an STD from Abstinence? Please acknowledge that the answer is 0. Now, unless you think we are mindless animals, people are capable of controlling themselves. Some people choose not to, STD's are a potential consequence of that. Its policies like the ones you support that encourage kids to have sex, and have it often.

If Baal is God…

Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." But the people said nothing. [1 kings 18:21]


The public schools have replaced Moses with Darwin. Rather than being taught the truth that they are image bearers of the God of creation, America’ young are indoctrinated with the vain philosophy that men are the product of the random and impersonal without design or purpose.

Rather than unique in the creation of life as image bearers of the Creator, they are indoctrinated in the false religion that demeans them as nothing more than advanced apes.

Now when men are taught that they are descended from brute beasts and that there is no morality, then why do we expect to see them pursue self control?

Morality and self control are part of the natural law inherent in the heart of the image bearer. Abstinence education reinforces the natural law.

The power of Darwinism is that it helps to suppress the knowledge of God. It agrees with our natural enmity as God haters. Whereas knowledge of the Scriptures helps to restrain the enmity even among unbelievers, Darwinism feeds the enmity. The system is unstable.

The Answer Is Not More Education
Most boys and girls know all about sex by the time they are 11. Many ( a near majority if you believe the CDC) have already "done it" by the time they're 15. Promiscuity has now been defined downward. Condom use is now even being taught in many religious schools. Birth control is readily available, and most minor girls can now get abortions without thier parent's consent or knowledge. Both artifical contraception and abortions are readily avialable to minors. Sex Education has been taught at an earlier and earlier age for the last 25 years. The problem is not lack of information.

It is absolutely impossible for a girl to get pregneant, or for a human to contract STDs if they abstain. Sexual libertines and liberals have corrupted the youth, and the parents are the accomplices. Fidelity to one's spouse, and waiting until marriage worked for 2 millenia. Society used to butress the family with laws, customs, and opinions. Now society works against the family.

Liberalism is Nihilism
If we liberals can't kill at conception, or throughout a nine month carry, let's kill them later with failed teachings and policies. Regardless, we liberals will kill the young. we value our age and wisdom much more than the "potential" offered by mere young people. Who do they think they are? They just barely escaped the abortion clinic. We'll kill you yet!

Teen Girls & STD
Obviously teens have sex. It is natural and normal. Instead of telling them to wait or abstain, why not encourage marriage to those who want to begin a sex life. The idea that it is okay to have sex but that it is crazy to get married has got to be flipped upside down. Allow and encourage young marriages. These kids aren't waiting for anything to have sex. Why not make it responsible and respectable part of life? Are shotgun weddings worse than one-parent households created by one-night stands?

Abstinence Always Works
Abstinence always works. Period. No exceptions.

Anyone who is having sex IN ANY FORM is not, by any stretch of the imagination, practicing abstinence. This ought to be clear, unambiguous, and easy to understand even by the dimmest and least educated.

Sex outside of marriage is dangerous -- both physically and spiritually. This is why responsible parents teach their kids to practice abstinence and self-discipline. This is why responsible parents teach their kids to avoid the occasion of temptation by avoiding the entire "dating" thing, reserving courtship until the time in their life when their education is complete and they are in a position to choose their marriage partner.

Responsible parents teach their kids to expect to experience sexual feelings and desires but to CONTROL THEM -- until such time as those feelings can be permitted to flower in the heart of a marriage.

Media and pop culture may ignore the failings and perils of the current, hedonistic culture of pleasure first and above all else. Responsible parents do not.

Permitting our teens to play with sex as if it were a toy is every bit as irresponsible and immoral as it would be to permit our toddlers to play with loaded guns.

Will
Two words: self control.
Abstinance works everytime it is tried, but just like using a condom, you have to have enough discipline to use it. Condoms as you can see are not 100% effective, but if used abstinanace works every single time. People may fail at controlling themselves. Do you wonder way, the society, that doesn't say, wait, but says, if it feels good do it, I want it now, obey your thirst, go for it. You see and hear it on TV ,movies, music.
Its choices,nothing beats self control, its better to practice abstinance that to pay for a loack of control later. May be all the so-called protections need to be taken away and the cold hard facts should be: here is what will happen if you can't control yourself, if you listen to the abstinance doesn't work just use a condom crowd. I ask you where are all the do it now people for these kids with the STD's?

Abstinence
Somehow a lot of people here are under the illusion that in the past young people remained chaste, followed their parents advice and remained virginal until their wedding night. All this changed in the bad 60s, and since then the terrible leftist/liberal/socialists are out to corrupt the youth of America and force them to engage in all kind of vile sexual practices.

I have some news for you. Young people had sex at an early age, got pregnant and suffered from sexual diseases not only in the 50s, not only before the war, but throughout American history, and in Europe before that, and throughout all history. It is all well for people in their 40s and 50s, after they become parents, to bang the drum of abstinence; after all, they have been through their wild sex years, and now they are ready to come and say "Just say NO!"

Well, it doesn't work to just say no. And no matter how much you try to wrap up sexual experiences in some kind of a morality play, with illusions that it will be "special" and "fantastic" on the wedding night, it doesn't wash with kids. It's a matter of nature, and not some kind of liberal conspiracy. Give them advice, warn them of the dangers, but most of all teach them protection and, if anything happens, give them the help they need, not moralizing.

interesting
If one actually goes to the source that Knight links to one finds that the use of condoms had been proven effective in stopping the spread of HIV (the deadliest of stds) and gonoreah in men. It notes that for most other stds have not been studied in enough detail. And so it strongly warns people not to argue that the paper is concluding that condoms are ineffective against other stds.

It is not clear if Knight has read the paper and doesn't understand it, or if he has not read it, or is purposely misrepresenting what it says. But it is quite explicit about the fact that it should not be used in the way Knight is using it.

But given Knight's concern for the health of young women, he should at least have pointed out that the most common forms of the HPV virus, the ones that are associated with the great majority of cancer issues can be addressed with a vaccine.

I assume given our great shared horror of the spread of this particular STD we can at leats all agree that the vaccine should be more widely promotes so that the threat that has Knight so worried can be addressed.

two concerns
Obviously there are two concerns people have in these regards. One is that people are doing wrong by having sex, and the other is that people are suffering and spreading disease by having sex. Reading columns like this it is hard not to suspect that the concern on the right is simply the former, and not really the latter.

After all, the question with regard to what should be taught in school is not whether people get get std's from abstinence, but whether more people get std's because they take abstinence only sex ed than abstinence plus sex ed. The smug, but noone gets stds who is abstinent is so obviously irrelevant to the debate as to which form of sex ed works better that one suspects that the calculus begins with the assumption that people who take abstinence only sex ed then have unprotected sex don't count because they are sinners anyway.

Otherwise one would think there would be more interest in questions about whether students who went through abstinence only education have higher or lower rates of stds than other students. But that seems to be besides the point for defenders of that type of education.

Alpha Omega
It's not a news flash, but tell me what works better if practiced? Not everybody engages in pre-martial or extra martial sex. It still comes down to controlling yourself, is this impossible? Rule over your desires or be ruled by them. STD's, Spitzer, Clinton, Craig, Foley, these are examples of those who are ruled by their desires, not a good plan. If practiced what works best abstinance or strap one on and go for it.

Lon
You are missing the point completely. A generation is being devastated by diseases that will ruin their lives BECAUSE they are doing wrong.

This is not rocket science and the only reason a person could possibly deny the obvious is if they have a vested interest in it -- such as the desire to pursue hedonistic pleasure without responsibility in their own lives and the desire to have a ready supply of young, attractive partners available.

The health consequences of smoking are less clear and obvious than the health consequences of promiscuous sex. That hasn't stopped our culture from undergoing the radical transformation from "smoking is ordinary" to "smoking is outside the bounds of appropriate behavior for decent, respectable people."

Abstinence education worked just fine on smoking. It would work equally well about sex -- except for the determined resistance from people who refuse to restrain their own behavior and who WANT to maintain a steady supply of nubile, willing sex-partners for their own benefit.

Mother of 4
There have been previous eras when stds have run rampant. One of the most documented is the Victorian era when syphilis had a devastating effect. The Victorian era, of course, is famous for its official positioning of abstinence until marraige. Of course the reality was different.

Currently a generation is not being devastated by disease. The disease that seems to be fueling these numbers is one for which there is a vaccine and which has no symptoms in men and most women (which is what makes it so easy to spread since most people who have it don't know it). This, of course, also makes it hard to compare present rates with earlier rates when it was not something being actively measured.

There are serious reasons to try to convince teenagers to refrain from having sex. The main one being that they tend not to be emotionally ready for sex, something which condoms do nothing to address. But after that the most serious consequences are unwanted pregnancies and HIV disease. Both of those can be limited with condoms. At least one other std is also limited, and even symptoms of HPV (and it is not clear why this should be the case if the disease itself is not limited). All of these comes from the study that Knight linked to.

So the question becomes whether you really care about the health of young people or you simply want to express your disapproval of the ones who have sex. Because anyone who cares about them should care whether what we as a society does leads to more or fewer teen pregnancies (teen pregnancies have been in steady decline since the introduction of safe sex education although that decline has been leveling off with the switch to abstinence only). What can we do to halt the spread of HIV effection the most.

I hope you are supporting the vaccination effort for HPV since you are concerned with the "devestation" it is reeking. Or will you try to make it the case that many will ruin their lives BECAUSE they are doing wrong.


3 Million Darwin Awards Coming up!!
ABC reported that 3 million girls have “infections that cause everything from infertility to cervical cancer.”

Lon,
First, PROVE that 1 in 4 Victorian teenagers had at least one STD. Then maybe it might become remotely possible to take that comparison seriously.

Second, condoms -- even carefully and regularly used by mature adults -- do NOT even prevent pregnancy all the time. As part of our teens' education we have explained this via the real-life example of their youngest brother. Though not unwelcome, he was not 100% planned.

Conception is comparatively difficult relative to the spreading of STDs because, first, the viruses and bacteria are fall smaller than sperm and able to exploit smaller holes, and second, conception can occur during only a few days per month while the spread of disease is possible 24/7/365.

Those who *actually care about young people's health* will teach them to be abstinent until marriage and faithful in marriage. Anything else is like handing a toddler a loaded gun and relying on the safety to keep him from killing himself or anyone else. Just as a toddler WILL figure out how to release the safety on that gun those condoms you want to rely on WILL fail.

I'm not betting my kids' lives and futures on a piece of latex.

As for the HPV vaccination -- its unnecessary for those willing to make good choices in life. In fact, its probably counterproductive in that it would create a false sense of security since vaccines, while not as fallible as condoms, are also not perfect in their protection.

Abstinence has no failure rate. Those who fail to abstain are not practicing abstinence.

Again, there is no reason to promote anything other than abstinence until marriage and faithfulness in marriage -- unless one is living a life of hedonism and wants a ready supply of partners available.

Gov. Strickland's corruption
Ohio had the best abstinence program in the country. It was working. He came into office and immediately killed it. Now he wants to teach our children about safe sex. There is no such thing as safe sex. We are not soul-less machines. Sex belongs in marriage. There is no other reason or place for it. Strickland is a perverter(corrupts,misdirects,leads astray) and is trying to destroy the innocence and lives and souls of Ohio's children. Here kids play with dynamite. Why?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is ammoral and it was a payback for campaign contributions. And his most outrageous act of all is he claims christianity as his faith. He is a wolf attacking our precious lambs.

Sex and tape
Sex is like a piece of tape. The more partners it is used on the less tacky it becomes. Until at some point it is so dirty it won't stick anymore. You can't bring a piece of tape like that into marriage and expect the marriage stay together. I wish we could explain to kids how powerful the act actually is. Two souls made one. Not something to play with. It is very dangerous and may explain the rise in suicide rates in young adults.

Mother of 4 writes:
"Those who *actually care about young people's health* will teach them to be abstinent until marriage and faithful in marriage. Anything else is like handing a toddler a loaded gun and relying on the safety to keep him from killing himself or anyone else. Just as a toddler WILL figure out how to release the safety on that gun those condoms you want to rely on WILL fail."

You have a point here about abstinence, however, it's a small one. Yes abstinence will work because nothing happens. 0 + 0 = 0 every time. Point acknowledged. However, human nature is what it is. Sure the toddler will figure out how to unlock a pistol; and a young teenage boy will also figure out how to unlock a girl and vice versa. If you've ever been a teenager yourself you've tried it at some point...

The facts are that all the fear in the world won't work all of the time. The Just Say No to Drugs program worked for some and didn't for others. Promoting abstinence will result in the roll of the eyes, giggles, and it goes in one ear and out the other. Condoms may not be the answer either since teens may not be having vag*nal sex but are having other types...

This is where education has to have some role otherwise teens are going to answer their own questions and make mistakes. Relying on the Bible or some other control measure is never consisently effective. This is why harm reduction is the best method. After all, boys will be boys...

Earth to Robert Knight: Come in please
First of all, HPV is caused by skin contact and 60% of the HPV virus types are not transmitted by sexual contact. Secondly, the study cited by Mr. Knight was not a clinical study and the point was stressed within it that there were no definitive conclusions due to lack of evidence one way or the other. To cherry-pick “facts” for this article is disingenuous when the evidence itself discourages doing just that. Thirdly, some of us like to live in a land called ‘reality,’ wherein the hormones of teenagers often overpower one’s willpower. It is far better then not to instruct kids about the possibilities of contracting an STD as well as the benefits of condom use because, like it or not, kids are going to have sex. Finally: “This finding comes in the face of nearly 40 years of federally funded “safe sex” education…” Are you kidding me? “…comes in the face”?!

Alpha Omega
How do you feel about abstinance in terms of robbery, rape, murder, these too have been going on for years.

for Sword of Light
Sword of Light writes: "Neither has it stopped murder, robbery, and rape. Does that mean we should stop doing our best to teach that those are wrong?"

No, not at all.
But what it DOES mean is that the punishment for young people who do end up having sex anyway, should NOT be death by some terrible contagious disease.

You have just admitted that the most we can ever hope for is to limit, not abolish, sexuality among young people. But contagious diseases don't have limits. When a young girl has sex with another person, EVEN ONCE, she is inheriting whatever diseases that other person picked up from ANY of his prior sexual encounters. That means that you are demanding that every young person, EVERY young person, suppress their sexual urge at just the age when it is coming of full flower. That is NOT going to happen short of chemical castration.

My concern is to make sure that NO YOUNG PERSON has to become dreadfully ill and even die of a horrible disease. Even if they have made a mistake and had premarital sex.

When you're young, you make mistakes. That's why we have different laws governing crimes committed by juveniles. But no young person should have to pay for the mistake of premarital sex with his life.

Premarital sex should not be a death sentence. Sex is not a capital crime punishable by death through AIDS.

Understand now?

SkorpioG
No, I did never, "tried it at some point."

I controlled myself. My husband and I were both virgins on our wedding night. Its not an impossible goal and its made easier to achieve when society is firmly behind self-control and firmly against immorality.

A 1-in-4 STD infection rate is NOT harm reduction by any stretch of the imagination.

Honesty in education requires nothing more or less than the acknowledgment that sex is never safe -- except for those who are abstinent before marriage and faithful in marriage. To claim that anything else is OK is to bet your life on a piece of latex thinner than a child's party balloon.

That's not fearmongering, its simple, incontrovertible truth.

We don't accept the idea of toddlers playing with loaded guns as long as the safety is on. We mustn't accept teens playing with sex just because they have condoms.

for POLMsgt
POLMsgt writes: "How do you feel about abstinance in terms of robbery, rape, murder, these too have been going on for years."

The penalty for first-degree murderers in this country is either life imprisonment without parole, or the death penalty. But only for ADULTS, not for CHILDREN.

If a young person defies his parents and has premarital sex anyway, do you want the penalty for that to be death by AIDS?

That's the logic of your position: Teach children they should be abstinent. And if they still have sex anyway, and they get AIDS and die, well they asked for it, who cares.

Right?

for Mother-of-4
Mother-of-4 writes: "A 1-in-4 STD infection rate is NOT harm reduction by any stretch of the imagination."

Let me repeat: Those girls were NOT practicing harm reduction.

The papilloma infection is being spread by unprotected oral sex. By young people who believe falsely that unprotected oral sex is "safe."

Who is responsible for that? Parents like YOU. Parents who just tell their children "No sex, stay abstinent"--without anyone giving them any guidance as to how to reduce the risk of infection if they don't stay abstinent.

I'll bet lots of those young girls were told by their parents that abstinence was best. And those young girls did what young girls throughout history have done: Defied their parents!

Oral sex can be safe if it's done with condoms and dental dams. But how many young people even have dental dams in their pockets or purses? I'll bet some of them don't even know what a dental dam is. Because their parents didn't explain it to them.



Tape
I heard the tape analogy to sex years ago,in my youth. And it helped me to understand how sex before marriage could destroy my chances for a happy life.

What is abstinence?
I asked my 18yo son this. He's very liberal-minded. We argue a lot. He said it was a religious, "Thou shalt not or you will be damned and go to hell!" kind of thing. I said, "What if you looked at it from a purely physiological point of view. Would abstinence be a valid option." He said, "Yes. Of course."

We had a very interesting conversation. I asked him if he thought his sex education was lacking. He said, "No. I learned everything I need to know on the Internet." We discussed what he actually learned in school, and what he wished he'd been taught. He said he does think we need birth control discussion in school. (That's not offered here.) I tend to agree. I think it needs to be discussed, and shown how it doesn't work. Probably not in school, though. I prefer to do these types of discussions myself at home.

I asked if he had any questions. He said no, he pretty much knows everything by now. Later in the conversation, we discussed HPV. He'd never heard of it. I explained it to him.

It was a great conversation. I'll be having similar ones with my other children. Today.

We Chide Because We Care
True compassion means caring for a person's welfare over the long term. To enable a moment's pleasure at the expense of future pain is false compassion.

We abstinence advocates are not power-crazy party-poopers bent on spoiling everyone's fun. We are realists who understand the physical and spiritual consequences of unrestrained sex. We are people able to look at facts without any vested interest in ensuring a constant supply of easy conquests and thus we can see the ill-effects that the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure has on people.

We know that we who enter our marriages virtuously with our spirits, our health, and our fertility intact, who raise our children inside the bounds of a committed and supportive marriage, and who teach our children to make the same wise choices will be the ones who inherit the earth. Those who, though the pursuit of immediate pleasure above all else, sow the wind will reap the whirlwind of pain, disease, shattered dreams, and infertility.

We abstinence advocates are compassionate enough to share our inheritance with others -- urging them to join us on the path that leads to a future rather than the path to a Darwin Award.

To paraphrase a line from FoxSports' Chris Meyers, ...

We chide because we care.

marshmallows
If kids can delay gratification they become more productive citizens.

When my daughter was in HS we would see the couples meandering slowly, hand-in-hand walking to their car. I pointed to the couple and told my daughter that empty relationships are hard to maintain. You get intimate, so you seem mature to your peers, but then this relationship consumes all your time and may even change the course of your life. It's a false sense of security. It's really a lack of creativity. We don't really ask our kids to be more than sexual people. It's as if the kids don't have any clue what their potential is as people, because the culture only challenges them to be hot.

You can argue that people of past generations weren't any better, even got married at the age of 15. We're supposed to be enlightened.

Rob Ratten,
On the contrary, REALITY is that humans have neither heat cycles nor rutting seasons where mating becomes an uncontrollable biological imperative. Hormonal urges exist, but we humans mate by CHOICE not by compulsion as animals do.

We are not animals. Humans are capable of rising above mere instinct in order to CHOOSE their behavior. We are as capable of choosing wisdom as of choosing folly. We are more likely to choose wisdom when the course of wisdom is supported and the course of folly is not.

Joycey
The memories of past relationships can hurt a marriage relationship, just the memories! Now the generation we want to become our next leaders will be chronically ill. I have a friend with a chronic illness. Every day she fights the disease. It's a job.

Our kids will spend a good portion of their lives subduing the symptoms of their immature choices.

SteveL
"Premarital sex should not be a death sentence."

A noble-sounding sentiment, perhaps. Problem is, in the real world noble-sounding sentiments are meaningless. Fact is fact. Very frequently, premarital and extramarital sex IS a death sentence.

Given that FACT, those who would live must CHOOSE the course of life -- abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage.

You can complain all you want that the price of making the wrong choice is too high but that does not change the fact that the price is what it is.

There is no reality in the pretense that it is possible to play with fire and not be burned.

consider the penguins
Many animals mate for life. There seems to be some kind of imprinting that happens. I often wonder if this happens in humans. People who marry are reluctant to talk about the details of their relationship, because it is part of that imprint complex... partially protective, partially none-of-your- business. Many married people are satisfied with the person they are married to. It's comfortable, stable and it grows in depth over the years. It's happy, not boring

I saw a show about penguins. There were thousands of them on a beach, each guarding a nest. The other mate would go fishing and when finished, would somehow find it's mate on the beach. There was some sophisticated imprinting of it's senses.

The penguins did this year after year with the same mate and the same nest.

Nature is not sexually reckless.

SteveL
You can bet your kids' lives and futures on a thin and fallible piece of latex if you want but you'll bear the responsibility when they end up in trouble because they thought you were telling the truth when you said it was safe. They'll pay the price in broken health and broken dreams and you'll know that its because you didn't have the guts to admit reality and teach the real truth.

I'll refuse that bet and teach my kids that abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage is the only safe choice. Its possible that my children may choose unwisely and go against their teaching. In that case they will pay the same price yours pay. However the responsibility will be their own and I will know that I did all that was in my power to lead them on the right course.

Responsible parents spend their lives teaching their children how to tell wise choices from foolish ones. Only lazy and careless parents forgo that difficult task in favor of just attempting to minimize the consequences of folly -- an attempt that is unlikely to succeed over the long run.

re: Mother of 4
Mother of 4 wrotes:

"... smoking is outside the bounds of appropriate behavior for decent, respectable people..."

>>

So, no decent, respectable people smoke...

So, smokers must NOT be decent, respectable people...


Oh... ok. So, some decent, respectable people smoke, but it's not appropriate. But then, by smoking, they abdicate their status as "decent, respectable people", and we're back to smokers are not decent, respectable people.

----------

"... Abstinence education worked just fine on smoking. It would work equally well about sex..."

>>

What a pathetic argument. There is a HUGE... I mean GIGORMOUS!!!... difference between smoking and sex. There is NO biological imperative to SMOKE. There IS an INNATE, biological imperative to have sex.

re: Mother of 4
Mother of 4 wrote:

"... Abstinence has no failure rate. Those who fail to abstain are not practicing abstinence..."

>>

BUT Abstinence-Only Education DOES have a failure rate as not everyone who receives the education manages to abstain. To make matters worse, hose who have ONLY received abstinence-only indoctrination with NO discussion of saf*ER* alternatives are LESS LIKELY to engage in saf*ER* sex practices and are, therefore, at MORE risk when THEIR abstinence-only education FAILS.


---------

"... Again, there is no reason to promote anything other than abstinence until marriage and faithfulness in marriage..."

>>

Except that PROMOTING abstinence only and faithful marriages HAS NOT WORKED EITHER! Premarrital and extramarrital sex have ALWAYS been part and parcel with human culture -- EVERY human culture, EVEN Mosaic Jewish AND Christian culture. Denial doesn't CHANGE reality.

it doesnt have to be one or the other!
We always teach our 3 teenage children correct priciples. they will make their own choices BUT we want them to have the best information possible. we always talk about sex as a blessing in marriage and live what we preach by being positive in our discussions on sex and faithful to each other.BUT we are VERY open and frank with them! they deserve to know that we know what we are talking about and will be honest with them. NOT preachy or idealist to a fault.we discussed this study in very specific detail with our children. we talked about risks and vaccines and condoms and different ways of contracting the different diseases and told them that obedience to God's commandments brings happiness because He is the one who designed our bodies and knows how they work and when used correctly they will function correctly. but He also sent His son to make forgiveness possible when we mess up and medicine to make our lives better. We can use all the knowledge at our disposal as parents to teach our children and then when they decide for themselves we will know they learned about sex from people who actually know and not from 15 year old classmates, MTV, or porn. Knowledge is POWER!

Liberty First,
See the above post. Humans, unlike animals, do not mate by biological compulsion. We mate by choice.

Biological imperative means that an animal in heat MUST mate with any available member of the opposite sex regardless of any other factor. In the throes of the mating season males will fight for access to females and females will unthinkingly accept whichever male wins that fight. Human hormonal urges are far from imperative.

We are completely capable of choosing to mate only when the necessary pre-condition -- marriage -- has been met.

re: C.H.
C.H. wrote:

"consider the penguins..."

"Many animals mate for life..."

>>

Poor, poor allusion. You oughta read up some more on some penguins that mate for life...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/60302.stm
"Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk...

...

"... All of the female penguins Dr Hunter observed trading sex for stones had partners..."


Prostitution AND adultery!!!

See also:
http://www.dispatch.co.za/1998/03/07/foreign/PENGUIN.HTM
http://www.amonline.net.au/archive.cfm?id=575
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/impact/science/dossiers-sexologiqu es-special-prostitution-in-animals/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_the_Penguins


--------------


"Many animals mate for life..."

>>

And many of them "cheat"...

Article: "In Most Species, Faithfulness is a Fantasy"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/science/18angi.html

re: Mother of 4
Mother of 4 wrote:

"... Humans, unlike animals, do not mate by biological compulsion. We mate by choice..."

>>

First, I suggest you look up "imperative".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperative

Pay particular attention to #5 in the first listing - "something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity: It is an imperative that we help defend friendly nations."

Just because something "demands attention or action" does NOT mean that it will GET attention or action.

Thus, the ability to choose... to resist the urge... does NOT change the fact that sex is a biological imperative. No sex, no procreation. No procreation, extinct species.


There is absolutely NO biological URGE WHATSOEVER to inhale the fumes of smoldering weeds (for the first time -- after addiction kicks in, it's a different story).

There IS, however, a biological URGE to have sex. The fact that the urge MAY be resisted does NOT change the fact. Denial of reality still does not change it.


And as such, your comparison of "abstinence-only" for smoking with sex is utterly laughable.


----------


"... We are completely capable of choosing to mate only when the necessary pre-condition -- marriage -- has been met..."

>>

Necessary pre-condition!? That really IS a laughable denial of reality.

Obviously marriage is NOT a "necessary pre-condition" "to mate" as many... MANY... people are "choosing to mate" WITHOUT meeting YOUR "necessary pre-condition".

@SteveL
You weren't the one to bring up the original comparison, but you've run with it.

Robbery, Murder, etc...yes, these things are wrong. And yes, there are certain consequences associated with them. But, for the most part, these consequences are the results of the society which surrounds those involved. A society which honors thieves will not punish theft.

Intercourse and sexual encounters are different. There, the penalties you seek to eliminate aren't societal...those which were based in society's reactions, this nation has mostly thrown by the wayside. Those consequences that remain are biological. No judge can overrule them, no court of law can abolish them. And no man, no matter how well-intentioned he may be, can declare, as you seem to be trying to, "the consequences don't matter." It is simply not within our power to do so.

Please think on this. Your strategy of 'harm reduction' basically seems to amount to saying "I don't really care about you." I'm sure you believe you care. But for a comparison: Assuming you have children of your own, which would you be more likely to tell them - "Don't play in the street" or "When you're out in the street, make sure you don't get hit"? Which one is more caring, in terms of offering protection from danger, in that scenario?

re: Ender
Ender wrote:

"Robbery, Murder, etc...yes, these things are wrong...

"Intercourse and sexual encounters are different..."

>>

Yes, sex is VASTLY different than robbery, murder, etcetera.

Barring rape and sexual battery, sex is a consensual act that does NOT commit aggression against the Equal Rights of Others.

Robbery, murder, assualy, rape, sexual battery, etcetera ARE acts of force that commit aggression against the Equal Rights of Others.

pepperoma writes:
"We had a very interesting conversation."

PERFECT! This sort of coversation is what should happen. It's a mix of both worlds: school and home education. Your son had questions or had "heard" what to do and you either corrected the misinformation or confirmed what was learned.

Hopefully more parents have an open and honest conversation about a range of topics: alcohol, drugs, sex, honesty, responsibility, etc.

liberty first
Many animals do mate for life.

The difference between me and them is that I was given a brain and a conscience so I am able to practice self-control and obey God's commands.

I realize that we are not to use the animal kingdom as our moral and behavioral guide. My dog, as an example, eats his own poo. My point was that there is an ORDER to things. The mother bear finds the best conditions for her cub. Only extreme conditions would cause her to abandon it or kill it. Males in the animal kingdom, generally pursue females. You can look at nature as a loose structure for 'normal'.

If you feel in your life that the best thing you can offer the world is your sexuality, then you are a poor, poor example of human accomplishment.

Liberty first libertarian
Consider God

re: C.H.
C.H. wrote:

"Many animals do mate for life..."

>>

Yep. I never said otherwise. Many animals form pair-bonds that last until one (or both) of the pair is dead.

However, as the evidence I provided demonstrates, that does NOT necessarily mean that they are faithful.


YOU referred to the natural order (specifically penguins) as some sort of evidence of pair bond connections AS IF it were some sort of substantiation for human lifetime pair-bonding.

I merely used your evidence... or rather, more data related thereto... to show that even ANIMALS that mate for life are not entirely "monogamous" (faithful).


If you wish to recant your earlier observations in the light of new evidence, by all means.


----------


"... You can look at nature as a loose structure for 'normal'."

>>

If your evididence demonstrate a natural "loose structure for 'normal'", then mine does too. Right?

So, then cheating spouses is *loosely* "normal", huh? I mean, after all, many of the species of animals that "mate for life" are unfaithful, even adulterous prostitutes!!


----------

"... If you feel in your life that the best thing you can offer the world is your sexuality, then you are a poor, poor example of human accomplishment."

>>

If anything in your reading of what I've written leads you to conclude anything of that sort, then you are a poor, poor example of education.

re: C.H.
C.H. wrote:

"Consider God"

>>

For what? How do you *know* that I haven't?


Spare me your patronizing.

License First,
The very definition you quoted undermines your words.

"an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity" You said it yourself.

Animals *must* mate. Humans may choose to mate or not.

BTW -- My degree is in biology. What's yours?


The consolation prize for this round is Logic For Dummies by Mark Zegarelli, available at Amazon.com for only 13.59. One more round and you'll qualify for the free Super Saver Shipping.

re: Mother of 4
Mother of 4 wrote:

"The very definition you quoted undermines your words.

"'an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity'..."

>>

Reading comprehension for the win. http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf


Do you understand the use of a semicolon in a list? It is used to designate different parts of a list. That means that EACH of the different sets within the list are valid definitions of their own.

The entire set of #5 that I presented IS - "something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity: It is an imperative that we help defend friendly nations."

Thus, number 5 presents THREE DIFFERENT meanings for "imperative":

1 ) something that demands attention or action;
2 ) an unavoidable obligation or requirement; and
3 ) necessity.

As such, the word may be used to mean one and not the others, and I further went on to identify EXACTLY which ~context~ I was using the word when I wrote, "Just because something 'demands attention or action' does NOT mean that it will GET attention or action."


------------------


"... Animals *must* mate..."

>>

Really!? So, if an animal doesn't mate it'll die?

Gee! I wonder how much longer my dogs will live since they've never mated and never will...

------------------

"... BTW -- My degree is in biology..."

>>

Irrelevant.

------------------

"... What's yours? ..."

>>

Equally irrelevant.

Logic failure
"Really!? So, if an animal doesn't mate it'll die?"

Foul. Come on now. That's the most pathetic attempt at a Straw Man I've seen in quite some time.

"Some animals MUST mate," does not in any way, shape, or form imply that they explode or vanish into a void of contradiction. Rather, it makes it clear that the animal in question, presented with the opportunity to mate, does not have the ability to decide not to do so. They are irresistibly compelled by their biology.

Humans, barring outliers with severe medical problems, never experience an irresistible compulsion to mate.

re: mlund
mlund wrote:


"'Really!? So, if an animal doesn't mate it'll die?'

"Foul. Come on now. That's the most pathetic attempt at a Straw Man I've seen in quite some time..."

>>

Fair enough. That was a shoddily crafted effort to illustrate Mother of 4's poor reading comprehension -- RE: biological imperative to mate versus no biological imperative to smoke -- by turning it back on her. Please consider that line of response recanted.

mlund
I don't think it even rises to the level of a straw man. Especially since everything he's said is a red herring anyway -- him having reacted to my suggestion that the changed cultural position of smoking and smokers that we've seen in the past several decades indicates that the position of premarital and extramarital sex could also be changed by attacking the smoking end rather than even discussing the point of the article.


Steve L
You've got that wrong, the judicial system imposes penalties after the crime has been committed (lack of abstinance, no self control). As with STD's the penalty for no self control. You speak as if it is a fore-gone conclusion that nobody should or is capable of self-control, in this area abstinance. Again, you are all for abstinance in terms of robbery, rape, murder. But in this area no one is supposed to control themselves and just go for it. If abstinance is tried it works, there is no wondering if the condom broke, came off, "Oh I forgot, it will be alright this time".

Rule over your desires or be ruled by them, it seems you are okay for kids to be ruled by them.

liberty first
spare me your *scientific proof*

Don't insult my intelligence by trying to justify your behavior with your degree in biology.

liberty first
You must be new to TH. No one bothers to correct grammar and spelling. We just accept that we all went through the public school system.


liberty first
I'll read your articles if you read the the biblical account of David's lust for Bathsheba and how David designed Uriah's death(Bathsheba's husband) so he could cover up his sin. He was busted by a prophet of God and had to deal with the consequences of that sin for years and years. He did repent and things were restored.

"If your evididence demonstrate a natural "loose structure for 'normal'", then mine does too. Right?"

Of course, but you are human so you can choose not to be unfaithful. You look only at the sexual aspect of nature, not all the other important parts of nature....nurturing offspring, protectiveness, territorialism.

In our culture we've adopted dangerous, out-of-control promiscuity which has reduced sex to a bodily function, a LOWER function than the animals. Now we can scientifically prove the danger, but people like you want to keep telling us it isn't immoral. Maybe to you it isn't immoral, but at least acknowledge that it is dangerous.

For the Libertines Among Us
Isn't it true that the only thing we all must do in this life is die? That assumes we have the capacity to make every other choice available to us; when and how much to eat, whether or not to smoke, whether or not to engage in casual sex, whether or not to wait until marriage to engage in sex. I'll grant that while it's more difficult for males to endure waiting for marriage, it is still possible; not all give in to the urge for sexual release but CHOOSE to channel that energy elsewhere.

Animals don't possess a moral capacity. They endure estrus/rut-they have no choice. This is why they *must* mate. Unless a female is in heat, nothing can happen; the "urge" is simply not there. You don't really need a degree to understand this (respectful nod to you Momof4); any farmer will tell you as much!


Liberty first
What I am getting at is there are choices, choose wrong you just may pay the negative consequences of that choice. It has been suggested that abstinance doesn't work, however people have no problem expecting abstinance behavior concerning robbery, rape, murder. It is expected to be refrained from. Sex even if consensual, a choice has to be made, engage or refrain.

Rule over your desires or be ruled by them.

re: C.H.
C.H. wrote:

"spare me your *scientific proof*

"Don't insult my intelligence by trying to justify your behavior with your degree in biology."

>>

Wow! Is a lack of reading comprehension endemic here?

YOU presented an example from nature to support some "natural order" of things with regards to mating for life. I simply gave you additional evidence to show that YOUR examples aren't as FAITHFUL as you believed.

And from that you conclude that I am trying to justify *my* behavior!?!?

What a riot!

re: C.H.
C.H. wrote:

"... but you are human so you can choose not to be unfaithful..."

>>

I *never* disagreed with that, have I?

I repeat - I merely gave you additional information to demonstrate that your, apparently, implicit attempt to demonstrate some sort of "natural order" of "faithfulness" by citing animals that mate for life is flawed.

-------------

"... but people like you want to keep telling us it isn't immoral. Maybe to you it isn't immoral, but at least acknowledge that it is dangerous."

>>

When did I EVER say that it is NOT immoral? When did I EVER say that it is NOT dangerous?

Please, copy and paste my exact words and include the date and time that I posted them.

re: POLMsgt
POLMsgt wrote:

"... What I am getting at is there are choices, choose wrong you just may pay the negative consequences of that choice..."

>>

I absolutely agree! And I am a firm believer that a *huge* number of the social and political "problems" that we're experiencing NOW are derived from the entitlement mentality of encroaching socialism which absolves individuals of their personal responsibility to:

- plan for their own retirement;
- provide for their OWN children's education;
- (coming soon!) provide for their own medical care;
- provide for their own shelter (Welfare, Section 8, etcetera) and sustenance (food stamps);
- provide for their own children (WIC);
- and etcetera.

More and more, Americans EXPECT government to protect them and shelter them from the negative consequences of their choices. I firmly believe that MANY of our "problems" would fix themselves if people were accountable for their own actions.

--------------

"... It has been suggested that abstinance doesn't work..."

>>

Actually, I believe it's been clearly pointed out... and the logic is irrefutable... that abstinence is 100% successful at preventing STD's and pregnancy. But that is only true when abstinence is practiced.

What has NOT been demonstrated, however, is that abstinence-only EDUCATION has been particularly successful at encouraging the practice of abstinence.

re: Mother of 4
Mother of 4 wrote:

"... Especially since everything he's said is a red herring anyway -- him having reacted to my suggestion that the changed cultural position of smoking and smokers that we've seen in the past several decades indicates that the position of premarital and extramarital sex could also be changed by attacking the smoking end rather than even discussing the point of the article."

>>

Liar.

You made an invalid assertion -- that since abstinence-only programs worked to curtail smoking they can work to curtail sex. I merely demonstrated why your assertion was invalid.

And rather than address the argument presented, however, you want to get all pedantic and argue about the use of the word "imperative" even AFTER I explicitly told you EXACTLY HOW the word was used in my posts.


At least be honest! (Especially since the posts are there for everyone else to read for themselves!)


And talk about red herrings! You latch onto the word "imperative" like a parasite and NEVER address my observation to you that, though abstinence has a 100% success rate, abstinence-only EDUCATION does NOT.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.