Originally Posted By jonvn "When did I ever say I thought my kids would remain virgins until they are 30?" Well, you see, since the article I was talking about was about the Bush Admin spending money to tell ADULTS to engage in abstinence, and you responded to THAT, then I assumed that was what you were talking about. "You are trying to paint the Bush Administration as being completely out of touch." Do you honestly think trying to tell people under the age of 30 that they should not engage in sexual activity? You don't think that is out of touch? You don't think that's cuckoo clock time? "Jon, I think you're misfiring in trying to paint Wahoo as some out of touch extremist here." That is not my intent, I do not think he is an out of touch extremist. This topic is about the Bush Admin telling ADULTS to engage in abstinence. Under 30? That would include the ages of 18 to 29. That doesn't strike you as ridiculous? "Wahoo doesn't seem like he 'needs to catch a clue'. Sheesh." He certainly does if he thinks his 25 year old children are not going to engage in sexual activity.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I doubt the government really has a problem with people under 30 who can financially support their children." That is the entire point of this thread. THEY DO. They are spending millions of dollars on it. Did you NOT READ the articles I linked to? "I find this thread and the "shocked" nature of it hilarious, given that the original poster has been ranting recently about taking babies away from unwed mothers who find themselves pregnant." No. The point is that they are spending money to teach ADULTS to abstain, which is not going to happen. Teaching children to abstain is only unworkable if you do not include "But if you do, this is what you must do to protect yourself" information. It has nothing to do with teen pregnancy. "It is not ludicrous to think that a person can wait until marriage to have sex" It is ludicrous to expect the majority of the public to not engage in sexual activity. And it is furthermore outrageous that we base health care issues on this utterly flawed assumption.
Originally Posted By DAR As long as they tell people they can't be "master of their domain" I'm fine with this.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>He certainly does if he thinks his 25 year old children are not going to engage in sexual activity.<< Well, we've got a couple of posters here already who have said they did just that. It's possible. It's a choice. And again, you are putting words in his mouth. I read his comments to mean that he would tell them the whole story and encourage them to choose abstinence and tell them why. That's exactly what parents should do -- attempt to hand down values they think lead to a better life. Try setting you phasers to 'stun' before going after someone.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Well, we've got a couple of posters here already who have said they did just that. It's possible. It's a choice." I'm sure they exist. It is possible. Is it probable? To the point where you go "don't do it," and then expect kids to follow? Not likely. In fact, studies show that abstinence programs do NOT work. That instead, the children unfortunate to be subjected to this tripe end up more likely having unprotected sex. "I read his comments to mean that he would tell them the whole story and encourage them to choose abstinence and tell them why." If that is what he intends, then good for him. Maybe his kids won't end up dying at 28 in an AIDS ward. "Try setting you phasers to 'stun' before going after someone." You should know me well enough by now to realize my phasers are on stun. If they were on kill, I'd be much harsher. But mostly, this whole topic is about the money spent on telling adults to not have sex. Until they are 30. Again, plain idiocy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You should know me well enough by now to realize my phasers are on stun.<< Then maybe you should redirect your aim. You're missing the target by zeroing in on Wahooskipper. >>In fact, studies show that abstinence programs do NOT work.<< I assume you mean absitnence-only programs, and not programs that offer abstinence as one of the alternatves to avoideing STDs or unwanted pregnancy. As I said, I think when you educate people about these things, going with anything other than full dsclosure makes one's credibility suspect. It's kind of like encouraging kids not to smoke pot. If you paint an unrealistic picture that pot doesn't feel good at the time, the first time a kid tries it, whatever else you've told them about the very real problems and dangers of the drug go right out the window. Same with sex education. You have to discuss that every human being has sexual feelings, what they mean, how choices we make can have longterm consequences... you knmow, all the alternatives and options. So, I agree that abstinence-only funding is dumb. But I also think that the idea that it is impossible or unreasonable for someone to choose abstinence, even as an adult, is also misinformed.
Originally Posted By ecdc The larger issue to me is the Victorianesque, sexually repressed nature of our culture. Self control would probably be a lot easier if sex wasn't such a naughty thing in our society. Jasmine, I'm curious - because you had not planned to have sex but did, were you as responsible about it or was it spur of the moment? (And feel 100% free to tell me to mind my own business)
Originally Posted By jonvn "You're missing the target by zeroing in on Wahooskipper." I'm zeroing in on the person who responded to an article about telling adults that they should not engage in sex until 30 by saying "what's wrong with that?" "If you paint an unrealistic picture" That's exactly right. "I also think that the idea that it is impossible or unreasonable for someone to choose abstinence" To expect people in general to do this, is unrealistic, period. Sure a small number will, but the vast majority (the article states 90% of all adults under 30 engage in sexual activity) will find this so laughably out of touch as to completely ignore it. Those who choose to not engage in sex as an adult has made their own decision. If an adult is told to abstain by the government? Give me a break. So the government has spent millions on something so basically stupid that it is almost beyond belief. I personally find it to be an stultifyingly offensive.
Originally Posted By DlandJB So the government has spent millions on something so basically stupid that it is almost beyond belief. I personally find it to be an stultifyingly offensive.>>>>>>>> Not to mention that if unmarried women under 30 don't want to have sex before marriage, you are going to have a lot of lonely Saturday nights.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper "The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are "to identify groups...most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12-through 29-year-old range." Previous guidelines didn't mention targeting of an age group." The Assistant Secretary of DHHS is quoteed: "We wanted to remind states they could use these funds not only to target adolescents. It's a reminder." There are plenty of "at-risk" groups of people who could benefit from programs like these. The poor, the mentally ill, non-English speaking individuals, etc. All of whom might well be adults but may not have the education or knowledge base to understand the potential consequences of premarital sex. The AIDS epidemic that you so often have brought up jonvn, particularly in Africa, is largely the result of uneducated adults. These programs aren't targeting your educated adults who are choosing to have children despite not being married. And so yes, my response is still, "What's wrong with that?"
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Jonvn, shouldn't the government be trying to promote abstinence in order to reduce the number of pregnancies in unwed mothers? Don't you see a connection between abstaining from sex and not getting pregnant? We could solve a lot of problems if more people exercised their freedom of choice before they chose to have sex. If the program promotes abstinence only and doesn't discuss birth control and disease mitigation options for those who choose to still have sex, than that's unrealistic. But there's no evidence in the article that you posted that this is the case - it's only making grant money available to encourage adults to choose not to have sex. Of course people will choose to have sex anyway, but at least they'll be more aware of what might happen to them because of it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think the educational programs about smoking that were promoted by the government are a good example of this. Most adults don't smoke now because they are very aware of how destructive smoking is to their health. About 45% of the population smoked in 1965, compared to about 21% now.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>About 45% of the population smoked in 1965<< Gee, I would have thought it was even higher back then. As a kid, it seemed like every adult I saw was a smoker. But it's a good comparrison. One could have argued back then that 'everyone is going to smoke anyway, the best we can try is to get them to switch to filtered cigarettes.' Besides telling about the unhealthy aspects of smoking, a concerted effort has been made to make smoking appear uncool. Does it work for everyone? Nope. But it does for some.
Originally Posted By DlandJB I'll suggest that it is a slightly harder situation, because we are not hard-wired by nature to smoke. We are hardwired to reproduce, so the drive for sex is greater. Hey, I smoked from 15-30, so maybe that was my substitute!! However, I don't think it hurts anyone to offer abstinence as a viable option. There are probably more people than would admit that would prefer to have the pressure off of them by deciding to wait. Even guys.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jonvn, shouldn't the government be trying to promote abstinence in order to reduce the number of pregnancies in unwed mothers?" No. It should be promoting realistic education to people who are going to engage in sex. And telling a 25 year old male to not engage in sex is laughably out of touch. That anyone would think that this is not an utter waste of taxpayer money is not far behind. This is a triumph of ideology over reality. The African AIDS crisis is a crisis of education regarding condoms and culture. People are going to have sex, and trying to tell them to not do so as if that will accomplish anything is an insanity. "it's only making grant money available to encourage adults to choose not to have sex." Uh, right. So, how do I apply to get osme of this grant money? I'll put up a poster online someplace. Can I have two million, please? This is an utter and total waste of time and money that could be better used on something that would actually accomplish something. People in the article who are actually involved in these issues call it completely out of touch with reality. But somehow, we have individuals here who think "Oh, the government has told some 28 year old to not have sex, so they won't." To even begin to think that such an action has any viability is to completely and totally disregard normal human behavior.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But somehow, we have individuals here who think "Oh, the government has told some 28 year old to not have sex, so they won't." << No one has said that. What has been said is that it could be presented as one option.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think you really understand the program, jonvn. This isn't telling people not to have sex, it's telling them why not having sex is a good idea for avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies. You're (again) mischaracterizing and grossly simplifying the issue and program. If you want a grant for this, you can do what everyone else does - apply for it. You need to show that the poster you want to put online is effective and you need to show some sort of measurable outcome. There's no reason that you as an individual can't obtain one of these grants so long as you can show the effectiveness or potential effectiveness of what it is you are proposing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Personally, I don't think the federal government should be spending any money on an abstinence program. But then I don't think they should be spending money on a program that promotes birth control or condom usage. And they shouldn't be spending money supporting kids of single parents. All these things should be the responsibility of individual states. Cut federal taxes and federal spending so the states can increase their taxes and figure out what programs work best for them. That's the way things should work.
Originally Posted By jasmine7 <<Jasmine, I'm curious - because you had not planned to have sex but did, were you as responsible about it or was it spur of the moment? (And feel 100% free to tell me to mind my own business)<< Nah, that's fine, ecdc. I was halfway responsible about it. I got myself put on the Pill & used spermicide, but I didn't feel comfortable asking him to use a condom when we had sex. He was my first "real" boyfriend, and I was too young, foolish, and unexperienced to know that I have that right.
