I'm the Religious Left!Follow

Yes, slightly. Abstinence only education is slightly effective at reducing sexual activity, but it is grossly ineffective at reducing STD transmission and pregnancy. The small number of people not having sex is hugely offset by the larger amount having unprotected sex.

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 4:17pm by Allegory

Yes. That's what I meant by social change is needed. And... <drumroll please> some sort of education about the benefits of abstinence and monogamy would seem to be a step in the right direction. You don't need to have some puritanical religious belief system to eyeball the situation and come to this conclusion.

No, you could just be functionally braindead. 10,000 years of data suggests that "some sort of education about the benefits of abstinence and monogamy" does nothing to stop the spread of STDs.

I'd like cites for these statistics, please.

We both know they don't exist. Don't play this out too soon, though, I want Nexa to call me laughing for fifteen minutes when she gets home.

Lack of condoms? No. I didn't say that, and the issue is more complex than that.

The rate at which people will ***** and the number of other people they'll ***** are going to depend on social perceptions about sex. Period.

Those social perceptions can be changed though, and providing condoms and encouraging their use tends to increase the likelihood of a society adopting a "***** more" viewpoint, while encouraging abstinence tends to increase the likelihood of the opposite viewpoint.


I didn't say that a lack of condoms would reduce the rate of sex or number of sexual partners. I said that instruction and encouragement of these populations to adopt the ideas of abstinence and monogamy would and that simultaneously dumping truckloads of free condoms on the population with pamphlets explaining about how they allow for safe sex is going to tend to make that solution less effective.


And Nexa? I've linked numerous cites and studies on this subject in the past. I'm not going to dig them up again. What's bizarre is you guys keep getting so caught up in your position that you can't see or think straight.

The only use for a condom is to have sex with someone you don't want to have a child with or whom you suspect might have an STD. That's all condoms do. It's somewhat absurd to argue that no one's going to do exactly that with their condoms. Of course they will. They'll have sex with people they don't want to have children with and those they aren't sure don't have STDs. It's one of those things that is so incredibly obvious, I can't figure out why some people refuse to acknowledge it.


That's what condoms are for. While they can certainly also be used by married couples to prevent pregnancy, that almost certainly accounts for only a tiny fraction of the total number of times they are used. Are you seriously arguing that people would have sex just as often and with just as many partners if they didn't have condoms and other forms of birth control available?

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 5:18pm by gbaji

No, you haven't. You've quoted some Guttmacher study that said the opposite of what you claimed. In fact, I responded with a piece from the same institution noting that abstinence proponents took portions of that study out of context (as you did). You have also argued against other studies by the same institution, claiming that the authors didn't know what they were talking about. As I recall, that time was particularly amusing because I had the entire study in front of me whereas you had a trundicated version of the study conclusion and yet you persisted in insisting that you knew exactly how and why the study was wrong.

Now, just to be sure on this, I have another tab open where we have the Alla search results of every time Gbaji said abstinence. Hrrmm... nope, sorry, the "numerous cites and studies" you're claiming just aren't there.

This is different... way, way different... from you providing the statistical evidence I asked for and which you claim exists. I'd like to see that evidence, not some lame "I'm not going to!" retort.

Edited, Apr 9th 2009 9:35pm by Jophiel

\agree

Time after time, gbaji substitutes what he *wishes* to be true for what is.

Now, now I didn't say that's what bothered me the most. I said that's what bothered many. I'm not terribly bothered except the time, only a few months ago, when the young men in suits dinged my doorbell as I was just stepping out of the shower. I should have tested their faith I guess.

What I personally find annoying is that my close devout relatives accept too much on faith - more than just their faith. My sis supported GW, not because she thought he was a good pres but because it was the choice of her family, her church and her god - she told me as much. I think that's pretty wishy-washy.

People coming to your door is pretty pushy. Honestly, pushiness is not a complaint that I harbor towards god-fearing folks, however historically speaking, they used some pretty aggressive techniques to get people to bend to their will.

I could probably have issues with some over zealous anti-abortionists if it was something that I had need to encounter or confront more often. Shooting doctors you don't agree with is a bit extreme.

Yes, abstinence education has done wonders for the teens here in the US.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Ok, I'm no Smasharoo impersonator, but seriously, that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. OK, granted, it's 2 PM, but I doubt you'll be topped.

Absolutely.

I think body chemistry and the availability/accessibility of desirable partners are more likely factors. Did you mean, instead, that the difference in the rate between cultures would also vary with the differences in cultural perceptions of sex?

You best be trollin', son.

well, ****.

Edited, Apr 10th 2009 8:43am by Allegory

Gbaji is a man of many hats. In this thread he's a renowned sociologist, in another he's a CPA disputing how Joph files his taxes, and in another he's an expert on health care administration. And yet in the one tech thread this week he has no idea how Twitter works, the one field he actually owns a hat for. It's pretty trite, but hugely amusing.