"Has US abstinence policy failed?"

[Walsingham]

I guess thats the crux of it, it's a hypothetical 100% success. Which is worth very little in the real world where people follow their desire over sound advice. But government is not allowed to play the percentages as soon as the ghost of choice is introduced into the equation. That would be unamerican.

 

Yeah. If I may offer an alternative angle:

 

The only surefire way to avoid dying in a climbing accident is not to fall off stuff. BUt people DO fall off. That's why you use belaying ropes, pads, and work in teams. Um... I may have got lost at the end there. But you get the idea.

I like that, im stealing your line!

 

The working in teams bit?

[Sand]

There are other choices than sex and in vitro - strange things do happen. I do realize that it is irrelevant for most cases.

 

Yes, there was this strange case of parthenogenesis around 2000 years ago...

[Gorgon]

And you keep hearing these stories of people tripping and accidentally sticking their **** into things

[Sand]

Thats a good way of getting electrocuted.

[Moatilliatta]

Personal experience?

[Sand]

First hand? No.

 

But I had this college roommate...

 

Then I decided moved off campus.

[walkerguy]

Yes it has failed, major waste $$$ but we shouldn't give up, just find a new way. Like all our other problems.

[Guard Dog]

GuardDog, I have a question regarding this:

let me get back on topic by saying teaching abstinance from sex to teenagers is a good thing. Teaching ONLY abstinance is just nuts.

How can teaching this be a good thing? Abstinence doesn't even really prevent getting so called STDs like AIDS or certain forms of Hepatitis (via contaminated drug injections, public toilets etc.), nor does it enable anyone to become a happy individual (unless said individual is a very spiritual monk or something).

 

Jeez samm we're not talking abstinence for life here, just until marriage. Of course I can count on one hand all the people I know who actually did that. There are two good thing about abstinence, if you practice it you won't get a STD. That requires sex, therefore no sex no STD. The other good thing is that once you do get married if your spouse is no good in bed you won't know the difference anyway!

 

Oh yes there is one other thing thats good about it, it provides an excuse for those who are... shall we say unlucky?

[Pidesco]

The only people I know who practiced abstinence until marriage are either really, really old or dead.

[Tigranes]

I know one couple. Very dedicated Christians. Not exactly weird people, or fanatics or stuckups. Yeah, it can happen, apparently.

 

I'm not going to comment on whether abstinence is 'good' or 'bad'. But the point is - sex is really only as important as you make it. If you and your partner don't depend on sex to confirm your committment, and if you're not used to satisfying your hard-ons immediately, abstinence is not actually some sort of constant vigil, or a difficult, unnatural choice that forces your body to do what it doesn't like (hell, that's dieting. That doesn't stop people, right? There goes the 'natural' argument). The biggest thing that makes abstinence so difficult, rather like vegeterianism, is not your 'natural wants' or your relationships itself, but the social climate.

 

I'm not saying abstinence > sex or whatever, just wanted to point that out. If you like sex and want to have pre-marital sex, fine. I haven't made my mind up on the issue yet and so I'm not even in a position to judge that either way. But let's not pretend it's some sort of 'natural' 'as-it-should-be' 'inevitable' thing. If you pursue ars erotica, you pursue ars erotica.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Jeez samm we're not talking abstinence for life here, just until marriage.

 

Crazy, outdated, concept, with proper protection and prevention there is no reason not to have some fun before you are married - just don't be stupid, that's all.

[Gorgon]

Statistics show that most people practice serial monogamy. I know that starting a sentence with 'statistics show' and then not showing any statistic is a cop out, but I think we can agree that this is generally accepted. In any case this places a different emphasis on when and where sex is 'supposed' to start.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Gorgon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

In any case this places a different emphasis on when and where sex is 'supposed' to start.

 

More outdated thinking carried over from an old morality system.

[samm]

Jeez samm we're not talking abstinence for life here, just until marriage. Of course I can count on one hand all the people I know who actually did that. There are two good thing about abstinence, if you practice it you won't get a STD. That requires sex, therefore no sex no STD. The other good thing is that once you do get married if your spouse is no good in bed you won't know the difference anyway!

 

Oh yes there is one other thing thats good about it, it provides an excuse for those who are... shall we say unlucky?

*gg* fun. But "no sex no STD" is not true, I even bothered to write some tiny examples in order to not appear as purely trollish

 

(hell, that's dieting. That doesn't stop people, right? There goes the 'natural' argument)

No, it doesn't go. Dieting isn't natural either I'm not going to switch too far into nutrition-topic, so I'll leave the vegetarianism out. Also, I don't deny that the surroundings do have a big influence on perception of this subject but this again is too absolute:

is not your 'natural wants' or your relationships itself, but the social climate.

As your own example with the dedicated christians showed, it's just not what feels good and right for your body but rather what feels good for your moral principles. Moral principles however are a cultural phenomenon, thus fall into the same category as 'social climate'. You see where I'm getting at? Both is an influence one should be able to choose to follow of course. It's just not one that should be taught at school as primary principle. What kids should learn imho is that there are these influences, and there probably are their bodily urges, and what can happen if you follow either or both of them, and how to do it responsibly. And this is what this thread's topic is all about.

Yay, I'm back to topic

Edited April 28, 2008 by samm

[Tigranes]

Of course, samm. I am not championing abstinence over casual sex. I am saying they both have their own logics, and their logics are constructed things; neither of those are 'natural'. I was trying to debunk a particular strand of argument that some like to use, saying sex is a natural thing and if it feel's good, it's not wrong, etc. These things are all built up through social and cultural influences - this remains true for boths ides of the spectrum.

 

The real challenge for proper sex education (which does not necessarily promote abstinence), is that it has to overcome this discourse and social climate of sex which has a much bigger and earlier influence on people than sex education. You get sex-ed from, what, 13/14? By then you are already exposed to the hypersexuality of the media and of the way other people talk about, elude to, joke about sex, how sexuality or rather eroticism is worn as a cloth and sign of a certain social status. You are already unconsciously aware of how this society thinks of sex, so by then, sexual education has to do the harder work - it has to scrape that away as well as teach the stuff. Just teaching kids the knowledge isn't going to make them practice abstinence, or really change their sexual behaviour at all (except for, uh, wearing condoms more often). Now, if the goal of sex education is to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies and nothing else, I suppose this is fine. But that's why if anybody is unhappy or worried about how our society treats sex at all, sex education is... well, it's a very difficult way to go about it.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Now, if the goal of sex education is to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies and nothing else, I suppose this is fine.

 

That is all I think it should be - let the parents deal with the moral stuff if they want to, but don't have someone else's morality pushed on everyone.

[Tigranes]

Why, you sound suspiciously like Sand there.

[Hell Kitty]

The sex education we received at my old Catholic high school focused on contraception, pregnancy, STDs and peer/social pressure. Not necessarily in that order. Good times.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Sand]

Now, if the goal of sex education is to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies and nothing else, I suppose this is fine.

 

That is all I think it should be - let the parents deal with the moral stuff if they want to, but don't have someone else's morality pushed on everyone.

 

I agree.

[Humodour]

So you all agree that "abstinence only sex education" is a crime to teach in schools right? The parents can teach it if they want, but the government has a duty to teach about contraception.

 

I had a rant about the flaws of the common uncompromising, anti-utilitarianism American form of libertarianism written up (including speculation on why it thrives only in America - likely due to a natural ally in conservative religious fundamentalism), but instead I'll just point out that by trying to ensure somebody has a 'right' to cram their religious dogma down the necks of impressionable children, in place of scientifically proven methods of STD prevention, aren't you in fact depriving all those children of the basic civil right to self-determination, choice?

 

Or would you contend they are perhaps not mature enough to see the 'evils' of contraception and thus make an 'informed' decision? I'm sure that logic will protect them when they are off experimenting with sex, but have only abstinence education to protect them from STDs and pregnancy (oh wait, no it doesn't). Hey, perhaps we can play a game of scapegoat and blame the victim instead?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So you all agree that "abstinence only sex education" is a crime to teach in schools right? The parents can teach it if they want, but the government has a duty to teach about contraception.

 

Yeah - sounds about right.

[Tigranes]

I don't agree that it's just the parents' responsibility, because it's not a simple parent-government scale - kids aren't influenced by just parents, and more than in any other period in history, they are out of the parents' grasp and not for the fault of the parents; it's just a consequences of our times. The old, and certainly once true, adage has not gone compeltely obsolete, but certainly outdated.

 

Anyway, totally called the Sand post. And I do definitely agree that whatever the solution, it isn't to not teach them about contraceptives and pretend they don't exist, goo-goo ga-ga. I don't know how they came up with that one.

[Humodour]

I also find it funny when people claim that America shouldn't have better (read: decent) social welfare because it 'violates' an individual's right by increasing taxes (the UN disagrees BTW).

 

Funny how Iceland, Australia and Canada have some of the best quality of life in the world as well as some of the lowest taxes of any OECD country (including less than America).

 

In the case of America, upgrading social welfare would "simply" mean telling the libertarians & conservatives to take a hike for a while and replacing the current system. The welfare state replacing it would acquire all those funds - you wouldn't miraculously need to pull them out of thin air and run the old system as well. Any initial tax increases due to infrastructure change and such would be relatively minor if taken over the span of a few years, and the benefits would far outweigh any supposed cons; social welfare combined with workfare* is an upskilling system which closes income gaps, raises the national mean socio-economic level, and increases mean national health and fitness. Workfare/upskilling is thus a feedback loop which means ever decreasing pressure on the welfare system over time (to a critical limit), meaning the system soon pays itself off and then some through the increased economic potential the above benefits create.

 

With all those millions of people living better, healthier lives through good social welfare, you're honestly going to say that libertarianism grants you the ability to deny them this because you perceive you have a 'right' not to have your taxes (which you seem to have little control over anyway I might add) go towards empowering the rights of others? That's not securing civil liberties, that's raping them. It spits in the face of the utilitarianism which liberal democracy is founded upon.

 

Hopefully Hillary or similar gets elected. I know she visited Australia and tried to pass policy to emulate our compulsory universal healthcare scheme back in the 90's when her husband was in power. It'd at least be a good start for the US in the face of such pressures as an income gap that has been ever widening for at least 40 years now... the bottom 50% of income earners haven't even kept up with the inflation rate!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_...n_1967-2003.svg

 

*workfare means you get social welfare if you are 'upskilling' (actively seeking to improve your socio-economic status); actively looking for a job, have a job, have a volunteer job such as social work, or are in further education... all contingent on you not currently having an income source that takes your out of the at-risk target group (progressively decreasing subsidy the higher one's income until $0 subsidy), of course. America has a basic system of 'workfare' but is more designed to 'weed out the trash' than take from each according to his ability, and give to each according to his need (again, only until they are out of the at-risk income bracket; this isn't communism, this is designed to uphold basic human rights).

[Walsingham]

Just as my thrupenny worth of opinion, as a heartless employer I want a workforce who are not sick with STDs and falling over with unwanted pregnancies. I have no problem with preaching abstinence, but kids and society deserve the full range of options.

[Guard Dog]

I also find it funny when people claim that America shouldn't have better (read: decent) social welfare because it 'violates' an individual's right by increasing taxes (the UN disagrees BTW).

 

Funny how Iceland, Australia and Canada have some of the best quality of life in the world as well as some of the lowest taxes of any OECD country (including less than America).

 

In the case of America, upgrading social welfare would "simply" mean telling the libertarians & conservatives to take a hike for a while and replacing the current system. The welfare state replacing it would acquire all those funds - you wouldn't miraculously need to pull them out of thin air and run the old system as well. Any initial tax increases due to infrastructure change and such would be relatively minor if taken over the span of a few years, and the benefits would far outweigh any supposed cons; social welfare combined with workfare* is an upskilling system which closes income gaps, raises the national mean socio-economic level, and increases mean national health and fitness. Workfare/upskilling is thus a feedback loop which means ever decreasing pressure on the welfare system over time (to a critical limit), meaning the system soon pays itself off and then some through the increased economic potential the above benefits create.

 

With all those millions of people living better, healthier lives through good social welfare, you're honestly going to say that libertarianism grants you the ability to deny them this because you perceive you have a 'right' not to have your taxes (which you seem to have little control over anyway I might add) go towards empowering the rights of others? That's not securing civil liberties, that's raping them. It spits in the face of the utilitarianism which liberal democracy is founded upon.

 

Hopefully Hillary or similar gets elected. I know she visited Australia and tried to pass policy to emulate our compulsory universal healthcare scheme back in the 90's when her husband was in power. It'd at least be a good start for the US in the face of such pressures as an income gap that has been ever widening for at least 40 years now... the bottom 50% of income earners haven't even kept up with the inflation rate!

 

Oh boy, where do I even begin here. At first I had to recheck who wrote this. I thought Gorgon might have stolen Krecack's password or something.

 

First off there is no "right" against higher taxes at the federal level in the US. There are some states that do have tax caps by law but most do not. If congress wanted to raise taxes by 90% today they could. Of course the next election would see them all run out of office, those that were not recalled before that. You need to realize, the US economy is far more consumer based than any other I can think of. Even Great Britan and Germany. For the economy to survive, the citizens need to spend money. Raising taxes has to double bad effect. 1) It raises the costs of production because income is hardly the only thing taxed here. 2) If the citizens have less money they spend less.

 

You seem to be under the impression that libertarianisim and religious conservatisim have some kind of alliance (based on this and your previous post). Believe me on this one, the two cannot peacefully coexist. A religious conservative believes in a moral and "just" sociiety as they define those terms. They try to use the power of government to create it even over the objections of differing views. A social democrat believes in a moral and "fair" society and they attempt to use the power of government to create it even over the objections of those with differing views. Social democrats seek to supress economic liberty (they call it greed) religious conservatives seek to supress personal freedom (they call it license). Yes I know that is a pretty broad brush for a VERY complex subject, but bear with me here. Libertarianisim rejects both and seeks to keep both in check by keeping the government as small as possible, ensuring maximum freedom for all. Once again that is a pretty broad brush but of you boil it down to basics, that is all completely true.

 

Comparing the social welfare in other nations to the US is flawed reasoning for a number of reasons. First off the population of the US is just shy of 500 million. The population of Iceland is 2.1 million, Canada is 11 million, Austrialia is 40 million. all of Scandanavia together has less people than New York, California, Florida and Texas alone. To paraphrase Ross Perot "You can't take the same business practices used to run a mom and pop country store and and extrapolate them to run Wal Mart (a major department store chain in the US)"

 

You guys need to understand something here. and I know I say this over and over but I really think it's not sinking in. The US might look similar to the rest of the western world, we might be very similar culturally but we are governed and organized in a very different way. The federal government cannot tell those opposed to social welfare to take a hike because they are voters who put people who think like them into federal power. If Obama (easily the more liberal of the two) becomes President and has a fillibuster proof majority in congress you will not see the US magicly turn into a European style social welfare state. After 4 years you will barely notice any real changes in domestic policy. The seperation between state local and federal powers simply won't permit it to happen. There are too many limitation on federal power to make such a radical change. In no other nation does the individual states hold so much political power for self governance as the US. We started as a union of sovreign states. I've always said there could be government managed healthcare one day but it would NOT be done at the federal level. It would be done at the state level. And indeed it has been. Wisconson and Oregon are already working on providing health care for state residents. It is coming, just not in the way that you think.

 

Sorry for any typos.I wrote this while driving to work.