![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:
Posted by zeugma on November 1, 2006, at 10:53:43
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence » zeugma, posted by madeline on November 1, 2006, at 7:02:35
> Seems like a reasonable thought to me. Not because of any religious agenda of course, but because sex can lead to all sorts of problems.
>
> To me, this is similar to when the surgeon general advocated that people shouldn't smoke.>>The main results of government abstinence programs are major increases in STD's and unplanned pregnancies.
The surgeon general should know that.
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2006, at 19:13:58
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence » madeline, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2006, at 10:53:43
>>The main results of government abstinence programs are major increases in STD's and unplanned pregnancies.
I think I might recall what you're referring to, but I'm confused. How could the government programs themselves result in more disease [transmission] and unplanned pregnancies? I mean, unless the government was/is forcing people to have sex, and further to do so without protection?
Being 100% fool proof, I'd agree with maddy that from a public health standpoint abstinence seems a reasonable thing for a government to urge. Of course, that's without me knowing *how* they are "urging abstinence" right now (do you have a link?)Aren't the problems you mentioned the consequence of two people ultimately *making a choice* to have sex?
Among unmarried people I know, [ages 15-? 65+] abstinence is a frequent choice. They choose it for health (emotional and physical) reasons, religious reasons, practical reasons, or some combination of those.
Posted by Dunder on November 2, 2006, at 5:42:17
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence » madeline, posted by zeugma on November 1, 2006, at 10:53:43
I see an analogy with drugs policy here. I believe that the government trying to persuade people to abstain from drugs or sex is a pointless exercise. People will continue to take drugs and have sex regardless (and perhaps because) of the fact that their leaders disapprove. I think that the best a government can hope to achieve is to educate people as to the risks involved and how best to minimise those risks.
Bush's policy with respect to only funding sexual health programs that encourage abstinance in Sub-Saharan Africa has been a disaster in terms of their ineffectuality in controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS. In my view, those tax dollars would be far better spent on providing people with condoms and education on STD's and particularly HIV/AIDS.
Posted by Dinah on November 2, 2006, at 9:11:34
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence » zeugma, posted by 10derHeart on November 1, 2006, at 19:13:58
I think abstinence is a reasonable thing to advocate as well. I also liked Joycelyn Elders' position.
I don't know if it's accurate to say that it's ineffective with all people. I'd have probably experimented with drugs if it were legal, just as I experimented with alchohol because it was legal. But I didn't because it was illegal. And my husband and I chose abstinence, not for any particular religious or moral reasons, but because we knew our parents would have kittens if we got pregnant, and we were terrified at the prospect. Had they handed us condoms, we might have done something with consequences that wouldn't have been at all what we needed at that point in our lives.
While abstinence programs might not work with everyone, and education on protection is essential for those who choose to have sex, it does work with some people. And for those people it's a better choice than protected sex, because we all know that safe sex isn't a hundred percent safe. Our very progressive and sexually active high school science teacher explained what 99% effective meant.
Besides, surely we need something to offset the frequently expressed (on primetime TV) sentiment that the third date is the date where you have sex?
Overall, I'd rather have my son watch an all naked orgy or watch people's heads being blown off with graphic detail than hear those casually expressed sentiments.
Posted by Dinah on November 2, 2006, at 13:14:44
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2006, at 9:11:34
I meant in movies or TV of course.
Posted by Racer on November 2, 2006, at 15:11:53
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2006, at 13:14:44
The studies that I've read have all pretty much said the same thing: that the more comprehensive the sex education, the longer kids wait before becoming sexually active -- and the less sex ed they get, the more sexual experimentation they do. As far as I'm concerned, I'd say educate them about sex, including the possible emotional repercussions.
As for abstinance programs, I have to admit I have a very, very negative attitude towards those programs that advocate "abstinance ONLY" -- that seems unrealistic to me. If a comprehensive program of sexual education advocates abstinance as the best of the possible options, though, that's something I have little problem with.
And the programs in sub-Saharan Africa are so damaging, according to everything I've read. It really does seem a pity to me that they're in place.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 8, 2006, at 14:14:47
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2006, at 13:14:44
Whats so wrong with sex? Its completely crazy to encourage abstintence! What for? Its hardly like smoking, and not to mention, completely patronising from the government. We can make our own choices you know!
Sex is healthy, natural, good for you, part of being a human and people have sexual needs, whether they're married or not (yes, obviously wear a condom) but marriage is an artifical construct....
And I think its slightly crazy to encourage abstintence, and then say, but its fine within marriage. I mean, people then are going to rush into marriage just so they can have sex and experiment and are much more likely to get divorced than if they'd taken their time etc etc.
And how on earth are you supposed to know if you're sexually compatible??There is nothing wrong with (safe) sex! The government would get better results if they mailed everyone free condoms........
Posted by Declan on November 14, 2006, at 23:59:39
In reply to What on earth?, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 8, 2006, at 14:14:47
My two bob's worth is that there is, relatively speaking, more sexual repression (or, if you prefer, moral decency) at the centre.
This could easily be wrong.
Posted by Dinah on November 15, 2006, at 7:57:16
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Declan on November 14, 2006, at 23:59:39
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 16, 2006, at 10:21:28
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Declan on November 14, 2006, at 23:59:39
> My two bob's worth is that there is, relatively speaking, more sexual repression (or, if you prefer, moral decency) at the centre.
At the centre of what? The arguement? I don't think people who only have sex within marriage are morally superior or who abstain completely when unmarried. I think its unnatural to be honest.
Meh.
I just don't understand what the fuss about is re: abstinence/marriage. And I think marriage is slightly pointless anyway, because whats the point of getting married if you can get divorced? If you see what I mean. Fine, get married, but don't get divorced two years later because you're 'incompatible'. I mean, marriage is really really serious in my eyes. I don't know, I'm slightly anti-marriage to be honest. I think sex and marriage are two very different things.
Whatever.
Living creatures other than Homo sapiens have sex all the time not in the confines of marriage.
I don't understand Dinah's comment either.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 16, 2006, at 10:34:02
In reply to Re: Federal government urges abstinence » zeugma, posted by zeugma on October 31, 2006, at 18:08:14
Anyway marriage doesn't protect you from HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnacy, other STDs anymore than being unmarried.
The onus should be on the individual to make responsible choices and not marriage per se.
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2006, at 9:30:38
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Declan, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 16, 2006, at 10:21:28
Declan was using moral decency and sexual repressions as two ways to fill in the center of the sentence. And I don't think they're interchangeable.
As far as marriage...
I've told my son that he's ready for sex when he's ready to have a baby. That doesn't mean when he's married necessarily. But it does mean when he's financially and emotionally ready for the demands of a baby.
Because honestly, what choice does he has if the girl gets pregnant? She can abort it, it's her body, and he doesn't have a choice about that at all. She can keep it, because it's her body, and he will be expected by us and by the government and likely by her to provide for that child until its eighteenth birthday and beyond, whether or not they stay together. All the freedom that a young man has as to what to do with their lives (school, travelling across Europe, whatever) is effectively limited. The only thing he can do is to block an adoption.
Marriage isn't necessarily the answer to that. Love can blind, situations can change, and the love of your life could divorce you next week.
But waiting to have sex or be married until he's old enough to deal with whatever happens as a consequence of either is not a question of sexual repression.
And it's a question of moral decency only to the point that a child has rights too. And to my mind it's morally decent to take responsibility for a child's needs if you're old enough to have sex.
He had two parents who waited until they were ready to provide for him. I would hope that he'd want the same for his child.
What birth control method is 100%? If your date has had diahrrea since starting her birth control pills that month, she's not likely to tell you. She might not know that certain medications can interfere with the pill's effectiveness. I know people do it every day, but I wouldn't rely on a condom to prevent a life changing occurance of any sort.
I'm not sexually repressed. If my son wants to engage in mutual masturbation or oral sex, I'm not going to have a fit. I hope he still uses protection and is aware of the risks he takes to himself. Ditto if he gets a vasectomy and has frequent checks and hopefully still uses a condom. Or if he's gay. Two consenting adults have the right to take any risk they want with themselves. I'd be less understanding if anyone else was unknowingly involved in any risk. (i.e. someone was married to someone else)
Sex might be fun for some. But it also has serious consequences and is a very serious choice.
You can call it sexually repressed if you like. I call it responsible. I expect my son to be responsible for the choices in his life, and so I hope he makes wise ones.
Posted by Dinah on November 17, 2006, at 10:17:34
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Dinah on November 17, 2006, at 9:30:38
I'm fully aware that I'm an anachronism.
And it wouldn't be a matter of pressing interest to me, except for my son.
Posted by zazenducky on November 19, 2006, at 8:54:59
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Declan, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 16, 2006, at 10:21:28
> > My two bob's worth is that there is, relatively speaking, more sexual repression (or, if you prefer, moral decency) at the centre.
>
> At the centre of what?Based on the spelling, the British Empire I should think.
Transportation made sublimation literal. It conveyed evil to another world.
Robert HughesJUST KIDDING I don't think sublimation is at all the same as repression. Quite a good idea I think. Civilization and art after all.
Posted by zeugma on November 19, 2006, at 9:59:43
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Dinah on November 17, 2006, at 9:30:38
The point I was trying to make was not about the virtues of abstinence, but about whether these programs have actually been shown to help anyone.
They haven't, according to the Government Accountability Office's report.
But who takes the GAO seriously anyway, especially on matters of life and death.
-z
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 6:32:32
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Dinah on November 17, 2006, at 9:30:38
Yeah thats fine dinah, but like saying don't bother having sex because of the 1% chance the condom might fail, well then why bother taking, for example, ADs? -- There's a slight chance that you might be the very unforunate one that gets the 'severe liver damage' or the 'hepatic impairment' or whatever the very serious adverse risks that are rated at 1% or whatever. So.... you see my point? I'm not saying don't take ADs, but then why bother doing anything with any risks at all?
I mean, even if the condom did fail somehow, there's always emergency contraception, such as the 'emergency pill' based on hormones which prevents pregancy up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. I have used this once. Its available at pharmacies here. Is this such a bad thing?
Not to mention the hormonal implants/injections you can get, which mean you don't have to worry about taking the pill, it goes straight into the bloodstream.I think its far better to teach kids how to use condoms properly, even give them out freely. Kids are going to want to have sex as they hit puberty, its only natural.
Look at Europe. We have lots of sexual education in schools, free contraception, etc etc. America, in comparison, has the highest rate of teenage pregnacies in the developed world, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Europe
The Dutch are a very good example. They have very low teenage pregancy rates, and have *the* most tolerant liberal attidudes regarding sex, sex education and things like that. Have you ever been to Amsterdam??
Anyway, I guess I'm still young eought to remember what it was like - I'm 26. If my mother were to have told me that sex was forbidden, unless I was married, it would have only made it more appealing. Instead, she gave me a packet of condoms when I was 15 and, as a consequence, I actually became vey prudish and didn't have sex until I was 19.
I take marriage very very seriously I would not want to have to get married only so I can experience sex. But theres no harm in having sex in a stable loving relationship, even if you do unexpectantly become pregnant.
And anyway, there's always adoption if you're against abortions and can't keep the child.
I think education is key, not abstinence.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :o)
Meri
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 6:42:59
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Dinah, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 6:32:32
That was abit strong perhaps. I apologise. I just don't see whats so 'bad' about sex - yes sure babies/AIDS/STDs but there's always an element of risk in most things, getting in a plane, driving a car, etc. You just have to be 'careful' and know the facts right and the risks. The chances of you getting pregnant using a condom properly are very very low. And if you do, there's the emergency pill otherwise.
I can see how its different for the guy because he doesn't know if a girl is taking the pill whatever. But still. He could then insist on wearing a condom.
So, anyway I just wanted to sort of express my views. I'm guess perhaps its a difference of cultures.
Posted by Dinah on November 20, 2006, at 8:49:29
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Dinah, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 6:32:32
Yeah, I think there is a difference of cultures, and so I don't see the point of debating the point.
But part of what I'm saying is that I have a son. If the condom fails, the girl can choose whether to get the morning after pill. The girl can choose adoption if she gets pregnant, doesn't want the child, and doesn't believe in abortion.
My son is merely a boy. He can insist on wearing a condom whether or not the girl is on birth control, but if it fails or is used improperly, he can't run out and get the morning after pill. If he doesn't believe in abortion and that's what she chooses, tough luck for him. If he doesn't want to be responsible for a child at a young age and she wants to raise the baby, tough luck for him. If he thinks the best option for a baby born to babies is adoption and she doesn't, tough luck for him.
As a boy, as a man, he has zero rights. He is totally at the mercy of the choices of the girl.
I want him to realize that before he unzips. And be willing to take the consequences. Because along with the sperm, an awful lot of potential responsibility will be issuing from his body, along with any rights about what happens to any embryo resulting from that sperm.
Perhaps things are different in your country. Perhaps a boy there has choices once that sperm has hit the egg. Not so here.
Posted by Dinah on November 20, 2006, at 9:16:51
In reply to Re: What on earth?, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 6:42:59
Plus, my son is not unlike my husband and myself.
He cares a lot about consequences.
I'm not going to tell him not to have sex before marriage. I'm going to tell him to think about potential consequences before penis enters vagina. Or maybe a bit before that even. :) If he thinks about it and is willing to take them, then it's his choice and his responsibility.
And that one percent isn't a lifetime failure rate, by the way - at least that's not my understanding of it. It isn't that one out of a hundred people who use condoms will at one point or another experience a failure in their lifetimes.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_bar.html
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html
According to Ask Alice, the failure rate with 100% correct useage is 3% per hundred women PER YEAR. How many years might my son be sexually active in today's society before he's financially and emotionally ready for a child?
And the stats on preventing HIV and other STD infection are even less reassuring.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 9:23:51
In reply to Re: What on earth? » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Dinah on November 20, 2006, at 8:49:29
Hey! Yes I see your point. But whats the likeihood of that really happening? Particulary if they're in a loving stable relationship where these things are discussed before any 'action'? And if uncertain, the boy instists on wearing a condom? I don't think there's any problem there.
Marriage itself doesn't protect against unwanted pregnancy. Your son could be married, and have an unplanned pregnacy, which he doesn't want, but his wife does. Whats the difference then?
Anyway, I think the rights of men are well represented here. I was just reading about a case where a woman had some foetuses frozen (due to cancer treatment) and now wants to have them implanted... but she's since split up with the father, and he doesn't want them to be brought to life, as it were. All the courts in the UK have ruled in favour of the father - she's taking it to the upper echelons of the EU courts (they can overrule member state courts). I don't know about more traditional cases through.
Meri
Posted by Dinah on November 20, 2006, at 9:29:58
In reply to Re: What on earth?, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 9:23:51
I think that probably happens less than pregnancies before both people are ready. Those are very unusual cases. In general men's rights in procreation and parenting really aren't all that great.
And I reiterate that I'm not saying he should wait to be married to have sex. I am saying he should wait until he's emotionally and financially in a place to handle whatever might happen. Which means he probably shouldn't get married at age seventeen any more than he should have sex at age seventeen outside of marriage.
Posted by Dinah on November 20, 2006, at 9:33:38
In reply to Re: What on earth?, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 9:23:51
In your country are biological fathers expected to pay child support, regardless of marital status?
They are here. They've got a national registry to track down fathers to pay child support and garnish it from their wages.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 9:37:17
In reply to Re: What on earth?, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 9:23:51
>100% correct useage is 3% per hundred women PER YEAR
Yes, but there's only a narrow window in a womans cycle when she can actually get pregnant. So, this figure is really alot less regarding pregnancies. I agree it doesn't prevent against STDs. And like I said before, there's the emergency pill. I agree, the onus is on the woman, but if they're in a stable long term relationship where these things are talked about....this isn't a problem really.
Anyway. We should probably not debate this further - I think I agree very broadly with what you're saying, but I personally don't agree with the emphasis on the negative aspects of sex, I mean, if we did that for everything we'd never get in a car, or a plane, or play football, or anything like that, if you see what I'm saying...
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Dinah on November 20, 2006, at 9:41:07
In reply to We perhaps not debate this anymore?, posted by Meri-Tuuli on November 20, 2006, at 9:37:17
I have no desire to debate it further with you.
But that three per year is actual and therefore takes a woman's fertile period into account. You may not believe me, but that's that's no theoretical number.
And that's not an invitation to further debate. :)
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on December 1, 2006, at 11:05:19
In reply to Re: We perhaps not debate this anymore?, posted by Dinah on November 20, 2006, at 9:41:07
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.