The End of Abstinence-Only

Thank goodness. I remember in my high school health class (which was in Texas, I'll note), the sex unit discussed all the different STD's, ways of spreading them, and ways of preventing the spread of them (also the same in regards to pregnancy). Then, after this, specifically noted that the only 100% foolproof method was abstinence. I cannot think of a better way.

I just love the fact that the Christian right has put so much energy into promoting abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control when their entire belief system is based on a virgin birth. If there is one issue that perfectly illustrates the unbridled stupidity of the current conservative movement, this is it.

that...is not the same at all. Christians believe that the virgin birth was directly due to divine intervention.

"increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity),"
Can someone please explain to me how this is these 2 objectives can be achieved together? Use simple words, remember that you are dealing with a "slow" conservative.
.
"I just love the fact that the Christian right has put so much energy into promoting abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control when their entire belief system is based on a virgin birth. If there is one issue that perfectly illustrates the unbridled stupidity of the current conservative movement, this is it."
Why is it so stupid to state a fact, isn't it a fact that abstinence is 100% effective? And pray, explain to me why it is an indication of inanity that a group of people embrace an obvious and undebatable fact?
.
....maybe someday I'll understand the reason a liberal will advocate for throwing a living foetus into a trash in a heartbeat, but will raise hell (and rightly so) at dog fighting ...

according to the bible, mary practiced abstinence, remained a virgin, and still got knocked up.
.
Abstinence: 99.99999% effective.

Divine intervention caused the virgin birth. I'm showing restraint I didn't know I had. Walk away. Go to another thread. Don't say something you'll regret.

Okay arch and walkingfunny, this post and blog in general isn't for debating (okay, ridiculing) abstract religious beliefs. I will say no more on this.

"maybe someday I'll understand the reason a liberal will advocate for throwing a living foetus into a trash in a heartbeat, but will raise hell (and rightly so) at dog fighting.
.
Not sure what a living "foetus" is but, you are right abstinence is 100% effective in preventing in females from having babies. Too bad its not that simple.

It is a lot easier to advocate waiting until marriage to have sex when the average person married at 18-19. Now that the number is closer to 29-30, that is a long and unrealistic amount of time to expect anyone to wait.
.
I will add, though, that I personally think its utterly crazy to consider marrying someone without having rolled in the hay first. A lack of sexual compatibility will doom a marriage as sure as the usual suspects.
.
One would think if "conservatives" truly wanted to limit abortions and STD's, they would be all for contraception and comprehensive sex ed. Unfortunately, most of them just want to control the sex lives of others and inflict their personal religious views on the population. Hence, "conservative."

apollyon07,
.
It may interest you to know that I am (loosely) tied to the part of the Lutheran church that decides what may or may not be blasphemous in a given situation, and even I think the whole idea of God impregnating a human being without sexual contact is batsh!t crazy.
.
I also happen to believe it.
.
It's OK for both things to be true (i.e. it's crazy AND I believe it), therefore if it makes for a pretty ironic comment on Christianity and abstinence, then you just have to roll with it. Otherwise you're doomed to a pretty grumpy life.

"heretical" is more accurate than "blasphemous." Sloppy post.

My interview with Amy Sullivan.
.
.
Alaskanturkey: Hi Amy, how's it going?
.
Amy Sullivan: ....
.
Alaskanturkey: So, I see you wrote a post on the budget.
.
Amy Sullivan: ....
.
Alaskanturkey: Right, um...so, Amy, do you understand the point of a blog?
.
Amy Sullivan: (crickets)
.
Alaskanturkey: I miss Ana Marie Cox.

Why is it so stupid to state a fact, isn't it a fact that abstinence is 100% effective? And pray, explain to me why it is an indication of inanity that a group of people embrace an obvious and undebatable fact?

Because people have not willing to abstain. Given that reality, your claims as to the 100% effectiveness of abstinence is inane.

Sorry. "Because people have not been willing to abstain."

Walkingfunny wrote: "increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity),"...Can someone please explain to me how this is these 2 objectives can be achieved together?
.
Easy one: Let's say 10 couples are having sex. 5 of those couples are having sex WITH protection and 5 of them are having sex witout protection. If one of those couples in the unprotected group starts using contraceptives, then (voila!) you've "increased contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity)."

To follow up on your point piper, we are actually getting something new on both ends when it comes to time until marriage occurs, and sexual activity.
.
Menstruation is happening at a younger age. It's part of our diets now, and those lovely chemicals that American corporations keep placing in our environs and our food.
.
From what I have read, sexual maturity (menses) often didn't occur until the age of 16 a century ago. If you could only get pregnant at 16 and you were getting married at 18, your "chastity" period with a significant other was only a couple years.
.
These days the age is more like 12 or 13 for first menses, and marriage is occurring in the mid to late 20's. It is much easier to be "pure" if you don't have a decade and a half to wait to do it.
.
Also thanks to the politicians that the religious right has supported who promised to get rid of abortion,(haven't gotten around to it yet) but were very busy shafting workers in favor of corporations, we have the economic environment where young people at the age of 18 can no longer get married and support themselves on one salary earned by a high school graduate working in a factory. This one absolutely annoys me to no end. The very policies that the religious right supports makes their goals harder. Estrogens in our food, young non college educated people unable to support a household do not promote "virtue" and marriage.
.
/end long rant.

It is always interesting to hear these arguments on why teenagers and 20 somethings are so overcome by their hormones - all natural, that they cannot help but jump from bed to bed. What would we be if we obeyed all our "natural" impulses? I guess we would be like all other animals, say dogs and goats. You do know that these animals actually mate with parents, siblings and all, no qualms. I would suspect we would expect more from human beings, or maybe not, after all, we evolved from tadpoles and probably still have some of their attributes locked up in us.
.
If you don't have enough restraint to keep your zippers up, you probably don't have what it takes to put on a condom before the "act". When an animal wants "it", it usually wants it now.
.
btw, can someone please help answer my original question:
"increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity),"
How can these 2 objectives can be achieved together? Use simple words, remember that you are dealing with a "slow" conservative.
Suggestion: just distribute condoms, lots of them, but tell them use as few as possible.

I think we're missing the ingredient that would have made CBAE more effective: the scarlet letter! .
.
Had young Ms. Palin appeared on teevee wearing a big, bold scarlet "A" while holding her baby, birth rates would tick downward noticeably.

Walking funny. There was a study done recently that Andrew Sullivan linked to that showed rates of STD's in this country per capita. The area awash in red was not LA, Chicago, SF, or NY. It was the bible belt.
.
Kids whose parents speak honestly and openly about sex, who discuss birth control, ramifications of pregnancies and STD's, tend to have less sex but use condoms when doing it.
.
So yes, you can teach contraceptive use to people like yourself and maybe they will think less about having all the sex they have, but bash everybody else for. It gets tiring hearing this nonsense. The #1 state for porn subscription is Utah. The #1 state for getting kinky sex toys per capita was Oklahoma. Preachy judgementalistic hypocricy is a failure. Deal with it.

Abstinence isn't 100% effective because teenagers don't abstain 100% of the time. Much the same way that no diet will ever be 100% effective because there will always people on the diet that will end up cheating. Practicality should always be factored into any approach that claims to be 100% effective.

"Easy one: Let's say 10 couples are having sex. 5 of those couples are having sex WITH protection and 5 of them are having sex witout protection. If one of those couples in the unprotected group starts using contraceptives, then (voila!) you've "increased contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity)."
.
Your explanation assumes that set of people involved in sexual activity can remain while the use of protection within this same group will increase. So, the assumption here is that there is no correlation between availability of "protection" - removing any responsibility for the sexual act, and the actual increase in sexual activity. Even I, a slow conservative know this is most unlikely, when you remove any responsibility for the act, it is likely to increase, especially among teenagers. Imagine the increase in number of teenagers who will get drunk or stoned regularly or more often if there was no possibility of being caught by the cops or having their brains fried by drugs.

By the way, if you teach your kid abstinence only for sex education what will stop your daughter from giving head as an alternative? Absolutely nothing that's what. And STDs should be just as big a concern as pregnancy.

Friar: "It may interest you to know that I am (loosely) tied to the part of the Lutheran church that decides what may or may not be blasphemous in a given situation, and even I think the whole idea of God impregnating a human being without sexual contact is batsh!t crazy."
.
why is it so difficult to believe that God can put a baby in a womb without sex. If you don't believe in a God, then I fully understand why this is all nonesense to you. But, if you do believe in a God, why do you think this will be impossible for Him?

walkingfunny: He who cannot do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. Look at the numbers. "Most unlikely" doesn't mean anything.

@alaskanturkey: You're thinking of abstaining...Amy's posts?