A Look At Sarah Palin

[Victus]

Lily wrote

The notion that there is any 17 year old in this country that doesn't know how to have "safe sex" is preposterous. Can you really believe that neither one of the two in question here knows about condoms and all the rest? Seriously, you all have got to get past this positively antiquated notion that teenagers don't know how to avoid pregnancy. They do. The question you have to ask is why they don't do what adults and the surrounding culture have been pounding into them since the day they were born.

It is a question with very interesting answers.

In many North American regions, upwards of 30% of boys and 17% of girls in high school believe that girls cannot get pregnant the first time they have sex. I think you're severely overestimating the sexual health knowledge of adolescents. Teaching abstinence only tends to decrease this knowledge further, thereby increasing STI and teen pregnancy rates.

Abstinence is 100%, but relatively few adolescents are able to abstain. This makes abstinence only education a failing strategy. In contrast, condoms are almost always effective, and are easier for adolescents to use. Statistically, condoms are the less idiotic choice.

Victus wrote

In many North American regions, upwards of 30% of boys and 17% of girls in high school believe that girls cannot get pregnant the first time they have sex. I think you're severely overestimating the sexual health knowledge of adolescents. Teaching abstinence only tends to decrease this knowledge further, thereby increasing STI and teen pregnancy rates.

Abstinence is 100%, but relatively few adolescents are able to abstain. This makes abstinence only education a failing strategy. In contrast, condoms are almost always effective, and are easier for adolescents to use. Statistically, condoms are the less idiotic choice.

You can count on the fingers of your hands the number of schools that teach abstinence only. That is not and never has been the issue. This is a culture war. One side wants teenagers to know that it is perfectly ok and healthy to say "NO". The other side frantically pushes pills, condoms, and the like because they don't want to be abstinent themselves (which means neither pre nor extramarital sex-- at least not openly and proudly) and realize that they can't preach what they have no intention of practicing. The hell with what is best for children.

If the degree of ignorance you are pointing to really exists, it can only be among the unteachable. Every billboard, every bus, every subway station, every sex ed class pushes the same "safe sex" warnings. TV and movies are permeated with the message. You would have to be blind and deaf to miss the message.

Kids know. They have known at least, since I was a teenager (and maybe a century or two prior to that) what the connection between sex and babies is. It doesn't quite matter if they can't write text books on the subject. They know what the connection is. They are perfectly capable of making rational choices. What you and many others fail to realize is that getting pregnant for far too many girls is a *rational* choice. Dealing with that sad reality is part of what this society needs to do. Continuing to throw condoms at teenagers just isn't enough.

I might add that you severely overestimate the number of sexually active teenagers, by the way. You would be amazed at how many are abstinent. But there is no sense going there in an environment that worships at the altar of sexual *freedom*.

DrunkMonkey wrote

It looks like you are the one that needs to be better informed. Obviously neither plan is perfect, but at least Obama's plan won't make things any worse.

Yes, it will. Unlike you, I have read both. They are both unrealistic where paying for it all is concerned.

A very thorough analysis of both is available here: http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the...iled-anal.html The author points out what most anyone who reads them can gather even without his excellent analysis-- lots of old ideas, still no realistic way to afford it in the long run: "The big question for Obama and Clinton is not in getting almost everyone covered—their plans spend enough money up front to likely do that—the question for them is how will they create an affordable health care system with only incremental cost containment ideas?"

[Victus]

Lily wrote

You can count on the fingers of your hands the number of schools that teach abstinence only. That is not and never has been the issue.

When the VP pick being discussed supposedly supports abstinence only education, it becomes immediately relevant to he discussion.

Lily wrote

This is a culture war. One side wants teenagers to know that it is perfectly ok and healthy to say "NO".

Given that this is also emphasized in most sex education programs, it seems that both sides cover this point. One covers only this point, and tends to lead to negative health outcomes.

Lily wrote

The other side frantically pushes pills, condoms, and the like because they don't want to be abstinent themselves (which means neither pre nor extramarital sex-- at least not openly and proudly) and realize that they can't preach what they have no intention of practicing. The hell with what is best for children.

Contemporary sex education programs provide condoms/access to pill/etc because even when educated on the efficacy of such techniques, many adolescents are too embarrassed to seek them on their own. Education reduces pregnancy/STI rates on its own, but education paired with the provision of sexual health aids provides the best outcomes.

Lily wrote

If the degree of ignorance you are pointing to really exists, it can only be among the unteachable. Every billboard, every bus, every subway station, every sex ed class pushes the same "safe sex" warnings. TV and movies are permeated with the message. You would have to be blind and deaf to miss the message.

In-class education tends to reduce the numbers of sexual health-ignorant adolescents (thought it never quite reaches zero). As might be expected people who are taught, learn (though to varying degrees).

Lily wrote

Kids know.They have known at least, since I was a teenager (and maybe a century or two prior to that) what the connection between sex and babies is. It doesn't quite matter if they can't write text books on the subject. They know what the connection is. They are perfectly capable of making rational choices. What you and many others fail to realize is that getting pregnant for far too many girls is a *rational* choice. Dealing with that sad reality is part of what this society needs to do. Continuing to throw condoms at teenagers just isn't enough.

The available evidence suggests that while adolescents know that sex leads to babies, their specific knowledge (allowing them to avoid that outcome) is typically lacking. As we've seen, roughly a quarter of teens think that pregnancy can't happen the first time they have sex. I can provide more examples of somewhat shocking levels of sexual health ignorance among teens but the point remains the same: a good chunk of the kids don't know what the fuck they're doing.

I do not mean to seem presumptious or insulting, but I feel that your knowledge of sexual health education is extremely limited, and your perspective on the matter severely skewed. Modern sex education methods do not just "throw condoms" at teenagers, they provide information about how to make and follow-through on healthy choices. These programs aren't developed by Marxist idealogues seeking the destruction of society as we know it. They're developed by researchers working in labs, analyzing what makes effective changes in adolescent behaviour. The available evidence suggests that abstinence only education is not effective.

[ubs]

Once at 16 I explained to my 17 year old date where babies came from. You would think he would be glad to find out french kissing wasn't as dangerous as he had originally thought. Not so. He ran off into the night screaming "You're a liar! You're a liar!"

[dogpet]

ubs wrote

If it's any comfort, I'm pretty sure McCain will out live us all

[nkb]

Lily wrote

You can count on the fingers of your hands the number of schools that teach abstinence only.

Considering that the state of Texas uses abstinence-only sex ed in schools, I have to ask: How many fingers do you have on your hands? Exposure to radiation?

Not suprisingly, that comment was outrageously ignorant (you do not disappoint).

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc.../Abst172.shtml

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a not-for-profit corporation that conducts research on reproductive and public health, more than two out of three public school districts have policies on sexuality education. The vast majority - 86 percent - require that abstinence be promoted. Of those, 35 percent require abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. That compares to roughly 25 percent six years ago.

bolding mine

Where did you get your numbers? FoxNews? Anally extracted?

Victus wrote

When the VP pick being discussed supposedly supports abstinence only education, it becomes immediately relevant to he discussion.

There are two problems that need to be sorted out. One is what abstinence education is. Perhaps there are some programs that don't breathe the word "contraception" but I don't know of any that don't talk about it. The second problem is Palin's position. She has explicitly said that kids should be taught about contraception. I found a restatement of that in the LA Times:
"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5768481.story

Modern sex education methods do not just "throw condoms" at teenagers, they provide information about how to make and follow-through on healthy choices. These programs aren't developed by Marxist idealogues seeking the destruction of society as we know it. They're developed by researchers working in labs, analyzing what makes effective changes in adolescent behaviour. The available evidence suggests that abstinence only education is not effective.

There are bad, good and better programs out there. I wouldn't dispute that for a second. But, please forgive me-- no researcher in a lab is ever going to figure out anything worthwhile when it comes to teaching teenagers anything. That is best left to parents and, if one uses caution, teachers. Teenagers are not lab specimens!

Lily wrote

Abstinence works 100% of the time.

Lily, you know this from personal experience?

First of all, abstinence is only relevant to marriage status, which has nothing to do with age. If a 12 year old wants to have sex, no fucking way, hellbound. If she gets married in Kansas, however, then she can have sex, and God's alright with it. Call me nuts, but this strikes me as a weird set of morals. That marriage should decide a person's sexual tendencies is a tall order indeed . . . preposterous and arcane to say the least, and directed at women most of all.

Which leads us to the obvious question of whether or not abstinence-teaching is even worth looking at. It's basically the most naive form of sex-ed you can get. A self-induced dry-spell is what these kids should go for, instead of indulging curiosities and urges they can't control. Worse, it teaches masturbation is bad bad bad (and why is that again? Emotionally and physically it's risk free, right? Is it because it feels good and therefore must be nefarious?), it also teaches that condoms and birth control and even withdrawal don't work. They tout Plan B as abortion in disguise, despite the fact that sperm takes several days to get to the egg. They even teach that condoms cause cancer (?).

80% of these programs are falsified. Come on, people. Grow up already.

[dogpet]

The woman is a puppet, co-opted to sway idiots without resorting to policies. Obvious.

[Victus]

Lily wrote

There are two problems that need to be sorted out. One is what abstinence education is. Perhaps there are some programs that don't breathe the word "contraception" but I don't know of any that don't talk about it. The second problem is Palin's position. She has explicitly said that kids should be taught about contraception. I found a restatement of that in the LA Times:
"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5768481.story

Thanks for the clarification, but that's why I said "supposedly". As for defining abstinence education, I will outline my definition below. Abstinence education is a program designed to teach children not to have sex before marriage. This can be done alone (abstinence only education) or alongside with sexual health courses (this composite is the most commonly used here, in Canada*).

*Abstinence may be a tad too extreme a term to use. Instead, it can be said that we are taught to carefully consider our choices, and discouraged from having large numbers of poorly thought out partners.

Lily wrote

There are bad, good and better programs out there. I wouldn't dispute that for a second. But, please forgive me-- no researcher in a lab is ever going to figure out anything worthwhile when it comes to teaching teenagers anything. That is best left to parents and, if one uses caution, teachers. Teenagers are not lab specimens!

Research has decreased teen pregnancy rates when findings are implemented, faith-based efforts fail on a spectacular scale, sometimes actually increasing rates of teen pregnancy and STIs. Many uneducated persons are skeptical of science, but the available evidence suggests that the work done by researchers can lead to appreciable gains.

[antix]

Lily wrote

This is a culture war.

Uh oh. Sounds like you're about to say a bunch of retarded drivel that has an "everything is black and white" tone...

One side wants teenagers to know that it is perfectly ok and healthy to say "NO". The other side...

Just as I predicted. This is a big checkmark in the retard column for you. You are implying that one and only one side (your side) realizes that it's alright to say "NO". Do you understand why I am calling you a retard on this point? If not, you are a bigger retard than I imagined.

...frantically pushes pills, condoms, and the like because they don't want to be abstinent themselves (which means neither pre nor extramarital sex-- at least not openly and proudly) and realize that they can't preach what they have no intention of practicing.

Jeezuz jumped up Christ you are a mind reader now? You know the precise motivation for individuals of which you know nothing? Circumstances, mindsets, beliefs, priorities of which you know nothing? Or... Are you simply trying to paint the most hideous picture of the "other side" you possibly can so as to villify them in order to make yourself feel better about your narrow view of humanity?

The hell with what is best for children.

Since anyone who is not retarded realizes that there is no one thing that is always in every case "best" for every child, you are hardly qualified to determine what is "best" for children.

[nkb]

Victus wrote

Research has decreased teen pregnancy rates when findings are implemented, faith-based efforts fail on a spectacular scale, sometimes actually increasing rates of teen pregnancy and STIs. Many uneducated persons are skeptical of science, but the available evidence suggests that the work done by researchers can lead to appreciable gains.

Texas is one of the states that has bought into abstinence-only (thanks to our Christard governor Rick Perry), and they are one of the leaders in teenage pregnancies.

Go figure!

[DrunkMonkey]

Lily wrote

Yes, it will. Unlike you, I have read both. They are both unrealistic where paying for it all is concerned.

Spare me. You love to assume that you have done all the research and that everyone else is uninformed.

I have also read both plans, and I really don't understand why McCain thinks it is a good idea to tax health care benefits (encouraging employers to drop those benefits). All this would do is force people to pay even more for health care (beyond the tax credits McCain is offering).

Lily wrote

If you gave my underaged child condoms and indulged in sex talk with him or her, I would have you arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and, probably, sexual predation. I take a real dim view of random people out there in the neighborhood who "talk sex" with minors even if they are merely usurping the rights of parents.

If you really did any such thing, then your mind is too open-- your brains fell out.

If parent's refuse to discuss the rights and wrongs of sex, of using protection, of abstaining as a choice, of peer pressure and sex; then some adult needs to play parent.

In fact, it wasn't just go have sex talks, it was talks that led to responsible decisions on the part of those children.

You are a very angry person. Why don't you meditate, just calm down take a few deep breaths and try to figure out why you are so angry. Then figure out what you feel you did that resulted in the anger and forgive yourself? You are definately not a happy person! In fact, you appear to be one of the most negatively centered people on this message board. Anger and negativity actually harm people, physically, mentally and tend to make individuals less conscientious resulting in avoidable accidents.

Lily wrote

If you gave my underaged child condoms and indulged in sex talk with him or her, I would have you arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and, probably, sexual predation. I take a real dim view of random people out there in the neighborhood who "talk sex" with minors even if they are merely usurping the rights of parents.

If you really did any such thing, then your mind is too open-- your brains fell out.

What's underage? Under 18? Under 17? Under 16? 15? 14? 13? 12?

Yeah, those are all ages of consent from around the world.