Quote from The Pirate

A compelling argument.

But, would you mind elaborating on why you believe morality needs to be included? Not trying to be a smartass, but seriously, you dodged around the main point of my entire argument.

Quote from ThePirate]
Also, it looks to me like you contradicted yourself:



How do you consider suggesting that people wait until marriage is without bias? In my mind, unbiased means straight facts. It means telling kids all the information they need to know, and not even slightly hinting at any sort of morality, or trying to make any suggestion whatsoever about when it's "ok" to have sex.[/quote]
And I would say that you are right.
As I explained above, I am not suggesting abstinence as a moral issue, but a sociological one.
It looked as if those people in history worked with abstinence just fine. There were no adverse side effects that destroyed our society, like there are with premarital sex.
(Before you say anything, I realise that premarital sex is not destroying our whole society, but it damned well has the capacity to destroy individual opportunities if an STD is contracted or pregnancy occurs.)

Why can't we bring that back, if only as a suggestion.


[QUOTE=Spazz

Are you fucking serious or are you just being sarcastic?

Quote from Doomdooer

Alright, think back to the early 1900's and late 1800's. Sex without marriage was an immensly heinous crime. It wasn't against the law, but it destroyed one's social life if the fact got out.
The society back then was based on a sex after marriage relationship.

Morality has nothing to do with my argument.
The main reason that I would argue for abstinence being put forth in schools is a strictly sociological one.

All you're doing now is blurring the lines between the two. Whether you refer to it as moral or "sociological", the same bias still exists, and therefore the same faults with your idea.

This system seemed to work relativly well for those people. You didn't see them, having a ton of teen pregnancies like we have today, or running around with all kinds of diseases and such. (Even though the STD's weren't diagnosed till the late 20th century, you still would have heard of "plauges" and other types of diseases that people got.)

Quote from Logical Fallacies Thread

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc- This is stating that A came before B, therefore they must be related. This would be like stating that a user created a thread, and then the forum crashed, therefore that thread created the crash.

Cum Hoc ergo Propter Hoc- Pretty much the same as the above scenerio, but A comes at the same time as B, therefore A caused B.

What you basically just said is this:

-hundreds of years ago it was unacceptable to have sex before marriage
-hundreds of years ago the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies (according to you, with no evidence whatsoever) were lower
-therefore, it was the fact that premarital sex was not socially accepted that caused this and we should adapt the same system today because it supposedly worked for them

This is a terrible basis for a argument. First of all, you just went on the assumption that STD rates and whatnot were lower back then, if you're going to pass this off as a real statistic, cite some sources. Secondly, as I already pointed out, it is a logical fallacy. The fact that premarital sex was less acceptable by social standards back then, does not mean that if we revert to that level of intolerance in todays world that we will see STDs and unwanted pregnancies fall to these supposedly low rates that you've mentioned.

Things change over entire centuries. Archaic ways of thinking are rarely relevant in modern society, the fact that "it seemed to work back then" has nothing to do with anything.

And I would say that you are right.
As I explained above, I am not suggesting abstinence as a moral issue, but a sociological one.
It looked as if those people in history worked with abstinence just fine. There were no adverse side effects that destroyed our society, like there are with premarital sex.

As I stated earlier, society and societal norms change over the course of hundreds of years. Even if that mindset towards sex didn't have any negatives whatsoever, it certainly would in todays society where people are more free to question societal norms and more and more decisions are based on reason as opposed to unquestionable tradition. We simply shouldn't bring back the irrational idea that something as natural as human sexuality should be considered a taboo subject.

(Before you say anything, I realise that premarital sex is not destroying our whole society, but it damned well has the capacity to destroy individual opportunities if an STD is contracted or pregnancy occurs.)

The cause of STDs and unwanted pregnancy is NOT premarital sex. The cause is unsafe sex. It is a lack of education that is the problem, and that is precisely the problem that would be targetted by focusing sex ed programs on teaching kids facts about sex and how to have sex safely. Whether you like it or not, kids are going to have sex before marriage, regardless of the ideals you try to force on them in school.

Would it not be more beneficial to ditch the idea of abstinence and simply make sure that if kids do decide to have sex before marriage, as they have every right to do, they know how to be safe and responsible about it?

Why can't we bring that back, if only as a suggestion.



A little bit of both, really.

Quote from Doomdooer

A little bit of both, really.

Quote from "Pirate"]All you're doing now is blurring the lines between the two. Whether you refer to it as moral or "sociological", the same bias still exists, and therefore the same faults with your idea.

Sorry, but my bias is here to stay. I downplay it as much as I can, but I can't help being biased.

As for morality and sociology, I am keeping them distinctly seperated.
Sociology is about people in groups. Sociology is studying these people and working to find solutions to social problems. Glances at the past are sometimes neccessary to solve problems today.

Quote from "Logical Fallacies Thread"

Post-hoc ergo propter hoc- This is stating that A came before B, therefore they must be related. This would be like stating that a user created a thread, and then the forum crashed, therefore that thread created the crash.

Cum Hoc ergo Propter Hoc- Pretty much the same as the above scenerio, but A comes at the same time as B, therefore A caused B.

What you basically just said is this:

-hundreds of years ago it was unacceptable to have sex before marriage
-hundreds of years ago the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies (according to you, with no evidence whatsoever) were lower

FYI, most STD's are very new. They simply weren't around back then, to the best of my knowledge.
You will find this article to be of interest.
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm


-therefore, it was the fact that premarital sex was not socially accepted that caused this and we should adapt the same system today because it supposedly worked for them.


...

Things change over entire centuries. Archaic ways of thinking are rarely relevant in modern society, the fact that "it seemed to work back then" has nothing to do with anything.

Ok, I do admit that there may have been other, more influential factors for the low rates of STD's and unwanted pregnancies, but as it is today, we seem to be simply trying different approaches, flinging money at them and seeing if they work. We really don't have a strategy for dealing with this issue as a nation. I'm only suggesting that we continue mentioning the "archaic, old fashioned" way of doing things as well as other angles of attempt. NOT as the main one.




We simply shouldn't bring back the irrational idea that something as natural as human sexuality should be considered a taboo subject.

Irrational? I might agree with you, but it seems to me that the fact that this function of sex having been considered taboo, not only in Europe, not only in Asia, but across the entire Globe, might show that this way of thinking might not be as primitive as you suggest.


The cause of STDs and unwanted pregnancy is NOT premarital sex. The cause is unsafe sex.

Let's not split the issue up into several categories. We can't debate about every single kind of sex, we can't debate about the price of rice in China, we can't debate about this, that, and the other thing. Let's stick to one topic.

It is a lack of education that is the problem, and that is precisely the problem that would be targetted by focusing sex ed programs on teaching kids facts about sex and how to have sex safely. Whether you like it or not, kids are going to have sex before marriage, regardless of the ideals you try to force on them in school.

As I said in a previous post, I agree with you completely that the main problem is education, and that we should incorperate safe sex education rather than just abstinence only.

You seem to have this idea in your head that I want abstinence, or nothing. This isn't the case. I am arguing to keep abstinence in the program, but also add to it safe sex education and information that will be helpful for the kids, such as the facts.




Would it not be more beneficial to ditch the idea of abstinence and simply make sure that if kids do decide to have sex before marriage, as they have every right to do, they know how to be safe and responsible about it?

I highly doubt ditching anything would be a wise move right now. Yes, as I said before, safe sex education should definetly be included in the program. Neither abstinence, nor safe-sex ed, nor anything else in the program take a dominant role. It should be "spread evenly", as it were. This would incorperate both worlds, helping the most kids.[/quote]

Responses in bold.



[QUOTE=Spazz

'K. I just wondered if you noticed the irony in your post.

Irrational? I might agree with you, but it seems to me that the fact that this function of sex having been considered taboo, not only in Europe, not only in Asia, but across the entire Globe, might show that this way of thinking might not be as primitive as you suggest.

Quote from Doomdooer

FYI, most STD's are very new. They simply weren't around back then, to the best of my knowledge.
You will find this article to be of interest.
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

The logical fallacy still applies.

Even if you can prove that most STD's only came into existence recently that isn't enough to draw a conclusive link between STD rates and the prevalence or acceptance of premarital sex. And you made it pretty clear in your post that you were trying to suggest that there was some correlation:

Quote from Doomdooer's old post

Alright, think back to the early 1900's and late 1800's. Sex without marriage was an immensly heinous crime. It wasn't against the law, but it destroyed one's social life if the fact got out. The society back then was based on a sex after marriage relationship...

...This system seemed to work relativly well for those people. You didn't see them, having a ton of teen pregnancies like we have today, or running around with all kinds of diseases and such.

Ok, I do admit that there may have been other, more influential factors for the low rates of STD's and unwanted pregnancies, but as it is today, we seem to be simply trying different approaches, flinging money at them and seeing if they work. We really don't have a strategy for dealing with this issue as a nation. I'm only suggesting that we continue mentioning the "archaic, old fashioned" way of doing things as well as other angles of attempt. NOT as the main one.

Why?

Why keep mentioning it when not only does it not work in principle (in that telling people not to do something wont necessarily lower their chances of actually doing it), but all studies have shown the same basic conclusion, that kids aren't actually following the idea of abstinence that is being pushed on them.

Irrational? I might agree with you, but it seems to me that the fact that this function of sex having been considered taboo, not only in Europe, not only in Asia, but across the entire Globe, might show that this way of thinking might not be as primitive as you suggest.

Quote from Logical Fallacies Thread

Ad populum- Attempting to persuade your opponent by saying that the majority of people think the way you do, without providing logic or evidence. An example is stating that marijuana should be illegal because most people think it's bad.

The fact that the idea of sex as a taboo subject was so widespread does not lend any validity to the belief. I defy you to present one logical argument, that is not based around any sort of morality or tradition, that suggests that human sexuality should be treated as something taboo. It is a basic, undeniable part of human nature that for whatever reason, society throughout history has treated as if it was an evil that had to be controlled.

Let's not split the issue up into several categories. We can't debate about every single kind of sex, we can't debate about the price of rice in China, we can't debate about this, that, and the other thing. Let's stick to one topic.

I was merely pointing out that STDs and unwanted pregnancies arise when people who are uneducated have unsafe sex, and that the issue had nothing to do with whether or not the sex was premarital, as you seem to have implied. It was a direct response to your arguments, I can't understand why you responded as if I was going off on an irrelevant tangent.

As I said in a previous post, I agree with you completely that the main problem is education, and that we should incorperate safe sex education rather than just abstinence only.

You seem to have this idea in your head that I want abstinence, or nothing. This isn't the case. I am arguing to keep abstinence in the program, but also add to it safe sex education and information that will be helpful for the kids, such as the facts.

I highly doubt ditching anything would be a wise move right now. Yes, as I said before, safe sex education should definetly be included in the program. Neither abstinence, nor safe-sex ed, nor anything else in the program take a dominant role. It should be "spread evenly", as it were. This would incorperate both worlds, helping the most kids.

I disagree.

Trying too hard to make a safe compromise is only going to mean that a lot of useless elements are going to remain in the curriculum. Then the most important facts will receive less time and attention because educators will be too busy worrying about pleasing everybody than focusing on the facts that are truly important.

Kids will gain more from hearing only the facts they need to know, than "hearing both sides", even though the latter sounds better on paper. I still don't believe abstinence is beneficial to the curriculum in any way, so it wouldn't help to mention it even briefly. Prove me wrong.

Quote from Pirateus

The logical fallacy still applies.

Even if you can prove that most STD's only came into existence recently that isn't enough to draw a conclusive link between STD rates and the prevalence or acceptance of premarital sex. And you made it pretty clear in your post that you were trying to suggest that there was some correlation:


Uhm, ok, you totally missed what I said right here:

Quote from DoD

Ok, I do admit that there may have been other, more influential factors for the low rates of STD's and unwanted pregnancies

I was admitting the fallacy.

Why?

Why keep mentioning it when not only does it not work in principle (in that telling people not to do something wont necessarily lower their chances of actually doing it), but all studies have shown the same basic conclusion, that kids aren't actually following the idea of abstinence that is being pushed on them.

Actually, it does work on a small percentage. Not so small as to be irrelevant, though. If you've ever heard of Silver Ring Thing, you'd know that it is the leading abstinence only sex-ed program. It is government funded as a Public Health Orginization.
We had to watch a video and write a research/reaction paper for sociology class.

I can't remember the exact number, but it was something like 25% of the kids who went to the shows took the abstinence pledge. Thats quite a few kids considering this is an almost nation-wide program.



The fact that the idea of sex as a taboo subject was so widespread does not lend any validity to the belief.

No, it only lends validity to my personal doubts of your argument.
You are correct though.

I defy you to present one logical argument, that is not based around any sort of morality or tradition, that suggests that human sexuality should be treated as something taboo. It is a basic, undeniable part of human nature that for whatever reason, society throughout history has treated as if it was an evil that had to be controlled.

Defy away, then, but may I first say this:

I defy you to present one logical argument, that is not based around any sort of morality or tradition,

May I point out a logical fallacy for you?

Quote from Logical Fallacies Thread

Ad Hominem- An Ad Hominem argument is any that involves attacking the person instead of addressing the issues brought up by that person. In essence, this is a technical term for flaming.

That said, I suppose that I cannot create any sort of argument that you would find acceptable in this case.

I was merely pointing out that STDs and unwanted pregnancies arise when people who are uneducated have unsafe sex, and that the issue had nothing to do with whether or not the sex was premarital, as you seem to have implied. It was a direct response to your arguments, I can't understand why you responded as if I was going off on an irrelevant tangent.

I was a little sarcastic, but it was in jest.
It's almost common sense that unsafe sexual activity is performed by the uneducated.
I just didn't want us to start squabbling over semantics, which I might have been apt to do.

I disagree.

Trying too hard to make a safe compromise is only going to mean that a lot of useless elements are going to remain in the curriculum. Then the most important facts will receive less time and attention because educators will be too busy worrying about pleasing everybody than focusing on the facts that are truly important.

Kids will gain more from hearing only the facts they need to know, than "hearing both sides", even though the latter sounds better on paper. I still don't believe abstinence is beneficial to the curriculum in any way, so it wouldn't help to mention it even briefly. Prove me wrong.

Quote from wikipedia

SRT claims to have won pledges of chastity of more than 25,000 young adults since its inception, and Pattyn has stated that SRT plans to have rings on the fingers of 2 million by 2010.

So, my argument is this: if it's working, wouldn't it be best to continue it?
If they really do get 2 million people, wouldn't that be a relevent percentage of teens?

Quote from Doomdooer

Alright, think back to the early 1900's and late 1800's. Sex without marriage was an immensly heinous crime. It wasn't against the law, but it destroyed one's social life if the fact got out.
The society back then was based on a sex after marriage relationship.

Morality has nothing to do with my argument.
The main reason that I would argue for abstinence being put forth in schools is a strictly sociological one.

This system seemed to work relativly well for those people. You didn't see them, having a ton of teen pregnancies like we have today, or running around with all kinds of diseases and such. (Even though the STD's weren't diagnosed till the late 20th century, you still would have heard of "plauges" and other types of diseases that people got.)

Quote from The Pirate

I think the current sex ed curriculums, that focus on abstinence are embarrassingly stupid and poorly thought out.

What the classes are basically implying, even if it is not said directly, is simply not to have sex. Is it really a shocker that telling kids not to do something, doesn't prevent them from doing it? Seriously, no matter how hard you try to convince people to wait until they're older, or how much you exaggerate the dangers, try to scare people with statistics and numbers and STD rates and teen pregnancies and all that, teens will continue to have sex.

Instead of accepting this and basing the course around real, usable information about safe sex and how to protect yourself, abstinence is still continuously rammed down people's throats and proclaimed to be "the only 100% safe sex". Which is true, but only in the same sense that never playing sports equals "100% safety from sports injuries", or that never going outside is the "100% safe sunscreen".

What pisses me off even more is that you just know that if abstinence was removed from the curriculum and it was taught properly, it would be met with angry response from at least some overly conservative, uptight parents who think that their kids are being encouraged to have sex, when they are merely being informed properly instead of having it implied that sex is bad and to avoid it.