FRC: We need more failed abstinence programs.
FRC: We need more failed abstinence programs.
The latest federal report on abstinence-only programs shows that they have had “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence.” Nevertheless, the conservative Family Reseach Council responds that “one logical conclusion is that to achieve the greatest effectiveness, programs must be intensive and long-term, so that the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to reject sex before marriage are constantly reinforced–particularly in the pivotal high school years.”
UPDATE: “The Baptist Press is reporting that True Love Waits — a Christian group promoting abstinence-only education — is planning to expand its operations in six African countries, thanks to a recent surge in donations. Evidently, they’re unfazed by that recent U.S. report showing that these programs are basically useless. A trifling concern, really.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does the Family Research Council have evidenced-based conclusions to back up that assertion? Research that would pass the validity and reliability tests for quality studies?
Every other Government funded program requires solid evidence-based research to back up the effectiveness of the program, which would justify more funding.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pmJust 75 more Freidmans and those high school kids won’t even think about sex.
/sarcasm
April 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pmAnd the big deal about having sex before you are married is…?
April 17th, 2007 at 5:28 pmReminds me of an old Jewish joke - “The food here is lousy, and such small portions.”
April 17th, 2007 at 5:33 pmAnd the big deal about having sex before you are married is…?
Comment by trueblue
It’s totally kick-ass, and the fundies don’t want the rest having all the fun.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:33 pm#3.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm“you will go blind………” (remember that one? or am Ibetraying my age…:)
Sounds like another Stay The Course, even it it doesn’t work, neocon position.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pmStop the lies.
What’s it called when you keep doing the same thing but expect different results?
April 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pmYou are very funny, ForTruth.
Reminds me of the joke about asking the newly married woman smiles so much….
She says,
“Because I never have to bl*w him again!”
:D
April 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pmRaven,
Raised Catholic, perhaps?
:P
April 17th, 2007 at 5:42 pmDon’t remind me of that “joke” trueblue, its a sad reality. :)
April 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pmLogically illogical = The Rape=Public=Can Way.
Brought to you from the retards who offer I.D. as a science.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:44 pmForTruth,
Except for the “Happy Birthday” one, right?
April 17th, 2007 at 5:45 pmAnd the big deal about having sex before you are married is…?
Comment by trueblue
These idiots can’t be honest about anything, so they don’t want their kids finding out daddy was porking mommy (and god knows who else).
Or they couldn’t get any, and they’re pissed off….
April 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pmNo, that is not a logical conclusion. What a bunch of idiots.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pmtrueblue,
Have you met this handsome young man, ForTruth?
April 17th, 2007 at 5:47 pmForTruth,
Except for the “Happy Birthday†one, right?
Comment by trueblue
No not even that one. :(
April 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pmDennis Kucinich (D-OH) is planning to introduce a bill of impeachment in the House against Vice President Dick Cheney.
Democrats are on politically safe ground impeaching Dick Cheney.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pmAnd the big deal about having sex before you are married is…?
Higher risk of STDs, more unwanted pregnancies, parents less likely to afford a baby to name a few. With that being said I didn’t wait until I was married, so I am not saying people should wait. There are simply more risks when people are unmarried.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:50 pmI like to start with a hypothesis, test that hypothesis and then reach a conclusion. I guess that’s just not how the FRC rolls.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:50 pmAnd how is the FRC useful to a democratic, fair and just society?? Aren’t they just a bunch of Jebus Nazis?
April 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pmTHanks Tobey,
I think impeaching Cheney first is the way to go.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm#3.
“you will go blind………†(remember that one? or am Ibetraying my age…:)
Comment by Raven
I thought that was for masterbation.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pmNo not even that one. :(
Comment by ForTruth
Oy.
**tiny violin playing**
April 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pmThere are simply more risks when people are unmarried.
Comment by rabidbunny
The magical and impenetrable marriage license…..
April 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pmRaven - you must be younger than I - girls never got cautioned about going blind because it was asssumed that good girls didn’t even think about sex. We were just told that it was our job to ‘put on the brakes’ and if we didn’t our lives would be over and no nice man would ever marry us - we all had visions of ending up like our Dean of Girls.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pmsex before marriage is wrong? why? i would guess most people have sex before marriage and many people have sex with other people they are not married too.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pmit is as if someone is stating sex before marriage is wrong. i would support unprotected sex before marriage is wrong but everyone should have sex before marriage. that’s my opinion and obviously based on the number of people that are doing it, they agree.
All of the sudden we have a Rabidbunny.
I prefer Daryll on these types of threads please.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pmThanks Zooey,
I like violin music.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm“…programs must be intensive and long-term, so that the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to reject sex before marriage are constantly reinforced…”
At least this position is CONSISTENT: I recall the childhood admonishment from my fundie aunt that the sole cause of an unanswered prayer is poor praying skills.
In other words, continue the failed behavior until different results obtain; a classical definiton of insanity.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pmY’all got it wrong.
Sex during marriage is wrong.
Get the facts straight man.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pmAbsence makes the heart grow fonder.
Abstinence makes the fondle grow harder.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThanks Zooey,
I like violin music.
Comment by ForTruth
Maybe you’ll get some for your birthday — music, that is. :D
April 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pmIraq strategy for teh win!
April 17th, 2007 at 6:01 pmThere are simply more risks when people are unmarried.
Comment by rabidbunny
The magical and impenetrable marriage license…..
Comment by Zooey — April 17, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
If there is sex only in marriage, can you say any of the reasons I stated are untrue? That would not apply to cases of infidelity, because of course that is sex outside of marriage.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pmAll of the sudden we have a Rabidbunny.
I prefer Daryll on these types of threads please.
Comment by ForTruth
Why is that, you asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pmLet’s tax these religious a-holes. They are costing us lives and money. It’s nice that they have an imaginary friend Jesus, but the rest of us who want to live in the reality based community should not have to deal with the macro-effect of their failed asbstienence programs when we face a coming overpopulation crisis.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pmAbstinence only does not work, that is common sense. I am for teaching teaching personal responsibility, which means abstinence first and inclusion of correct information about birth control options.
The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result. The FRC goes into their research with a conclusion and uses deductive reasoning to get at the facts. The facts they get come form either samples that are created out of their belief set or people are lying to the researchers.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pmIf there is sex only in marriage, can you say any of the reasons I stated are untrue? That would not apply to cases of infidelity, because of course that is sex outside of marriage.
Comment by rabidbunny
Usually, in the case of infidelity, both partners are not in on the fun little secret. So Joe Blow comes home with a little something extra for the wife — whether it be an STD or child support payments.
By covering your ass with the infidelity is sex outside marriage bit, are you saying the injured party is just all out of luck?
I’ve been divorced since I was 33, and have no intention of marrying again. So I’m just SOL for sex, is that it?
Marriage is not the great protector — except in divorce court — and half the time, not even there.
Wake up.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pmLet’s tax these religious a-holes. They are costing us lives and money. It’s nice that they have an imaginary friend Jesus, but the rest of us who want to live in the reality based community should not have to deal with the macro-effect of their failed asbstienence programs when we face a coming overpopulation crisis.
Comment by worst fears — April 17, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Let’s just get this a$$hole administration to enforce IRS statue 501(c)3. Most of these ph*cks think Jebus is a ph*cking Repugniscum!! END OF TAX BREAK!!
April 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pmIf there is sex only in marriage, can you say any of the reasons I stated are untrue? That would not apply to cases of infidelity, because of course that is sex outside of marriage. Comment by rabidbunny — April 17, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Another moralizing Utopian vision, from the pet and full time the village idiot.
Sorry Rabid Rat, but your fantasy about how the world works is st*pid as you are.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:12 pmrabidbunny,
That’s why education is so important.
The ones that have simply been told “No!” do not have the knowledge base of those who have learned about the risks, and the ways to diminish those risks should they choose to engage in the activity anyway.
That’s where abstinence- only fails.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pmWhy is that, you asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. Comment by rabidbunny — April 17, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Actually you gave a st*pid answer, not based on honesty, but based on bigotry, ignorance and foolish ‘punishment’ mentality. You’re wrong, stupid, and a useless piece of sh*t.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pmHey, I beat you, Zooey.
I was divorced when I was 28.
Marry again?
Bwaaahahahahahaha!
April 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pmThat’s where abstinence- only fails.
Comment by trueblue — April 17, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
That’s also why trailer trash like rabid rat’s parents get knocked up, and produce an inbred r*t*rd like her/him.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pm#10. trueblue.
actually, I got that one from a Nitty Gritty Dirt Band album from the early 80’s or something, the double one where they played with a lot of old time folk muscicians… can’t remember the album title……
April 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pmso, where was I? oh, yeah, funnybunny………….
Y’all got it wrong.
Sex during marriage is wrong.
Get the facts straight man.
Comment by ForTruth — April 17, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Just because married people don’t have as much sex doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just boring. teehee
April 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pmUsually, in the case of infidelity, both partners are not in on the fun little secret. So Joe Blow comes home with a little something extra for the wife — whether it be an STD or child support payments.
By covering your ass with the infidelity is sex outside marriage bit, are you saying the injured party is just all out of luck?
I’ve been divorced since I was 33, and have no intention of marrying again. So I’m just SOL for sex, is that it?
Marriage is not the great protector — except in divorce court — and half the time, not even there.
Wake up.
Comment by Zooey
Again I am not saying that people should wait. However, if people only had sex when they are married to their spouse there would be a lot less STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I don’t know what you mean about the injured party is out of luck, I am saying that any sex outside of marriage increases the possiblities of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps I can rephrase it as sex outside of a monogamous relationship increases the chances?
April 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm#23. funnybunny…………….
April 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pmIt’s spelled masturbation with a ‘u’
And, last time I checked, it’s considered sex………
rabidbunny,
That’s why education is so important.
The ones that have simply been told “No!†do not have the knowledge base of those who have learned about the risks, and the ways to diminish those risks should they choose to engage in the activity anyway.
That’s where abstinence- only fails.
Comment by trueblue
I agree! I think options should be told with actual risks (condoms, birth control etc), but at the same time tell kids that the only 100% effective way is abstinence.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pmThis sounds a lot like brainwashing to me.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure a prolonged intensive brainwashing would result in some sort of success… look at what it does for some religions. Still though, a general rule of thumb to use is that if an idea doesn’t succeed on its merits alone, pounding it into people’s brains ultimately causes more harm than good.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pmI was divorced when I was 28.
Marry again?
Bwaaahahahahahaha!
Comment by trueblue
When you were 28, I’d been divorced 2 years. :P
April 17th, 2007 at 6:21 pmI just now figured out why we love sex before and in some rare cases during marriage its because I had sex before mariage and then I told 2 freinds and they told 2 friends and they told 2 freinds and so on and so on and so on and we all “came” to one conclusion sex is grrrrrrrrrrreat
April 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm#23. funnybunny…………….
It’s spelled masturbation with a ‘u’
And, last time I checked, it’s considered sex………
Comment by Raven
Thanks for the spelling correction. I thought it was with a ‘u’ but didn’t look right. As for being considered sex, it is not what the abstinence only has in mind to prevent STDs and pregnancies. Masturbation is a little safer, don’t you think?
April 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pmHey, I beat you, Zooey.
I was divorced when I was 28.
Marry again?
Bwaaahahahahahaha!
Comment by trueblue — April 17, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Amateurs. I was divorced the first time when I was 20. And that’s because I believed you should get married before you have sex.
You wouldn’t buy a car you can’t test drive but you commit to spend the rest of your life with somebody you’re not compatible with. Good plan.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm#26. powkat…..
April 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pmNobody told me anything,
that’s how old I am……………..;)
#25. Zooey…. LOL
April 17th, 2007 at 6:24 pmthat’s the ultimate risk, yes? ;)
What the hell are Tony Perkins and the FRC smoking?
April 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pm#23. funnybunny…………….
It’s spelled masturbation with a ‘u’
And, last time I checked, it’s considered sex………
Comment by Raven
“Self-Love”
;)
April 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pmya see… we need a surge in abstinence….heh…
April 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pmI think the family research council should focus on their own families. They are free to pray, day and night, that their kids will abstain from sex until they are married. When they get the coercive power of the Govt. involved, they have crossed the line into Taxland.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pmWhy are they so worried about the temptations of the World harming their kids? If they are so SURE they are right about their power of faith, why can’t they get their own kids to follow their teachings??
funnybunny sure has a talent for verbal masturbation…
April 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pmshane,
Yup. You win.
Just curious - still single?
(Butt Out, Yenta!)
April 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pmPerhaps I can rephrase it as sex outside of a monogamous relationship increases the chances?
Comment by rabidbunny
I live in what’s called “reality.” I have a concept of what human nature is. We are sexual beings from the moment we are born. It’s stupid to deny it. Even if one is in a monogamus relationship, having had other sex partners trumps the whole deal.
Is there something wrong with encouraging our children to not have sex until they’re emotionally ready, while at the same time giving them all the information they could possibly need to avoid STDs and pregnancy?
April 17th, 2007 at 6:28 pmIs there something wrong with encouraging our children to not have sex until they’re emotionally ready, while at the same time giving them all the information they could possibly need to avoid STDs and pregnancy?
Comment by Zooey
Can I get an “Amen”?!
April 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pmAmateurs. I was divorced the first time when I was 20. And that’s because I believed you should get married before you have sex.
Comment by shane
I should have been divorced when I was 20…. *sigh*
April 17th, 2007 at 6:31 pmIf they are so SURE they are right about their power of faith, why can’t they get their own kids to follow their teachings??
Comment by Badger
Because they’re so focused on being assholierthanthou, and concentrating on remembering their faith, that they’re not talking to their kids or paying attention to what their doing.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pmI live in what’s called “reality.†I have a concept of what human nature is. We are sexual beings from the moment we are born. It’s stupid to deny it. Even if one is in a monogamus relationship, having had other sex partners trumps the whole deal.
Is there something wrong with encouraging our children to not have sex until they’re emotionally ready, while at the same time giving them all the information they could possibly need to avoid STDs and pregnancy?
Comment by Zooey
Once again, I am not saying it is wrong and should not be done. I am merely saying that there are added risks, very permenant and dangerous risks of having sex with multiple partners.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pmWant to know why I never married miniblue’s dad?
I didn’t believe in divorce!
Life is funny…
April 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pm#68. funnybunny…….permanent , with an ‘a’
April 17th, 2007 at 6:41 pmPerhaps the pluralization of your misspelling is indicative of an issue with having multiple partners?
(permenant)
Once again, I am not saying it is wrong and should not be done. I am merely saying that there are added risks, very permenant and dangerous risks of having sex with multiple partners.
Comment by rabidbunny
So you’re not saying premarital sex is wrong, and you’re not saying we shouldn’t do it. Ok.
But you’ve shifted gears, and the danger is now “multiple partners,” where before it was simply “sex outside of marriage.”
Which is it?
April 17th, 2007 at 6:41 pm#64 Is there something wrong with encouraging our children to not have sex until they’re emotionally ready, while at the same time giving them all the information they could possibly need to avoid STDs and pregnancy?
Makes perfect sense to me. But logic is not used by the right wing. They make their parenting decisions on emotional and religious grounds. No wonder their kids are so messed up.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pmI guess the FRC thinks we need to try even harder to raise ignorant kids…
April 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pmROFLMAO
No kidding. Rabid’s “logic” is quite something. Especially given the percentage of married women who seek to terminate a pregnancy (i.e. unwanted pregnancy). I guess in RabidBunny’s world, marriage licenses keep married women form getting knocked up if they don’t want children.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pmSo you’re not saying premarital sex is wrong, and you’re not saying we shouldn’t do it. Ok.
But you’ve shifted gears, and the danger is now “multiple partners,†where before it was simply “sex outside of marriage.â€
Which is it?
Comment by Zooey
I am saying that there are added risks, I never said it was wrong. I said I did it as well. I shifted gears a little by changing it to monogamous relationships, which serve the same purpose on the reasons I stated about STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:56 pmRed states have a divorce rate 27% higher than blue states.
Huh. The liberals have a much lower divorce rate.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pm#68. funnybunny…….permanent , with an ‘a’
Perhaps the pluralization of your misspelling is indicative of an issue with having multiple partners?
(permenant)
Comment by Raven
Most people in forums and online discussions attack spelling when they can’t argue with merit.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pmROFLMAO
No kidding. Rabid’s “logic†is quite something. Especially given the percentage of married women who seek to terminate a pregnancy (i.e. unwanted pregnancy). I guess in RabidBunny’s world, marriage licenses keep married women form getting knocked up if they don’t want children.
Comment by lestatdelc
My logic is messed up? It’s common sense, if a woman gets pregnant while single it is more likely to be unplanned than if the woman is married. Most people get married to start a family. I never said that married women are immune from getting pregnant by surprise (you are clearly changing what I said), I said that unwanted pregnancies and STDs are more likely when people are having sex outside of marriage or at least outside of a monogamous relationship.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:01 pm#75 Huh?
Explain to me how exclusively monogamous opposite-sex relationships (presumably pre-menopausal as well) do anything about unwanted pregnancies, much lease marriage licenses reduce unwanted pregnancies?
April 17th, 2007 at 7:04 pmROFLMAO
No kidding. Rabid’s “logic†is quite something. Especially given the percentage of married women who seek to terminate a pregnancy (i.e. unwanted pregnancy). I guess in RabidBunny’s world, marriage licenses keep married women form getting knocked up if they don’t want children.
Comment by lestatdelc
I thought that might have been a bit too subtle, and I can see by rabidbunny’s response to you in #78 that I was right to be concerned.
Heh.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:04 pmExplain to me how exclusively monogamous opposite-sex relationships (presumably pre-menopausal as well) do anything about unwanted pregnancies, much lease marriage licenses reduce unwanted pregnancies?
Comment by lestatdelc
If people are in a monogamous relationship they know more about their partner. How does a guy know if a girl is on birth control if he just met her at a bar? How does a girl know that the condom the guy is using has been in his wallet for 5 years if she just met him at a bar? If people sleep around with multiple partners, the room for error is greater.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:09 pmAh, no, that is NOT what you said. That is what you retreated to after your bat-shit crazy assertion about marriage stopping STDs and unwanted pregnancies was laughed at.
FYI, the majority of abortions are performed for married women or those in monogamous relationships.
BTW, guess what has an even BETTER record of stopping STDs and unwanted pregnancies, regardless of marriage status…? The proper use of birth control protections like condoms. You know, the thing the FRC advocates AGAINST teaching the proper use of. You know, what this article is talking about.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pmI thought that might have been a bit too subtle, and I can see by rabidbunny’s response to you in #78 that I was right to be concerned.
Heh.
Comment by Zooey
Please explain.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pmIGNORANCE is a risk factor for STD’s and Unwanted Pregnancies/Abortions. Abstinence is fine. Abstinence ONLY is just another form of Ignorance.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pmAre these clowns in the family research council drinking their own urine again??????
April 17th, 2007 at 7:22 pmAh, no, that is NOT what you said. That is what you retreated to after your bat-shit crazy assertion about marriage stopping STDs and unwanted pregnancies was laughed at.
FYI, the majority of abortions are performed for married women or those in monogamous relationships.
BTW, guess what has an even BETTER record of stopping STDs and unwanted pregnancies, regardless of marriage status…? The proper use of birth control protections like condoms. You know, the thing the FRC advocates AGAINST teaching the proper use of. You know, what this article is talking about.
Comment by lestatdelc
You are clearly missing my point. Marriage if both parties are faithful as I said does drop the chances of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It is ignorant to think otherwise. I added the monogamous part to show what I meant, that if two people are committed to each other and only each other what I said is true about STDs and pregnancies. I would like to see your stats on the abortions by married women. Also to show your point you would have to include babies that are given up for adoption at birth as well because it was unwanted. I agree that proper birth control is the best method. I am not against teaching those methods, as I have already said.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pmPlease explain.
Comment by rabidbunny
That would be beyond useless…..
April 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pmPlease explain.
Comment by rabidbunny
That would be beyond useless…..
Comment by Zooey
Probably because you can’t think of a reason…you just like to throw out one-lines to give the illusion of superiority, which is why you point out petty spelling errors but fail to discuss the issue.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pmI said abortions by married women or those in mongamious relationships (unmarried women in a relationship). Want the stats, go look them up, Google and Planned Parenthood can be your guide.
The FRC (which this article is about) doesn’t, and that is NOT what you were saying until you began back-peddling furiously. So why did you feel the need to leap into this thread about the FRC which rails against teaching birth control and condom usage to first claim that sex before marriage was bad, then back-track to the point of acknowledging that what the FRC spews is full of shit?
April 17th, 2007 at 7:34 pmProbably because you can’t think of a reason…you just like to throw out one-lines to give the illusion of superiority, which is why you point out petty spelling errors but fail to discuss the issue.
Comment by rabidbunny
Excuse me, but if you had any gift for sarcasm or the subtle I might think it was worth my time. However, you have neither, so if you really want to understand, I suggest getting your little bunny ass back up the thread to try to understand what you’re missing.
Don’t pull the you “fail to discuss the issue” card, because it won’t fly. I’ve been discussing the f*cking issue since I got here.
I have NEVER pointed out spelling errors on this blog.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:36 pmTry again, lame-ass.
I didn’t ask you any questions Rabidbuttplug.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:37 pm#86 Marriage if both parties are faithful as I said does drop the chances of STDs …..
April 17th, 2007 at 7:37 pmIf a couple is Faithfully monagamous, and neither one has an STD…I’m pretty sure they won’t get an STD. But we’re not talking about Ozzie and Harriet Here. In the real world, being ignorant of ALL the facts is dangerous. Just look at the Married Truck drivers in Africa, that have spread AIDS to the faithfull wives back home. The policies of the FRC and their Ilk are a threat to their safety. Even Jesse Helms can see that.
#77.. funnybunny………
April 17th, 2007 at 7:42 pmYou don’t merit arguing with…
Divorce rates, unplanned pregnancies, and STD’s are much, much higher with uneducated people.
Bottom line folks.
And the FRC says education on this issue would make matters worse.
Zooey,
Nail down that Rabbit. Good job.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:43 pmThe divorce rate for new marriages is about 65%
If abstinence before marriage worked the divorce rate for new marriages would prolly climb to about 100%.
Sex before marriage is not the problem, in fact in blue states the divorce rate is quite lower than red states.
The problem, to me, is not sex, it’s unprotected sex (lack of sex education)
April 17th, 2007 at 7:45 pmUPDATE: “The Baptist Press is reporting that True Love Waits — a Christian group promoting abstinence-only education — is planning to expand its operations in six African countries, thanks to a recent surge in donations. Evidently, they’re unfazed by that recent U.S. report showing that these programs are basically useless. A trifling concern, really.â€
Oy.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:46 pmZooey,
Nail down that Rabbit. Good job.
Comment by ForTruth
:-)
April 17th, 2007 at 7:47 pmSilly Wabbits Trix are for kids.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:49 pmWhy ? Is it a problem to claim that your failed program just needs more funding in order to work when there is no evidence that your program has any chance of success ?
Because we could get rid of a hell of a lot of telethons, advertising and fundraising groups for a hell of a lot of diseases if that’s the case.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:50 pmThe results may be faith-based…the funding, though, that’s manna from heaven.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:51 pmWhy ? Is it a problem to claim that your failed program just needs more funding in order to work when there is no evidence that your program has any chance of success ?
Yeah, there’s a problem with it. It’s taxpayer money, and the program is a failure.
Because we could get rid of a hell of a lot of telethons, advertising and fundraising groups for a hell of a lot of diseases if that’s the case.
Comment by Kilo
Try again, Kilo. Telethons and fundraising groups are collecting donations, not taxpayer money.
**eyes rolling**
April 17th, 2007 at 7:55 pmWhy ? Is it a problem to claim that your failed program just needs more funding in order to work when there is no evidence that your program has any chance of success ?
Iraq War….Missile Defense…Yucca Mountain….
April 17th, 2007 at 7:59 pmTry again at what ? If you think that was the notable difference between the two cases my point stands.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:16 pmWhy is it that these fundies think that this has ever worked? How many kids in the 50’s and early 60’s just beat the stork? Haven’t they noticed that along with birth controls introduction the average age for marriage has gone way up? The conclusion is obvious, not only can they have sex outside of marriage but they don’t have to rush to the alter and the incidence of those 8 lb preemies are no longer common. Lets get real, kids have sex. They have always had sex. If they didn’t, they got married way young so they could have sex, not really a desirable situation, I would guess. Human nature, it is pretty hard to change.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pmWhy does the Family Research Council need Evidence, when they have a perfectly clear Biblical solution to the problem. Adultery and Pre-marital Sex are sins punishable by Death by Stoning. Why don’t they try to sell that to the people???
April 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pmTry again at what ? If you think that was the notable difference between the two cases my point stands.
Comment by Kilo
Try again at your weak-assed trolling.
The notable difference: taxpayer money v. donations
Try real hard, and you might figure it out.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:31 pmWhat’s up with all this sexual repression and such. I would venture a quess and I sure do hope I am correct that most of us had plenty of underage and premaritail sex. Yet I have never met anyone who has suffered any long term physical nor emotional damage from this behavior. Sexual contact is a blessed gift and although I am a committed agnostic, I am willing to acknowledge that if there is a god(s) that along with beer, sex is their way of letting us know they care for us and wish us to be happy. (Props to BF if indeed my paraphrase reflects any quote he ever really made). Let it go and let them be young, dumb, and you all know the rest. As to the discussion of divorce, unlike a cancer, she can not be cut out of me.
go forth but avoid multipling, the habitrail can only hold so many hampsters
April 17th, 2007 at 8:36 pmAfrican countries have bigger issues than extramarital sex on their hands but I guess telling people to keep it in their pants is the easiest item they can cross out in God’s priority list.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:49 pmIt’s’s easy and cheap to send untrained “missionaries” over who know nothing about solar power, sanitation engineering, horticulture or health care.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pmWhile the fundraising organization officials sit in their well staffed, air conditioned offices and go to the Caribbean for their ‘meetings’…
These programs aren’t useless. They serve the following purposes:
1) It allows the Christians to feel good about themselves, i.e., increase their piety.
2) It gives the Christians an additional opportunity to force their religion down other’s… er.. excuse me, to convert heathens to Christianity.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:07 pmAnd does absolutely nothing to stop AIDS in Africa…
April 17th, 2007 at 11:39 pmAnd does absolutely nothing to stop AIDS in Africa…
Comment by SKdeA
Are they white Americans? Didn’t think so….next topic of discussion?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:43 pm/sarcasm
My moonbat mom told me aids was invented by the gubbermint to get rid of undesireable people.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:51 pmThe FRC (which this article is about) doesn’t, and that is NOT what you were saying until you began back-peddling furiously. So why did you feel the need to leap into this thread about the FRC which rails against teaching birth control and condom usage to first claim that sex before marriage was bad, then back-track to the point of acknowledging that what the FRC spews is full of shit?
Comment by lestatdelc
I never did any back pedalling, read what I said from the beginning nothing has changed. I never agreed with FRC I simply stated that there are many more risks with sex outside of marriage. You made it something that it wasn’t.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:59 pmExcuse me, but if you had any gift for sarcasm or the subtle I might think it was worth my time. However, you have neither, so if you really want to understand, I suggest getting your little bunny ass back up the thread to try to understand what you’re missing.
Don’t pull the you “fail to discuss the issue†card, because it won’t fly. I’ve been discussing the f*cking issue since I got here.
I have NEVER pointed out spelling errors on this blog.
Try again, lame-ass.
My mistake on the spelling error comment. I had you mixed up with Raven. I apologize. However, in my defense you came after me with attacks well before I said anything negative about you.
As for me not getting the sarcasm you are referring to, why is it not worth your time to state said sarcasm but you have plenty of time to insult me?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:08 amI said abortions by married women or those in mongamious relationships (unmarried women in a relationship). Want the stats, go look them up, Google and Planned Parenthood can be your guide
I looked up the stats and you could not be more wrong.
http://www.cdc.gov/ nchs/ pressroom/ 03facts/ pregbirths.htm
The abortion rate for unmarried women is over four times higher than that of married women;
Looking at pregnancies among married women, three out of four ended in a live birth in 1999, and 7 percent ended in abortion;
Among unmarried women about half the pregnancies ended in a live birth while about 40 percent ended in abortion. In 1990 pregnancies among unmarried women were more likely to end in abortion than in a live birth.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:12 amThanks for taking the “rabbitpunch” for me Zooey.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:46 amI owe you one….;)
Most people get married to start a family.
Comment by rabidbunny
Hubba wha? Excuse me, are you trying to say that women get married to be barefoot and pregnant? Uh uh, no way, Jose. Don’t go there.
I didn’t get married to “start a family”. I got married because I loved him and wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. My daughter came from that love. She wasn’t “planned”.
The main issue here is a lack of education. Most people are scared to death to talk about sex to their children and it disgusts me to no end.
Yes, I have talked to my 11-year old about sex. She knows what sex is, and the consequences and has told me she will wait. I know for a fact that when she is going out with guys, that promise may not last, but at least she will know how to protect herself against diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
Just educate these kids, for Pete’s sake. Or are you too close-minded, too ashamed of your own nature, too conservative to do it yourself?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:06 amAccording to an account in today’s NYTs : http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 04/ 18/ us/ 18gunman.html?hp
speculations 3 & 4 below appear to be confirmed from new info on shooter’s religious background and school’s sensitivity to psychological issues: family was hyper-religious and he internalized a rigid Christian moralism which justified his dispensing punishing violence.
His creative writing teacher and the English Dept recognized and were long concerned by his warning signs but the larger university appears to have had policing rather than a more mental health orientation to his violent fantasies, and ignored his likely underlying psychotic depression. This seems to reflect an inadequate preventative / pro-active mental health program given the extent of warnings they received and their seeming failure to convene an intervention plan with the Dean of Students etc. to urge a full mental health evaluation or other intervention perhaps including parents, minister, etc.
Other technical schools, science and engineering depts especially ie. MIT, Harvard, have also learned the hard way that they must pay more attention to the stress, isolation, cultural shock, and mental vulnerabilities of their students and grad students to prevent suicides and homicides by disturbed students.
Minority and foreign students also have unique stressors of their own which administrators need to take into account. Mentoring programs, special orientation program, student to student drop-in counseling programs, and other innovations have been tried elsewhere. I wonder if any exist at Virginia Tech.
As per yesterday’s comment:
“File this under speculations:
Possible factors influencing rampage by disturbed young man…
1. Young male - more prone to lethal violent rejection and jealousy fueled rage than females, or older persons seasoned by love loss.
2. Racial aspect…history of Korean vs Black antagonism in some US cities, ie LA riots.
3. Possible religious stressor….South Koreans have been heavily proselytized by evangelical christians, who converted many. Korean evangelicals are often strong believers with rigid consciences. Many have immigrated to the US along with their churches and right-wing views.
What will we learn about his religious beliefs, if any, and what frustrations and conflicts may have been intensified by fundamentalist strictures inciting moralistic anger “justifying†his rage.
4. Tech schools are often quite stressful, and foster a culture which is resistant to psychologizing, offering limited mental health services and outreach, overlooking the isolation and harmful competitiveness which comes along with science and engineering disciplines and the students who are drawn to such careers…not always the most emotionally mature or socially adept at an age when few of us are.
Comment by Michael C — April 17, 2007 @ 11:12 am”
April 18th, 2007 at 10:24 amHubba wha? Excuse me, are you trying to say that women get married to be barefoot and pregnant? Uh uh, no way, Jose. Don’t go there.
I didn’t get married to “start a familyâ€. I got married because I loved him and wanted to spend the rest of my life with him. My daughter came from that love. She wasn’t “plannedâ€.
Good for you that you didn’t get married to start a family, which is why I said most people not all people get married to start a family. Whether you admit it or not most people actually do get married with the thought of having children in the future.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:06 amThe abortion rate for unmarried women is over four times higher than that of married women;
I am shocked that all the people that mocked my posts saying that if there was no sex before marriage there would be less unplanned pregnancies have not responded to the above quote on abortion stats.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:08 amI don’t think it should be one or the other. Abstain as much as possible, but for those who aren’t, they should know the facts, risks, and consequences in case they do make that choice. Abstainence only is a nice ideal (for some) but not very practical. The reality of it is, people have sex. They should be educated about it.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:23 am