Republicans: do as I say, not as I do

racerdave600 wrote: This isn't a right verses left, Christian vs. atheists, it's protecting your kids and teaching them right from wrong. Most people are far too concerned with who's doing what and which political party is correct than dealing with the real problem, which is disentegration of the family unit, and truly crappy influences on TV and internet. Most parents would prefer others talk to their teenagers about this instead of standing up and taking responsibility, like everything else in their life.

I agree to an extent, but I really think it's much simpler than that. I don't think the real problem is "disentegration of the family unit, and truly crappy influences on TV and internet", I think it's crappy influences inside the home. Blaming TV, internet, violent video games, etc. is just another arm of the "I blame society, not myself" argument. I think it's all about keeping a good, communicative relationship with your children while teaching them right from wrong, period. My family was berkeleyed up. My parents didn't have a lot of money, fought all the time, and split when I was 14 or so. But they did have a good relationship with me and my sister. My sister and I grew up in a less than stable home, without religion, without many rules, watching violent movies and playing violent video games. We were also taught the golden rule from the day we were born, and taught to read, write, count, and basic math before pre-school. I'm 30 years old, never been to jail, no debt other than my house, which will be paid off in four years, no kids, in a stable relationship, pretty much atheist (though some would ague that it's a mixture of deist, taoist, and other beliefs), and I'm writing this from work, so I obviously have a decent job. My sister is 27, college graduate, never been to jail, Christian, married, has one child(and he was planned). It seems that most of my friends have similar stories. I don't buy that "broken homes and violent video games are ruining our children " crap. If the kids are taught right from wrong from an early age, none of that E36 M3 will matter.

Greg, read my analogy again, I didn't say sex ed gave handed out the gun. I said, in my analogy, that they already had the gun. I said "...You give each of them a squad automatic weapon (machine gun)... Then, you mandate a class for them to take in school..."

As for the study, they didn't lie to me. I just read it for a CME. Look for it yourself.

Dr. Hess wrote: Greg, read my analogy again, I didn't say sex ed gave handed out the gun. I said, in my analogy, that they already had the gun. I said "...You give each of them a squad automatic weapon (machine gun)... Then, you mandate a class for them to take in school..." As for the study, they didn't lie to me. I just read it for a CME. Look for it yourself.

Your first sentence implies that which can be given can be taken away. And your arguement falls apart after that. If that's all you have to argue my point, I think my point is made.

As for the study, what is CME? (are you saying you didn't do the research, you just read about it in a journal?)

Dr. Hess wrote: The last study I saw said condoms were 30% effective in preventing the spread of HIV. That was based on looking at "couples" and not some lab study of effectiveness "when used properly." Regarding sex ed in general, I think it is a good thing to teach children old enough for it. However, the society we are in has created a lot of problems with this. Here's an analogy, which, of course, is way too hard for Salanis to understand, but I'm sure the rest of you will get it: You take 15 year olds. You give each of them a squad automatic weapon (machine gun). Outside of school, the children are bombarded 24x7 with images of the great fun of firing a machine gun. Machine gun usage is used to sell everything from shoes to food. Every movie is based around the great joys of machine gun firing, especially at people. The internet has so much machine gun usage all over it that it is difficult to even research anything from cars to breakfast cereal without being exposed to large amounts of machine gun firing. Then, you mandate a class for them to take in school. In this class, they are shown how to load the magazine, insert the magazine, rack the bolt back, pull the trigger, and a brief mention of the safety, which may or may not work on this particular weapon (pretend it's a French SAW). No mention is made of the consequences of pointing the machine gun at people and firing, as that would be "teaching religion" or morality and the school wouldn't do that. There's even a group of people who like shooting other people with machine guns that think that teaching the children machine gun usage like this is just great, and they make sure that only machine gun usage is taught, without any consequences of shooting people or other alternatives like "keep your gun safe until you need it." What do you think the children will do? That's the problem we have.

I think in that situation, any kid with parents that were half way worth a berkeley would probably either be scared of the gun, take it to a range, or go out into the woods and shoot it.

Yes, in my machine gun analogy the parents need to teach responsible gun ownership to the children. The school should also teach responsible gun ownership.

Oh, and just as something to think about, more people died in the US last year from sex than from machine guns.

Dr. Hess wrote: Oh, and just as something to think about, more people died in the US last year from sex than from machine guns.

Talk about a non-sequitar.

CME: Continuing Medical Education. The states require us LICENSED PHYSICIANS to do so many hours of continuing education each year. So, yes, a journal or journal equivalent. My own research was in Parkinson's Disease.

Greg, you are acting like someone is trying to take away your sport berkeleying. No anology or model is perfect. I'm just pointing out a problem our society has. Perhaps you would prefer to get your medical information from Salanis. After all, he has had sex with his girlfriend a hundred times and she isn't pregnant, so he must be an expert here.

Dr. Hess wrote: CME: Continuing Medical Education. The states require us LICENSED PHYSICIANS to do so many hours of continuing education each year. So, yes, a journal or journal equivalent. My own research was in Parkinson's Disease. Greg, you are acting like someone is trying to take away your sport berkeleying. No anology or model is perfect. I'm just pointing out a problem our society has. Perhaps you would prefer to get your medical information from Salanis. After all, he has had sex with his girlfriend a hundred times and she isn't pregnant, so he must be an expert here.

I'd prefer to get my medical information from someone that doesn't use rediculous analogies. I'm sure you're very good in your field of medicine, but I don't think a couple of medical journal article readings makes you an expert in condom efficacy. Professional journals often get the facts wrong (alot less than TIME or Newsweek, but still susceptible), so I don't feel like I should trade in all of what I've heard regarding condoms from other sources for your one or two CME sources. But if you choose to think that I'm throwing out the whole medical profession because I feel you're wrong in this instance, believe what you want.

Dr. Hess wrote: Yes, in my machine gun analogy the parents need to teach responsible gun ownership to the children. The school should also teach responsible gun ownership.

So... are you arguing now that the schools should teach sex-ed?

No one is saying that parents shouldn't teach their kids about sex. No one is saying that abstinence isn't the most effective method of preventing pregnancy and STIs.

If you're saying that the schools are trying to tell parents they shouldn't be teaching their children about sex or basic morality, you're wrong. If you're saying that schools are trying to teach kids that their parents are wrong about morality and lessons about sex, schools do still provide parents the opportunity to waive the sex-ed requirement for their kids.

The analogy was somewhat ridiculous, as well as unnecessary. The merits and risks of sex education stand on their own aren't all that complex.

I agree entirely with Dr Hess wrt the social and media pressures on hormonally crazed teens to behave irresponsibly. All of this runs counter to the parents' best efforts.

I have no knowledge of the condom study cited by Dr Hess, but have no reason to doubt its accuracy. A condom is a manufactured product, which is subject to multiple points of falure in manufacture and use.

I was going to make a silly analogy comparing condoms with car tires...

The simple fact appears to be that abstinence based sex education does not work as well as teaching safe sex techniques in either preventing pregnancies or in preventing intercourse. As for the condom reference, would you rather have a device with a 30% failure rate or one with 100% failure rate?

PeteWW wrote: The analogy was somewhat ridiculous, as well as unnecessary. The merits and risks of sex education stand on their own aren't all that complex. I agree entirely with Dr Hess wrt the social and media pressures on hormonally crazed teens to behave irresponsibly. All of this runs counter to the parents' best efforts. I have no knowledge of the condom study cited by Dr Hess, but have no reason to doubt its accuracy. A condom is a manufactured product, which is subject to multiple points of falure in manufacture and use. I was going to make a silly analogy comparing condoms with car tires...

Now that is a staw man argument.

Not having sex (abstinence) is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. Having sex with a condom is 30%. You're welcome to use a higher number for the condom use, but it will never approach the 100% effectiveness of not having sex.

doitover wrote: The simple fact appears to be that abstinence based sex education does not work as well as teaching safe sex techniques in either preventing pregnancies or in preventing intercourse. As for the condom reference, would you rather have a device with a 30% failure rate or one with 100% failure rate?

What are you referring to as having a 100% failure rate? Abstinence only sex-ed? I'm sure there are a few kids out there who would be inspired to wait to have sex.

And as Aircooled pointed out, the spread in the statistics for effectiveness is primarily based on properly using the device. So we can turn a device with a 20% failure rate can be turned into a device with a 2-5% failure rate through education. Wow!

Hess also threw out another statistic that clarified what he'd maybe been trying to say. He said something about a study that condoms were only 30% effective at preventing STIs. That makes more sense than the 30% effective at preventing pregnancy that it sounded like he was saying. Although, that still sounds lower than other information I've received, and "30% effective" is a fuzzy statistic. What period of usage is that supposed to be measured across? Or does that maybe mean that condom usage decreases the spread of STIs by 30%?

PeteWW wrote: Not having sex (abstinence) is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. Having sex with a condom is 30%. You're welcome to use a higher number for the condom use, but it will never approach the 100% effectiveness of not having sex.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with school sex-ed programs promoting the wisdom of abstinence. The problem is abstinence-only, which does nothing to help the portion of the population that's going to have sex anyway.

There is probably a majority population in this country who will have sex before marriage. They should be able to learn what options are available to them, the benefits and disadvantages of each, potential side effects, and what methods can and can not be combined.

PeteWW wrote: ...Having sex with a condom is 30%...

Please do not use that statistic, I do not believe there is any evidence that condom use has a 30% (70% effective) failure rate for preventing pregnancy. Even the low end of what I have seen is 20% which would certainly make the average (since proper use in in the 2% range) more likely to be in the 10% range (as a wild guess, probably lower, I have no idea what percentage of people do not use them properly).

The reason this worries me is that people pick up on such things and eventually they become gospel (see atheist thread ). I know there is variation in any statistics, but I am sorry a 30% failure rate seems beyond all common sense. As a note, the failure rate has a LOT more to do with procedure rather than actual mechanical failures (kind of like the Explorer tire problem was almost more of a driver / loading / suspension problem than a tire problem).

Dr. Hess wrote: It's difficult to tell when you're pullin' a funny, but, of course, "pulling out" is ineffective as a method of birth control. Ya'll know that, right?

Yeah I was just taking advantage of an awesome joke opportunity. Any guy should know why pulling out wouldn't work.

aircooled wrote:

PeteWW wrote: ...Having sex with a condom is 30%...

Please do not use that statistic, I do not believe there is any evidence that condom use has a 30% (70% effective) failure rate for preventing pregnancy. Even the low end of what I have seen is 20% which would certainly make the average (since proper use in in the 2% range) more likely to be in the 10% range (as a wild guess, probably lower, I have no idea what percentage of people do not use them properly). The reason this worries me is that people pick up on such things and eventually they become gospel (see atheist thread ). I know there is variation in any statistics, but I am sorry a 30% failure rate seems beyond all common sense. As a note, the failure rate has a LOT more to do with procedure rather than actual mechanical failures (kind of like the Explorer tire problem was almost more of a driver / loading / suspension problem than a tire problem).

If you note in my earlier posting, I did allow that the failure rate could be different. Absent any other statistical information available, I was using the figure Dr Hess provided. Regardless of the actual number my point still stands: to be more generous than the 2% you suggest, let's say that there is a 1% chance of condom failure. This means that out of a population of 1 million, that there will be 10,000 failures. Some percentage of that ten thousand will contract an STD.

PeteWW wrote:

aircooled wrote:

PeteWW wrote: ...Having sex with a condom is 30%...

Please do not use that statistic, I do not believe there is any evidence that condom use has a 30% (70% effective) failure rate for preventing pregnancy. Even the low end of what I have seen is 20% which would certainly make the average (since proper use in in the 2% range) more likely to be in the 10% range (as a wild guess, probably lower, I have no idea what percentage of people do not use them properly). The reason this worries me is that people pick up on such things and eventually they become gospel (see atheist thread ). I know there is variation in any statistics, but I am sorry a 30% failure rate seems beyond all common sense. As a note, the failure rate has a LOT more to do with procedure rather than actual mechanical failures (kind of like the Explorer tire problem was almost more of a driver / loading / suspension problem than a tire problem).

If you note in my earlier posting, I did allow that the failure rate could be different. Absent any other statistical information available, I was using the figure Dr Hess provided. Regardless of the actual number my point still stands: to be more generous than the 2% you suggest, let's say that there is a 1% chance of condom failure. This means that out of a population of 1 million, that there will be 10,000 failures. Some percentage of that ten thousand will contract an STD.

Not me-cause I shower afterwards.

Words are hard. I'm just saying that given that some percentage of kids are going to have sex, it's better that they know as much as possible about preventing pregnancy and spreading STDs. Even though condoms are pretty bad poor for preventing STD's, they are a whole lot better than nothing at all.

I'm not basing this on what feels right to me, this seems to be correct in real comparisons between abstinence based programs and programs that teach safe sex.

Salanis wrote:

doitover wrote: The simple fact appears to be that abstinence based sex education does not work as well as teaching safe sex techniques in either preventing pregnancies or in preventing intercourse. As for the condom reference, would you rather have a device with a 30% failure rate or one with 100% failure rate?

What are you referring to as having a 100% failure rate? Abstinence only sex-ed? I'm sure there are a few kids out there who would be inspired to wait to have sex. And as Aircooled pointed out, the spread in the statistics for effectiveness is primarily based on properly using the device. So we can turn a device with a 20% failure rate can be turned into a device with a 2-5% failure rate through education. Wow! Hess also threw out another statistic that clarified what he'd maybe been trying to say. He said something about a study that condoms were only 30% effective at preventing STIs. That makes more sense than the 30% effective at preventing pregnancy that it sounded like he was saying. Although, that still sounds lower than other information I've received, and "30% effective" is a fuzzy statistic. What period of usage is that supposed to be measured across? Or does that maybe mean that condom usage decreases the spread of STIs by 30%?

Palin wants to teach us about guns... and sex...

[This was just too funny, and this seemed like the best place to post it.]

Salanis wrote: Palin wants to teach us about guns... and sex... [This was just too funny, and this seemed like the best place to post it.]

Is that real or a photoshop?

Photoshop.

While I think Palin is about as qualified to be VP as Dan Quayle was (maybe less), a lot of the poo being flung about her is really over the top.

Okay, a little more research reveals it to be a photoshop. Still funny.

Lots of legit pictures with her holding guns. None with her in a bikini though.

MGAMGB wrote:

GregTivo wrote: I don't think a couple of medical journal article readings makes you an expert in condom efficacy.

Googling statistics on the internet is better?

given the proof provided in this thread, yes

Bad photoshop... real one would be topless!