sex education

[Riprorin]

This statement of the assistant commissioner for National Diseases Control of Uganda makes sense.

"Those who are sexually active should be faithful. Others should abstain and those who cannot should use condoms."

In other words, condoms are a fall back for those who are not in a committed relationship and who should, but cannot remain abstinent.

The emphasis of the Ugandan policy is clearly on abstinence and fidelity, as it should be, as reducing the number of casual sexual encounters and partners in key in reducing the spread of AIDS and STDs.

Instruction on condom use should emphasize that they are not 100% effective in preventing AIDS nor STDs.

 

[SuperTool]

Really, why do we bother spending tens of billions on CDC and NIH, when we can just ask Uganda's National Diseases Control commissioner for advice on what we should teach in our schools. :roll:

 

[Riprorin]

Interesting non sequitur, but what to you think of the assistant commissioners statement?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Interesting non sequitur, but what to you think of the assistant commissioners statement?

He didn't say anything about emphasizing that condoms don't prevent AIDS and STDs 100%.

 

[Riprorin]

As far as I know, AIDS instruction in Uganda properly emphasizes the failure rate of condoms.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You don't teach abstinence, you preach abstinence.

Well maybe if you tried teaching it would get better results, as opposed to preaching it.

There is nothing to teach. Abstinence is not a skill. It's a decision.

wow - that is an ignorant statement.

Maybe the way you were raised, you never were taught the "why," or given reasons for things. That is something teachers try to do.

Lets take drug education.

"just say no" - short, simple to the point, but if your educating people you give them some background, some physiology on what certian drugs do to the body. A little reinforcement of why you should "just say no."

Auto class - "change your oill" Personally i would want to know why i need to change the oil. Should i use a 10-40, or 10-30? What damage if any is done, if I don't? once again you give infomration and background. You don't expect people to take what you say at face value.

Chem Class - "don't mix acids with bases" diffently expand on that, and some cool firey/explosive examples would hit the point home.

same thing with teaching abstinence, you give people information, and reasons why they should abstane. You don't say "don't have sex," and expect that to be an education.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As far as I know, AIDS instruction in Uganda properly emphasizes the failure rate of condoms.

But did it emphasize it in the 90's when Uganda made all this progress?
Also, I would like to see how many people in Uganda contracted HIV through a rubber, and how many contracted it because they didn't have or didn't know how to use one.

 

[Riprorin]

Compared to condom focused education which accepts as a given that people will engage in casual, promiscuous sex, Uganda emphasizes primary behavior change i.e. abstinence and fidelity.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Compared to condom focused education which accepts as a given that people will engage in casual, promiscuous sex, Uganda emphasizes primary behavior change i.e. abstinence and fidelity.

And that's good, but should someone decide or be pressured to not to be abstinent or faithful, I would much rather they know how to use a rubber than not.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Compared to condom focused education which accepts as a given that people will engage in casual, promiscuous sex, Uganda emphasizes primary behavior change i.e. abstinence and fidelity.

And that's good, but should someone decide or be pressured to not to be abstinent or faithful, I would much rather they know how to use a rubber than not.

Abstience and sex within a monogamous relationship with a disease-free partner is foolproof in preventing AIDS and STDs, condoms are not.

That's the only sane message to convey.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Compared to condom focused education which accepts as a given that people will engage in casual, promiscuous sex, Uganda emphasizes primary behavior change i.e. abstinence and fidelity.

And that's good, but should someone decide or be pressured to not to be abstinent or faithful, I would much rather they know how to use a rubber than not.

Abstience and sex within a monogamous relationship with a disease-free partner is foolproof in preventing AIDS and STDs, condoms are not.

That's the only sane message to convey.

That's only true if you equate failure 'rates' with certainty of failure.

How you can continue to support education that increases the chance of anyone who has sex contracting a disease or having an unwanted pregnancy is beyond me.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to tell you that abstinence doesn't work, if it is practiced. But you don't seem willing to accept that it is quite simply not practiced 100% of the time by 100% of the single people, and it never will be.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Compared to condom focused education which accepts as a given that people will engage in casual, promiscuous sex, Uganda emphasizes primary behavior change i.e. abstinence and fidelity.

And that's good, but should someone decide or be pressured to not to be abstinent or faithful, I would much rather they know how to use a rubber than not.

Abstience and sex within a monogamous relationship with a disease-free partner is foolproof in preventing AIDS and STDs, condoms are not.

That's the only sane message to convey.

That's only true if you equate failure 'rates' with certainty of failure.

How you can continue to support education that increases the chance of anyone who has sex contracting a disease or having an unwanted pregnancy is beyond me.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to tell you that abstinence doesn't work, if it is practiced. But you don't seem willing to accept that it is quite simply not practiced 100% of the time by 100% of the single people, and it never will be.

The central message should be abstinence and monogamy since they are the most effective means of reducing the spread of AIDS and STDs.

For people that can't practice abstinence or monogamy, there are condoms.

They aren't 100% effective in providing protection from AIDS and STDs but they're better than nothing.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: dornick
I voted teach both but I think there's a problem inherent in that. Because if you say "don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" you're really saying "it's okay to have sex as long as you use the condom"

No you're not. You're saying, here are two courses of action: "do it with protection, or don't do it at all. I believe you are adult enough to make the decision, so make the RIGHT one."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The central message should be abstinence and monogamy since they are the most effective means of reducing the spread of AIDS and STDs.

For people that can't practice abstinence or monogamy, there are condoms.

They aren't 100% effective in providing protection from AIDS and STDs but they're better than nothing.

See now that's more reasonable.

The thing is, I would suggest that the message needs to be tailored to the society. If you have a society where large-scale abstinence is a reasonable outcome (eg. a country with fairly strong religious beliefs, or perhaps a relatively well-educated country), then it makes sense to emphasize the abstinence and fidelity part of the message, while still encouraging condom for others.

In a lot of Africa, I would suggest that the abstinence and monogamy message is dommed to have a low success rate, and promoting condom use needs to be the emphasized portion of the message.

 

[mhillary]

Have safe sex. Use a condom everytime.

 

[BeefJurky]

From my experience, "teaching" abstinance does diddly squat, while teaching the wonders of condom use and other forms of birth control and protection might actually help people.

For instance, telling people that you can't just turn a condom inside out and reuse it. Yes, I have heard tell of people doing this. Sad, really.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The central message should be abstinence and monogamy since they are the most effective means of reducing the spread of AIDS and STDs.

For people that can't practice abstinence or monogamy, there are condoms.

They aren't 100% effective in providing protection from AIDS and STDs but they're better than nothing.

See now that's more reasonable.

The thing is, I would suggest that the message needs to be tailored to the society. If you have a society where large-scale abstinence is a reasonable outcome (eg. a country with fairly strong religious beliefs, or perhaps a relatively well-educated country), then it makes sense to emphasize the abstinence and fidelity part of the message, while still encouraging condom for others.

In a lot of Africa, I would suggest that the abstinence and monogamy message is dommed to have a low success rate, and promoting condom use needs to be the emphasized portion of the message.

Are you suggesting that African blacks are incapable of self-contol?

Wow.

I'm not sure why you would say given the success in Uganda where abstinance and fidelity are the primary messages.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: dornick
I voted teach both but I think there's a problem inherent in that. Because if you say "don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" you're really saying "it's okay to have sex as long as you use the condom"

No you're not. You're saying, here are two courses of action: "do it with protection, or don't do it at all. I believe you are adult enough to make the decision, so make the RIGHT one."

its been posted before

"its best to not have sex, but if you do heres a condom."

same as

"don't get in an accident, but wear your seat belt when you drive, incase you do."

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: dornick
I voted teach both but I think there's a problem inherent in that. Because if you say "don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" you're really saying "it's okay to have sex as long as you use the condom"

No you're not. You're saying, here are two courses of action: "do it with protection, or don't do it at all. I believe you are adult enough to make the decision, so make the RIGHT one."

its been posted before

"its best to not have sex, but if you do heres a condom."

same as

"don't get in an accident, but wear your seat belt when you drive, incase you do."

You have a choice regarding sex, you don't choose when you are going to have an accident.

Your two statements aren't analogous.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Compared to condom focused education which accepts as a given that people will engage in casual, promiscuous sex, Uganda emphasizes primary behavior change i.e. abstinence and fidelity.

And that's good, but should someone decide or be pressured to not to be abstinent or faithful, I would much rather they know how to use a rubber than not.

Abstience and sex within a monogamous relationship with a disease-free partner is foolproof in preventing AIDS and STDs, condoms are not.

That's the only sane message to convey.

That's only true if you equate failure 'rates' with certainty of failure.

How you can continue to support education that increases the chance of anyone who has sex contracting a disease or having an unwanted pregnancy is beyond me.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to tell you that abstinence doesn't work, if it is practiced. But you don't seem willing to accept that it is quite simply not practiced 100% of the time by 100% of the single people, and it never will be.

The central message should be abstinence and monogamy since they are the most effective means of reducing the spread of AIDS and STDs.

For people that can't practice abstinence or monogamy, there are condoms.

They aren't 100% effective in providing protection from AIDS and STDs but they're better than nothing.

I actually agree with you here. (Wow, that's a first). But your still missrepresenting why the Uganda's policy was succesful. It was succesful because of all 3 (fidelity, abstiance, and condoms). I'll agree that abstiannce and fidelity were probably the most pivotal change and most important but without condom use, the success would not have been as great.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You don't teach abstinence, you preach abstinence.

Well maybe if you tried teaching it would get better results, as opposed to preaching it.

There is nothing to teach. Abstinence is not a skill. It's a decision.

wow - that is an ignorant statement.

Maybe the way you were raised, you never were taught the "why," or given reasons for things. That is something teachers try to do.

Lets take drug education.

"just say no" - short, simple to the point, but if your educating people you give them some background, some physiology on what certian drugs do to the body. A little reinforcement of why you should "just say no."

Auto class - "change your oill" Personally i would want to know why i need to change the oil. Should i use a 10-40, or 10-30? What damage if any is done, if I don't? once again you give infomration and background. You don't expect people to take what you say at face value.

Chem Class - "don't mix acids with bases" diffently expand on that, and some cool firey/explosive examples would hit the point home.

same thing with teaching abstinence, you give people information, and reasons why they should abstane. You don't say "don't have sex," and expect that to be an education.

you should get rid of that drug example. drug education programs like dare haven't helped at all. in fact, i think there is a study that shows drug use increased with individuals who took the classes.
i think you other examples are good, though. i think both things should be taught and reasons should be given.

 

[dgevert]

There's no dilemma at all. Statistics have clearly shown that having a more liberal attitude towards sex and sex education dramatically reduces rates of pregnancy, STDs, and abortions among teenagers. Those who preach abstinence-only education are only doing so because they have a religious agenda to push...leading to phenomena like Riprorin here, who has shown repeatedly on these forums that he has no problem being blatantly dishonest with himself and others about the actual facts of the matter.

It's all about the Religious Right's "Culture of Life"...err...sorry...culture of lies. Funny how those who are always blathering the most about morality are so often the ones displaying a core lack of it.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: dornick
I voted teach both but I think there's a problem inherent in that. Because if you say "don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" you're really saying "it's okay to have sex as long as you use the condom"

No you're not. You're saying, here are two courses of action: "do it with protection, or don't do it at all. I believe you are adult enough to make the decision, so make the RIGHT one."

First of all, your version isn't analogous to mine because mine promotes abstinence first. But even if it were, kids know how to read between the lines you know. It's like a parent saying, "don't drive our bmw, but wear the seat belt if you do". Any semi-intelligent kid realizes he's just been given permission to drive the bmw.

BTW, most kids when they get sex-ed are NOT adults enough to make the decision.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: dornick
I voted teach both but I think there's a problem inherent in that. Because if you say "don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" you're really saying "it's okay to have sex as long as you use the condom"

No you're not. You're saying, here are two courses of action: "do it with protection, or don't do it at all. I believe you are adult enough to make the decision, so make the RIGHT one."

First of all, your version isn't analogous to mine because mine promotes abstinence first. But even if it were, kids know how to read between the lines you know. It's like a parent saying, "don't drive our bmw, but wear the seat belt if you do". Any semi-intelligent kid realizes he's just been given permission to drive the bmw.

BTW, most kids when they get sex-ed are NOT adults enough to make the decision.

This is why you have the schools teach both and the parents put their input in at home. The schools could even teach it like - "at some point in your life you may have sex - and when you do if you want to avoid STDs/pregnancy here is what you need to do." I'd rather have a few more teens having sex who are informed than having uninformed teens having sex - and like I said - the parents can still put their input in to reinforce whatever values they hold.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The central message should be abstinence and monogamy since they are the most effective means of reducing the spread of AIDS and STDs.

For people that can't practice abstinence or monogamy, there are condoms.

They aren't 100% effective in providing protection from AIDS and STDs but they're better than nothing.

See now that's more reasonable.

The thing is, I would suggest that the message needs to be tailored to the society. If you have a society where large-scale abstinence is a reasonable outcome (eg. a country with fairly strong religious beliefs, or perhaps a relatively well-educated country), then it makes sense to emphasize the abstinence and fidelity part of the message, while still encouraging condom for others.

In a lot of Africa, I would suggest that the abstinence and monogamy message is dommed to have a low success rate, and promoting condom use needs to be the emphasized portion of the message.

Are you suggesting that African blacks are incapable of self-contol?

Wow.

I'm not sure why you would say given the success in Uganda where abstinance and fidelity are the primary messages.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying some cultures are more conducive to extra emphasis on abstinence than are others. Americans in southern states don't seem to be very good at abstinence either, despite best efforts. Better birth control education would have an excellent chance of reducing pregnancies and disease there, as well.

Your stand on Uganda is still very interesting, since most of the recorded progress was achieved under a comprehensive publicity campaign, not one that emphasized abstinence at the expense of other messages. The fact that Uganda is apparently doing so NOW has little to do with what happened in the past.