Abstinence Only doesn't work

[Hendrik]

In the USA children are often told to not have sex before marriage.
Especially Mr. Bush supports this.

However the results of these "abstinence-only-until-marriage programs" are rather bad.

Link:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.pdf
(please read, or -at least- watch the diagrams)

Teen pregnancy rate is way higher in the USA compared to France, Germany, Netherlands, where an openminded discussion about sex is possible. There are also much much more STD infections in the USA.

By the way, is there anybody who wants to marry a woman, without knowing how good she is in bed?

I'd like to hear some opinions on this topic.
Being an European guy, i'd like to know why some conservative people in the USA try to avoid sexual education at all costs.

Hendrik

[lily]

I'd like to hear some opinions on this topic.
Being an European guy, i'd like to know why some conservative people in the USA try to avoid sexual education at all costs.
Some believe that mearly talking about sex, whether it be sex education or birth control, will put it in the mind that you must go out and have sex.

[Cobra]

Abstinence Only is stupid and talking about protections wont make minors have sex.

[Nitrus]

My opinion on Abstinence, is this:

If they wanna do it, then fine, its their choice. But dont force them, that is wrong.. and against human nature to be honest..

[dsanthony]

Families with their own religous or moral beliefs do not want the public schools to decide what their children learn about sex. I wouldn't either. In the "race to the bottom" in America, Dems see that the most dysfunctional families are not teaching their children about sex--so they force ALL families to submit to Stalinist indoctrination in THEIR view of sexuality.

All in all, I'd homeschool before I sent my child to the labor camp educational system of the US.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I love the statement in your headline "Abstinence only doesn't work.".

Bull.

It works every time it's tried. It works in preventing pregnancy, it works in preventing contraction of STD's.

Are you ignorant of the fact that if you don't fuck you don't have to worry about the consequences? Abstinence works 100% of the time it's tried.

[firefox]

Are you joking?

BTW, They tried to push this when I went to a Catholic elementary/middle school, but I still got some by the time i was 16. What say you to that, Pitt :D

[T.J. Wolfe]

If Bush strongly supports waiting to have sex until after you're married, and he's trying to ban gay marriage......could this mean? That man is a character, I tell you.

I'll agree with Nitrus on this subject.

[BoogyMan]

I wasn't aware that anyone actually TRIED abstinance yet.

[Rider]

Hendrik wrote- In the USA children are often told to not have sex before marriage.
Especially Mr. Bush supports this.

However the results of these "abstinence-only-until-marriage programs" are rather bad.
Why do you assume that the statistics you provide are the result of abstinence only programs? The vast majority of schools across the nation, including the "bible belt" have sex education. If any educational program or lack of same can be blamed for the poor statistical showing, it would have to be sex ed and not abstinence.
A study was commissioned in the late 1980's by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood) to gather statistics across the nation to show how sex ed in schools had affected the problems we're discussing. The researchers were surprised to find that there seemed to be no discernable statistical differences between areas with sex ed in their curriculum and those without. When the Institute saw preliminary results, they cancelled the study.

By the way, is there anybody who wants to marry a woman, without knowing how good she is in bed?
What does this statement say about you? Sex is of course a very important component of marriage, but would you walk away from a partner who might be a great friend and companion as well as a good mother to your children because she wasn't that good in bed?

Also, how do you explain the fact that for the most part of the 20th century in the US when sex ed didn't even exist and abstinence was considered a moral imperative, teenage pregnancy, out of wedlock births and venereal disease were a tiny fraction of the same today?

[Alonzo]

I love the statement in your headline "Abstinence only doesn't work.".

Bull.

It works every time it's tried.Â*Â*It works in preventing pregnancy, it works in preventing contraction of STD's.

Are you ignorant of the fact that if you don't fuck you don't have to worry about the consequences?Â*Â*Abstinence works 100% of the time it's tried.


Are you ignorant of the desires that made 6 billion people alive today? You're naive to think you can make abstinance only work.

[Technocrat]

Does Abstinence work? Only if you actually abstain, and even then, not always.

People will be people; therefore, it's unrealistic to expect anyone really to abstain from sex untill marriage. For the majority of the population, it's not going to happen.

It's about as realistic as asking a paedophile not to have sex with children. It's fantasy-world reasoning. People are sexual creatures, young people are horny and hormonal, and as soon as they get the chance, vows or no, they will do as they please.

Even those who "pledge" abstinence and go through abstience-only ed programmes tend to be the worst offenders of unprotected, unsafe sex.
Ironically, some of the biggest culprits of this doublethink going on about abstinence are in the South and among the most aredent and sexually "puritanical" Christians. Really, the pledges are all for show. They are entirely meaningless in the real world except for the devout few.

Abstinence is like Communism insofar as to some it sounds good, but in reality it fails to deliver. Clicking our heels together and wishing this weren't true won't help anything. A better solution is simply to teach superior styles of sexual education, not predicating the class upon the assumption that human nature will magically turn into something it's not--at least not without hefty punishment/rewards schemes.

Frankly, it's superior to give out condoms, teach proper usage (and make sex class interesting enough to get their attention) and relate ways to be safer doing what everyone already knows they are going to do anyway than it is to babble on about "don't do it." Teens don't give two shits about what you think they ought to do and not do. They'll probably do it just to piss you off.


In Africa, as well as in the United States, abstience-only education combined with miseducation and actual lies to kids and adults has indeed increased the cases of dysfunctional sexual relationships and disease/harm/cost. It has been largely responsible for increases in AIDS transmissions in Africa, but not the only reason. (Christians were fond of lying to Africans, telling them that AIDS is transferred by condoms, so they shouldn't have sex). The only result was they ignored condoms, had sex anyway, but this time wore magic amulets. Yea, that worked.


The real problem is Christian Puritanicalism. They care more about sex and "naughty naughty" than they really do about the death and illness. WHat's "immoral" to them is that people take pleasure in sex and want to do it. Impulses and natural aspects of the body are puritanical no-nos--an unfortunate holdover from both the 17th century and the later Victorian Era.

Humorously, this is why America is largely ok with massive violence on TV, but if you show a boobie, they censor. Oh noes!

[Labrocca]

I blame all the hormones in cows that make our kids have puberty at age 10. Already my 10 year old is in puberty..wtf is that all about? I didn't hit puberty till I was 13-14.

Abstinence should be taught at the home the same as sex education. I don't think it should be a school subject.

[Technocrat]

I blame all the hormones in cows that make our kids have puberty at age 10. Already my 10 year old is in puberty..wtf is that all about? I didn't hit puberty till I was 13-14.

Abstinence should be taught at the home the same as sex education. I don't think it should be a school subject.


Well, Ideally, I wish they could teach it at home, but I really don't think most parents are competent enough to do it, nor are they educated enough. This is especially true in homes of negligent or unintersted parents.

Kids who grow up in fundamentalist or heavily Christian homes are also at a higher risk for diseases, since they would get no proper education in sexuality at home. Most Christians of that caliber try to enforce sexual mores that are harmful on their children--that is, they seclude them, shame them, and cause mental anguish.

Children need to know about safe sex, and parents just aren't that reliable from what I have seen in statistics and experience.

[BoogyMan]

Well, Ideally, I wish they could teach it at home, but I really don't think most parents are competent enough to do it, nor are they educated enough. This is especially true in homes of negligent or unintersted parents.

Oh yeah, it takes a village to screw up a kid. Parents are the people who SHOULD be teaching their children.

Kids who grow up in fundamentalist or heavily Christian homes are also at a higher risk for diseases, since they would get no proper education in sexuality at home. Most Christians of that caliber try to enforce sexual mores that are harmful on their children--that is, they seclude them, shame them, and cause mental anguish.

What exactly IS a proper education in "sexuality," and why is that proper education more proper than teaching your children based on faith to do what is right?

Children need to know about safe sex, and parents just aren't that reliable from what I have seen in statistics and experience.


Children need to be allowed to be just that, children. If we cared more about the innocence of our children a great deal of the social ills would be dealt with in the balance.

[Alonzo]

What exactly IS a proper education in "sexuality," and why is that proper education more proper than teaching your children based on faith to do what is right?

Because this is a public health issue. The spread of AIDS and other std's threaten everyone. Oppennes about sexuality has worked. One of the most succesful countries in terms of teen pregnancy and std transmission is Sweden, they even publish a magazine teaching teens about safe sex.

Children need to be allowed to be just that, children. If we cared more about the innocence of our children a great deal of the social ills would be dealt with in the balance.

Remember folks, ignorance is the answer to societies ills.

[BoogyMan]

What exactly IS a proper education in "sexuality," and why is that proper education more proper than teaching your children based on faith to do what is right?

Because this is a public health issue. The spread of AIDS and other std's threaten everyone. Oppennes about sexuality has worked. One of the most succesful countries in terms of teen pregnancy and std transmission is Sweden, they even publish a magazine teaching teens about safe sex.

Children need to be allowed to be just that, children. If we cared more about the innocence of our children a great deal of the social ills would be dealt with in the balance.

Remember folks, ignorance is the answer to societies ills.Â*Â*



So, innocence is equal to ignorance? I certainly hope you are not in a position to affect the thought process of a child anywhere.

[dsanthony]

Tech wrote: "Well, Ideally, I wish they could teach it at home, but I really don't think most parents are competent enough to do it, nor are they educated enough."

Here we see the real thoughts of "liberals" on the working class. As I've said, they are the natural enemies of the working class, and given the chance would soon impose their Stalin-like views by force.

[Alonzo]

So, innocence is equal to ignorance?Â*Â*I certainly hope you are not in a position to affect the thought process of a child anywhere.


When you claim innocence is only maintained by keeping from them potentially life saving information, then yes. A 14 or 15 year old has recieves no benefit from being denied sex ed.

[BoogyMan]

So, innocence is equal to ignorance?Â*Â*I certainly hope you are not in a position to affect the thought process of a child anywhere.


When you claim innocence is only maintained by keeping from them potentially life saving information, then yes. A 14 or 15 year old has recieves no benefit from being denied sex ed.



Nobody has denied anyone any kind of education here Alonzo, what I am arguing for if you will actually READ my previous posts is for the PARENTS to be the ones doing the education.

Letting the parents educate their children, by your definition, would be ignorance? That is pretty arrogant.

[Hendrik]

What exactly IS a proper education in "sexuality," and why is that proper education more proper than teaching your children based on faith to do what is right?


Sex is a natural way to express Your love to another person.
Children should be allowed to love. Even religions tell us to love.
Therefore a proper sex education would be information about STDs, how babies are made and what methods are proper to avoid STDs and babies.
These methods are no sex or a condom (other methods don't prevent STDs)
Both methods must be told, so everyone can decide for him/herself.

If parents don't want to give their kids this information for some reason, schools must take action.

Putting Your childrens health at risk due to religious beliefs is a crime in my opinion (and should be punished with no less than 10 years of prison ;) ).

Hendrik

[Labrocca]

Kids who grow up in fundamentalist or heavily Christian homes are also at a higher risk for diseases, since they would get no proper education in sexuality at home.

I disagree 100% on this statement. Those kids growing up in Fundamentalist and heavily Christian homes are LESS likely to get diseases simply because they are not promiscuous sexually. They are more than likely to be abstinent which is the foolproof protection for STD's.

Sex education shouldn't be in the schools. I was given sex education and I know it only confused me and inspired more thoughts on sex than ever before. We fear that which we do not know. When you teach a kid about sex...they don't fear it and will instead pursue it. They have been "taught" how to have proper sex now.

[Cobra]

When you teach a kid about sex...they don't fear it and will instead pursue it.Â*Â*They have been "taught" how to have proper sex now.
I don't believe that at all, sex is everywhere and kids will know/think about it with or without sex ed, just watch regular cable or listen to the radio. All it odes is tell them how to protect themselves or with abstinence only programs lie to them about how condoms and birth control don't work. Kids in this day and age know and don’t fear sex after around 11. Ignorance is never better, it just leads to stupid things.

[Alonzo]

Nobody has denied anyone any kind of education here Alonzo, what I am arguing for if you will actually READ my previous posts is for the PARENTS to be the ones doing the education.

I didn't say you said otherwise.

Letting the parents educate their children, by your definition, would be ignorance?Â*Â*That is pretty arrogant.


Do you think parents should have to sign off on every part of a school curriculum? We teach english, science, math etc. in schools because the purpose is to prepare children for their future and those subjects are essential. So isn't learning about safe sex.

If they want a moral exception then fine (though I have to wonder why it's so easy to get moral exceptions for these things, but a kid morally opposed to cutting up a pig or killing a frog often has to fail or go against their morals), but to simply keep it out of schools, or make it something you need to opt into (instead of opt out) is dangerous.

It's a public health issue, every one of us is put at risk if kids aren't protecting themselves and preventing STD's from spreading. We already teach kids about drugs to protect them, this is similar. Except, in this case, there's much more of a risk to others if they screw up.

The only way to ensure that our country is never ravaged by the likes of AID's, like occurs in some other countries, is to ensure our population is educated about safe sex. If the parents want to write a letter requesting an exemption then fine, but you don't play with lives over such things and simply not teach it.

Schools don't need permission to teach shakespeare, prime numbers or geography. This should be no different.

[Labrocca]

I don't believe that at all, sex is everywhere and kids will know/think about it with or without sex ed, just watch regular cable or listen to the radio.


And again..this is where parenting comes in. I seriously doubt in homes with Fundamentalist Christians that they allow their kids to watch MTV. Heck...I don't allow my kids to watch TV. It's Nickalodeon, Cartoon Network, or Disney and that's it for them. I don't buy my kids any music either. And their internet is filtered and they aren't allowed email yet or IM software.

It's called parenting! Something that's turning to crap with every passing decade.

[Alonzo]

I don't know about fundamentalist homes themselves, but the bible belt is worse for teen pregnancy than more liberal states like those in New England.

Sex education shouldn't be in the schools. I was given sex education and I know it only confused me and inspired more thoughts on sex than ever before. We fear that which we do not know. When you teach a kid about sex...they don't fear it and will instead pursue it. They have been "taught" how to have proper sex now.

Abstinence only education delays sex by about 18 months, but when they do engage in sex they are less likely to use protection. And, when comparing the u.s. to the rest of the western world, which has much more sex education, we have higher teen pregnancy rates, std transmission etc.

Both comprehensive sex ed and abstinence have been proven to delay the onset of sexual activity, and reduce the amount of sexual partners. But abstinence only programs have much higher rates of unprotected sex, negating the point of such programs.

[lily]

alonzomourning23



If they want a moral exception then fine (though I have to wonder why it's so easy to get moral exceptions for these things, but a kid morally opposed to cutting up a pig or killing a frog often has to fail or go against their morals), but to simply keep it out of schools, or make it something you need to opt into (instead of opt out) is dangerous.

You beat me to it Alonzo. Other than what is being taught in Science or Biology, any other sex education classes are electorates. If a parent doesn't want their child to know any more, they don't have to take the classes. Also if things haven't changed that much, in the lower grades, aren't permission slips still sent home?

Labrocca

Sex education shouldn't be in the schools. I was given sex education and I know it only confused me and inspired more thoughts on sex than ever before. We fear that which we do not know. When you teach a kid about sex...they don't fear it and will instead pursue it. They have been "taught" how to have proper sex now.

This confuses me. You first say that you were given sex education in school and it confused you.......this either tells me that you couldn't ask your parents the questions you had, or the didn't discuss it with you to begin with. Either way, it sounds (to me anyway) that they were either too embarrassed to talk to you about it, or you were afraid to ask the questions you needed answers for.

And again..this is where parenting comes in. I seriously doubt in homes with Fundamentalist Christians that they allow their kids to watch MTV. Heck...I don't allow my kids to watch TV. It's Nickalodeon, Cartoon Network, or Disney and that's it for them. I don't buy my kids any music either. And their internet is filtered and they aren't allowed email yet or IM software.



Yes it is.......and I can tell you seeing two generations grow up......you can't control their every move. You'd be surprised what they do when they are out of your eyesight. Think back on when you were a kid.

It's called parenting! Something that's turning to crap with every passing decade.

Well...we agree on something!

[Labrocca]

This confuses me. You first say that you were given sex education in school and it confused you.......this either tells me that you couldn't ask your parents the questions you had, or the didn't discuss it with you to begin with. Either way, it sounds (to me anyway) that they were either too embarrassed to talk to you about it, or you were afraid to ask the questions you needed answers for.

And at 14 what would I need to know about sex? My dad had plenty of chats with me later on. I think I was 16 at the time...I had some questions for him one day.

[Alonzo]

And at 14 what would I need to know about sex?Â*Â*My dad had plenty of chats with me later on.Â*Â*I think I was 16 at the time...I had some questions for him one day.Â*Â*



Almost one in five U.S. teens has sexual intercourse by their 15th birthday, says a report released today on this little-studied seg-ment of the population. This results in about 20,000 pregnancies and 8,000 births a year among middle-school-age children.....

About 4 percent of 12-year-olds have had sex. This increases to 10 percent for age 13 and 19 percent for age 14.

•Boys are more likely than girls to have sex at an early age: At age 12, about 7 percent of boys have had sex; this rises to about 21 percent by age 14.

One survey, for instance, found that only 30 percent of parents with sexually active 14-year-olds believed their children were sexually active. In another survey, a third of 12-year-olds said they had attended parties where no adults were present....

More than 80 percent of young teens said they had learned about sexual health from their parents. Other sources were sex education classes, the mass media, friends and doctors.

But more than half of young teens said they wanted more information, especially on preventing and recognizing STDs, birth control, dealing with sexual pressure and talking about these subjects with a doctor.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/about/announcements/news/pdf/washtimes5_20_03.pdf


Personally, I'm suprised that you were asking these questions when you were 16. My father tried having the talk when I was 12. It didn't go very well and we never actually had it though. He just asked me a few questions about what I knew, I answered them to his satisfaction, and that was it.

[Cobra]

I don't and have never talked about sex with my parents, just not a subject we touch on. I'm not a virgin and haven’t been for a while but I've never felt I've lacked info. There are plenty of ways to get it without sex ed or parents to teaching it.

[BoogyMan]

What exactly IS a proper education in "sexuality,"Â*Â*and why is that proper education more proper than teaching your children based on faith to do what is right?


Sex is a natural way to express Your love to another person.
Children should be allowed to love. Even religions tell us to love.
Therefore a proper sex education would be information about STDs, how babies are made and what methods are proper to avoid STDs and babies.
These methods are no sex or a condom (other methods don't prevent STDs)
Both methods must be told, so everyone can decide for him/herself.

If parents don't want to give their kids this information for some reason, schools must take action.

Putting Your childrens health at risk due to religious beliefs is a crime in my opinion (and should be punished with no less than 10 years of prison ;) ).

Hendrik


Hedrik,

You don't seem to understand the differences in the greek words translated as love in the english New Testament.

Go look into the word phileo and rethink your ideas about love as prescribed by religion.

[lily]

This confuses me. You first say that you were given sex education in school and it confused you.......this either tells me that you couldn't ask your parents the questions you had, or the didn't discuss it with you to begin with. Either way, it sounds (to me anyway) that they were either too embarrassed to talk to you about it, or you were afraid to ask the questions you needed answers for.

And at 14 what would I need to know about sex?Â*Â*My dad had plenty of chats with me later on.Â*Â*I think I was 16 at the time...I had some questions for him one day.Â*Â*


I must be mis-understanding. You said you were confused when given sex education in school. Obviously you had questions to ask.

Cobra wrote

I don't and have never talked about sex with my parents, just not a subject we touch on. I'm not a virgin and haven’t been for a while but I've never felt I've lacked info. There are plenty of ways to get it without sex ed or parents to teaching it.

.......and I'm curious as to how much was the truth?

[BoogyMan]

Nobody has denied anyone any kind of education here Alonzo, what I am arguing for if you will actually READ my previous posts is for the PARENTS to be the ones doing the education.

I didn't say you said otherwise.

Letting the parents educate their children, by your definition, would be ignorance?Â*Â*That is pretty arrogant.


Do you think parents should have to sign off on every part of a school curriculum? We teach english, science, math etc. in schools because the purpose is to prepare children for their future and those subjects are essential. So isn't learning about safe sex.

If they want a moral exception then fine (though I have to wonder why it's so easy to get moral exceptions for these things, but a kid morally opposed to cutting up a pig or killing a frog often has to fail or go against their morals), but to simply keep it out of schools, or make it something you need to opt into (instead of opt out) is dangerous.

It's a public health issue, every one of us is put at risk if kids aren't protecting themselves and preventing STD's from spreading. We already teach kids about drugs to protect them, this is similar. Except, in this case, there's much more of a risk to others if they screw up.

The only way to ensure that our country is never ravaged by the likes of AID's, like occurs in some other countries, is to ensure our population is educated about safe sex. If the parents want to write a letter requesting an exemption then fine, but you don't play with lives over such things and simply not teach it.

Schools don't need permission to teach shakespeare, prime numbers or geography. This should be no different.



Alonzo, go back and re-read your post and you should be able to see where I could get the idea that you DID try to paint it that way.

You whole premise seems to be that man is incapable of practicing self control. I have to completely disagree with you.

[Alonzo]

You whole premise seems to be that man is incapable of practicing self control. I have to completely disagree with you.

Ok, show me why I should believe that humans, as a whole, can abstain from sex outside of marriage? What makes you believe you can get the vast majority of society to adopt such behavior?

There's plenty of evidence throughout the world showing why they can't, but what evidence that they can?

[BoogyMan]

You whole premise seems to be that man is incapable of practicing self control. I have to completely disagree with you.

Ok, show me why I should believe that humans, as a whole, can abstain from sex outside of marriage? What makes you believe you can get the vast majority of society to adopt such behavior?

There's plenty of evidence throughout the world showing why they can't, but what evidence that they can?


The issue in not one of can't abstain, it is one of won't abstain. Your point is moot.

[Alonzo]

The issue in not one of can't abstain, it is one of won't abstain.Â*Â*Your point is moot.


Of course, I mean reality has no place in public policy. Correct?

You can teach abstinence only all you want, but people will still have sex. You won't change that, though its not for lack of effort. The fact that abstinence only is a solution and theoretically possible is meaningless when faced with the reality of human sexuality.

Solutions that work in theory are useless unless they work in practice. In a way this has similarities to dieting. Low carb diets aren't so succesful because they work better, but because people are more likely to stick with them. If people dont go along with it, no matter how beneficial something is in theory, it's a failure.

[Technocrat]

Oh yeah, it takes a village to screw up a kid. Parents are the people who SHOULD be teaching their children.

But they aren't and don't. In fact, it would be dangerous to assume they could and do.

Many parents don't deserve to have that responsibility. It's dangerous for the health of the child. What they shoulda woulda coulda is irrelevant.



What exactly IS a proper [science] education [...] and why is that proper education more proper than teaching your children based on faith [...]

Same stupid argument, differnt content.

Because teaching based on faith is stupid. That should be obvious. Faith is anti-reason. There is zero objective evidence that it works, and significant evidence there is that it doesn't work. It's rather that simple.

There are ample examples of the "education" of faith based abstinence doing all of jack shit. In fact, it actually backfires most of the time.

Proper education makes valid assumptions about human nature. Faith based abstinence assumes faulty premises, much like Communism. As people are not selfless and altruistic most of the time, people are also not usually of high intelligence, pragmatic, or responsible.

Pretending that hormone filled teens will give a shit about abstaining is horsepockey fantasy, much like noah's little ark myth. Proper education is that which assumes they will do it (and they do 99% of the time, regardless of whether they pledge not to), and then teach them how to do it properly, safely, and give them the means to do it safely if they so choose.



Children need to be allowed to be just that, children. If we cared more about the innocence of our children a great deal of the social ills would be dealt with in the balance.


No. Children need to know safe sex. Needing to be children is a non-answer. It's sticking your head in the sand and going "la la lalala lalala."

Ignorance isn't bliss. Sorry to break it to ya. Ignorance breeds more stupidity and kills.

[Technocrat]

I disagree 100% on this statement. Those kids growing up in Fundamentalist and heavily Christian homes are LESS likely to get diseases simply because they are not promiscuous sexually. They are more than likely to be abstinent which is the foolproof protection for STD's.

Sex education shouldn't be in the schools. I was given sex education and I know it only confused me and inspired more thoughts on sex than ever before. We fear that which we do not know. When you teach a kid about sex...they don't fear it and will instead pursue it. They have been "taught" how to have proper sex now.

I respect the disagreement, but it's simply a true, but unintuitive fact. It's highly ironic that fundies in the deep south--heavily christian types--often DO have promiscuous sex. That they live in regions where abstinence dominates, they have no real knowledge of how to have sex safely.

That's a bad cominbation and has devastating results with high teen pregnancy rates and equally high STD capture rates.

I will give some stats on this, actually, saturday or tomorrow from the Journal of Religon and Society.

Giving you inspired thoughts about sex isn't bad. It's neutral. As long as you have safe sex, it shouldn't matter if you have sex. Sex isn't immoral. The problem, as I have stated earlier, is the puritanical mindset that the body is bad and abstaining is good. It's not. Misuse and carelessness are bad.

Sex isn't. You shouldn't fear sex. Fear is a problem, and it's used by Fundamentalists to psychologically traumatize teens while adding to their sexual repression.

[BoogyMan]

But they aren't and don't. In fact, it would be dangerous to assume they could and do.

Many parents don't deserve to have that responsibility. It's dangerous for the health of the child. What they shoulda woulda coulda is irrelevant.


Wrong, just plain wrong and arrogant to think that parents dont *DESERVE* the responsibility to teach their children.

Same stupid argument, differnt content.

Because teaching based on faith is stupid. That should be obvious. Faith is anti-reason. There is zero objective evidence that it works, and significant evidence there is that it doesn't work. It's rather that simple.

There are ample examples of the "education" of faith based abstinence doing all of jack shit. In fact, it actually backfires most of the time.

Proper education makes valid assumptions about human nature. Faith based abstinence assumes faulty premises, much like Communism. As people are not selfless and altruistic most of the time, people are also not usually of high intelligence, pragmatic, or responsible.

Pretending that hormone filled teens will give a shit about abstaining is horsepockey fantasy, much like noah's little ark myth. Proper education is that which assumes they will do it (and they do 99% of the time, regardless of whether they pledge not to), and then teach them how to do it properly, safely, and give them the means to do it safely if they so choose.

Look around, all of your proper sexuality education is working so well that the problem of STD's and teen pregnancy isnt an issue anymore is it? Egads, hang up that failed ideology.

No. Children need to know safe sex. Needing to be children is a non-answer. It's sticking your head in the sand and going "la la lalala lalala."

Ignorance isn't bliss. Sorry to break it to ya. Ignorance breeds more stupidity and kills.


No, children need to be allowed to be children and not perved up by some school sponsored how to have sex class!

[Churchel]

I browsed throught this thread and can confirm that I had sex with 6 virgins in my life, and 3 of those grew up in fundamentalist households.

Abstinence works until they are 18 and are up for a smooth talking good looking screw, then out goes that...

[Labrocca]

Yeah...18 is a lot better than 14 though. I had my share of virgins too and none of them were Fundamentalist Christians. I guess I just wasn't as lucky as you Noah. :-)

[Alonzo]

Look around, all of your proper sexuality education is working so well that the problem of STD's and teen pregnancy isnt an issue anymore is it? Egads, hang up that failed ideology.

The whole point is to reduce these things, not get rid of them. Comprehensive sex ed has done that in many countries, including the u.s. Abstinence only has been done in the u.s. and in many countries without achieving similar results.

That's the difference, comprehensive sex ed realizes that things aren't perfect.

No, children need to be allowed to be children and not perved up by some school sponsored how to have sex class!

Ummm...... do you even know what you're talking about? It sounds like you think they're teaching the Kama Sutra.

[BoogyMan]

The whole point is to reduce these things, not get rid of them. Comprehensive sex ed has done that in many countries, including the u.s. Abstinence only has been done in the u.s. and in many countries without achieving similar results.

That's the difference, comprehensive sex ed realizes that things aren't perfect.

Ummm...... do you even know what you're talking about? It sounds like you think they're teaching the Kama Sutra.


Alonzo, this discussion has become convoluted in that your logic has ranged from sex ed being the do all to be all to end these kinds of problems to your recent insistence that it doesnt fix the problem, rather it simply patches it. I, as a parent, don't want anyone teaching my children what I should be teaching them and creating a model of morality that is not what I want to pass on to them. That is my right as a parent and no amount of liberal moral relativism is going to change it. Dissenters in this thread have been called stupid for their beliefs and it has been suggested that parents don't have the ability to teach their children and other "it takes a village" type mental crap. I will hold to the abstinance teaching as when a parent does his job and doesn't depend upon the government or an outside entity to raise his or her children they are quite capable of learning and utilizing self control.

[Technocrat]

Wrong, just plain wrong and arrogant to think that parents dont *DESERVE* the responsibility to teach their children.

Incorrect, but good attempt. It's "wrong" to assume they do when they often do not. They don't have the specialized education, the resources, or the time.

Judging by the fact that many of the children who come from abstinence-only households, the results are not acceptable. They do not in fact have the required resources mental or fiscal to teach appropriately. That's what teachers who are specialized in a field are for.



Look around, all of your proper sexuality education is working so well that the problem of STD's and teen pregnancy isnt an issue anymore is it? Egads, hang up that failed ideology.

Your argument fails on two grounds.

1. It assumes that the education that's proper is failing.
2. It assumes a bifurcation. Either it works 100% or not at all, thus shouldn't be used at all.

On the first incorrect premise, i it's not the "proper education" that is causing STD"s and teen pregnancy still to be a problem. Abstience education is a major part of the current curriculum, and this is especially the case in the South. Ironically, the SOuth and the highly religious sections of the country opposed to proper sexual eduaction have the most problems with STD's and teen pregnancy.

The latter is self-evident. Even though sexual education is already not working appropriately due to the abstinence focus, where it is taught effecitvely, it does work. It need not work 100% to be useful. The programmes have utility. It's not a case of 100% or not at all. Your logic is thus flawed.


No, children need to be allowed to be children and not perved up by some school sponsored how to have sex class!


Your argument here fails as well. You aren't good at this critical thinking thing are you? Were you raised in a religious household? That would explain it.

1. They aren't being "perved up." Of course, you have no evidence to back up this absurd, sophistic remark.

2. No, children need to be educated in safe sex, since it minimizes unnecessary suffering and saves lives. Your way is moronic and an appeal to whatever emotional trauma you imagine to exist by teaching people how to use condoms and things which save lives. As someone mentioned above, quite validly, you are under the false impression that people are being taught sexual positions and ways to increase sexual pleasure or something.

In your religiously fundamentalist mind, saving lives and preventing suffering is insignificant compared to "faith teaching." Reality check. Faith doesn't work, as I said and will prove tomorrow. Proper education has valid, objectively veriable success rates. I can clearly see your religious fundamentalism, since you adhere to the core puritanical principles of sex=bad and mentioning any of it, regardless of the context, pervs them up.

I will hold to the abstinance teaching as when a parent does his job and doesn't depend upon the government or an outside entity to raise his or her children they are quite capable o

In other words, when he has no objective evidence for his claims (as was proven in many other threads where he only gives an unsubstantiated opinion), he plugs his ears and goes "la la la la la it works it works! lalala!" and leaps behind his Wall of Ignorance.

Such belief in abstinence and blind faith is unwarrented and imbecilic, but you have such a rudimentary comprehension of human motivation, desires, and natural behavior, so I am not suprised you are ill equipped to have this discussion.

Audience note:

Most often, when dealing with religious fundamentalists, personal anecdotes and repetitive debate style (without evidence and in fact contrary to evidence) is typically the norm. Concrete evidence is insignificant compared to the power of the force--oops, I mean faith.

Enough with the faith based nonsense. Evidence and studies show that this line of reasoning (he uses--faith works---) entirely fails. 99% of the time, faith pledges of abstinence do not work. Children do not listen to their parents, and they have sex anyway, and since they have no real knowledge of safe sex, STD's and pregnancy is a problem.

Abstinence has been tried and it fails miserably. It actually causes more harm than good.

[BoogyMan]

Incorrect, but good attempt. It's "wrong" to assume they do when they often do not. They don't have the specialized education, the resources, or the time.

Judging by the fact that many of the children who come from abstinence-only households, the results are not acceptable. They do not in fact have the required resources mental or fiscal to teach appropriately. That's what teachers who are specialized in a field are for.

Complete sentences would be nice techno, but I will answer the broken mess you posted.Â*Â*YOU don't get to tell me what I can teach my children and I, being free and American can and will debate what should and should not be taught to my children based on my beliefs and upbringing.

I find it doubly amazing that you denegrate the intelligence of all parents who base their lives on faith, that kind of arrogance does nothing for the debate.

For those who WONT teach their children, have at them.Â*Â*Don't come near mine.


On the first incorrect premise, i it's not the "proper education" that is causing STD"s and teen pregnancy still to be a problem. Abstience education is a major part of the current curriculum, and this is especially the case in the South.Â*Â*Ironically, the SOuth and the highly religious sections of the country opposed to proper sexual eduaction have the most problems with STD's and teen pregnancy.

The latter is self-evident. Even though sexual education is already not working appropriately due to the abstinence focus, where it is taught effecitvely, it does work. It need not work 100% to be useful. The programmes have utility. It's not a case of 100% or not at all. Your logic is thus flawed.

You are missing the whole point that I am trying to make and your arrogance so blinds you that you jump to these poorly thought out conclusions based on a perceived stereotype you have in your mind of what a "fundamentalist" is.

I am simply trying to point out that those who say that abstinance does not work are those who have no inclination to give it a try.Â*Â*I am in the South and there is no abstinance based curriculum being taught where I grew up and hasn't been for the last 40 years.Â*Â*

Your latter point is NOT self evident as you obviously don't get the sarcasm behind the jab at Zo's all or nothing type commentary.Â*Â*If you don't understand something you might want to leave it alone.

Your argument here fails as well. You aren't good at this critical thinking thing are you? Were you raised in a religious household? That would explain it.

If critical thinking is demanding to be viewed as an out of control animal with no self control or self determination, you might be right.Â*Â*Otherwise, no you are completely and eggregiously wrong.Â*Â*I love it when someone like yourself who so despises those who live by faith that they make ridiculous remarks like the "were you raised in a religious household" comment.Â*Â*The sophistry in your commentary and the bigoted attitude towards religious individuals is a very revealing indicator of your character.

1. They aren't being "perved up." Of course, you have no evidence to back up this absurd, sophistic remark.

2. No, children need to be educated in safe sex, since it minimizes unnecessary suffering and saves lives. Your way is moronic and an appeal to whatever emotional trauma you imagine to exist by teaching people how to use condoms and things which save lives. As someone mentioned above, quite validly, you are under the false impression that people are being taught sexual positions and ways to increase sexual pleasure or something.

Moronic?Â*Â*Back to the ad-hominem approach to debate I see.Â*Â*You imagine yourself to be such a mental warrior, a true champion of progressive ideologies and this is all you can come up with?Â*Â*Moronic?

Techno, sarcasm is truly wasted on you as your assumptions about me completely occlude your ability to read and to do so with an honest debaters mentality.Â*Â*

In your religiously fundamentalist mind, saving lives and preventing suffering is insignificant compared to "faith teaching." Reality check. Faith doesn't work, as I said and will prove tomorrow. Proper education has valid, objectively veriable success rates. I can clearly see your religious fundamentalism, since you adhere to the core puritanical principles of sex=bad and mentioning any of it, regardless of the context, pervs them up.

Yet again your assumptions deny you access to the ability to reason and listen.Â*Â*Your hatred for those who have faith makes you little more than a distraction to the real argument and the FACT that those who deny abstinance truly ARE those who never intended to give it a chance.

In other words, when he has no objective evidence for his claims (as was proven in many other threads where he only gives an unsubstantiated opinion), he plugs his ears and goes "la la la la la it works it works! lalala!" and leaps behind hisÂ*Â*Wall of Ignorance.

Such belief in abstinence and blind faith is unwarrented and imbecilic, but you have such a rudimentary comprehension of human motivation, desires, and natural behavior, so I am not suprised you are ill equipped to have this discussion.

Technocrat, you hold yourself in such high regard it makes me laugh out loud.Â*Â*If you wish to join the animal kingdom, fine, do so.Â*Â*I will not wallow in the mud with you nor will I allow your ilk to twist the nature of man as it is presented to my children into a dark and ugly mess of uncontrollable lust.Â*Â*The difference in our approaches is that you don't have nor will you tolerate those who do have self control.Â*Â*I have self control and a respect for myself and what God has given me to do with my life.Â*Â*Ill equipped, I think not.


Audience note:

Most often, when dealing with religious fundamentalists, personal anecdotes and repetitive debate style (without evidence and in fact contrary to evidence) is typically the norm. Concrete evidence is insignificant compared to the power of the force--oops, I mean faith.

Enough with the faith based nonsense. Evidence and studies show that this line of reasoning (he uses--faith works---) entirely fails. 99% of the time, faith pledges of abstinence do not work. Children do not listen to their parents, and they have sex anyway, and since they have no real knowledge of safe sex, STD's and pregnancy is a problem.

Abstinence has been tried and it fails miserably. It actually causes more harm than good.


This last bit was extremely entertaining and the hatred you have for those of faith is quite well evidenced in it.Â*Â*The abject defeatism of your commentary in this diatribe is distressing and makes me wonder what happened in your life that you have such a disrespect for parenting and for proper child rearing?Â*Â*Abstinance HASN'T been truly tried, but it would be nice if it was given the chance that you seem to want to make people think it has been.

What audience man, egads......

[Alonzo]

Alonzo, this discussion has become convoluted in that your logic has ranged from sex ed being the do all to be all to end these kinds of problems to your recent insistence that it doesnt fix the problem, rather it simply patches it.

I never suggested that it "fixes" the problem, anyone who suggests that either one will do that needs their brain checked. But it does a much better job at limiting it than abstinence only.
Â*
I, as a parent, don't want anyone teaching my children what I should be teaching them and creating a model of morality that is not what I want to pass on to them.

That abstinence is the best way but, if not, then use a condom, that is something you oppose? That's what comprehensive sex ed teaches. Does your morality state "if you fail to maintain abstinence then don't use a condom"?

Dissenters in this thread have been called stupid for their beliefs

Dissenters have been attacked on the argument that comprehensive sex ed makes people want to have sex more and than abstinence only works in the real world better than comprehensive sex ed. Both claims have no support.

and it has been suggested that parents don't have the ability to teach their children

Parents don't have the ability to make their children mimic their beliefs, otherwise teenage sex and drug use would be much lower. And, while they can play a large influence, policy must be designed with everyone in mind. Good parents, bad parents, liberal and conservative parents.

I will hold to the abstinance teaching as when a parent does his job and doesn't depend upon the government or an outside entity to raise his or her children they are quite capable of learning and utilizing self control.


People are capable of it, but will they do it? The majority don't leave high schools virgins, and very few make it to marriage. And you can't rely on the ideal situation when making policy that affects millions.

[Technocrat]

This last bit was extremely entertaining and the hatred you have for those of faith is quite well evidenced in it. The abject defeatism of your commentary in this diatribe is distressing and makes me wonder what happened in your life that you have such a disrespect for parenting and for proper child rearing? Abstinance HASN'T been truly tried, but it would be nice if it was given the chance that you seem to want to make people think it has been.

What audience man, egads......

It is entertaining; I find everything about faith conversations fun, because I know there's no way to deal with the material seriously.

As for faith, I don't mean to be "nasty" to you, but it's quite truely hilarious. I can't PC it any more than that. There's nothing rational about faith. That's not a slur against your religion in particular, that's not an insult. That's just a basic fact of reality.

I actively disdain it and what it leads to. It's quite like a virus that infects the members of society. In fact, it's a memetic virus. More on this I will discuss later.

And yes, Abstinence has been tried and failed. Don't worry, I'll show you tomorrow. Indeed, everywhere it's taught and tried, both in school and in the home, it has horrible results. INcreased STD's and increased rates of teen pregnancy. I don't buy the no true scotsman argument, (IE, that's not TRUE abstienence). Yes it is.

Unless you mean people don't actually abstain from sex, no, that hasn't been tried, and precisely why for the reasons I said. It's stupid and unrealistic.

It's vastly more rational AND effective to give people free condoms and condom/contraceptive education, teach them how to use them, encourage the use of safe sex, and explain what to do and how so that they minimize mistakes that are going to happen when they decide to have sex regardless of whether or not you ask them in the name of Jesus or whatever fictional God pleases you most, not to do so.


Ironically, as I will show tomorrow, in Africa, Good Christians(TM) are largely responsible for increasing the spread of AIDS due to their abstinence only education tactics and outright lies about condoms. Christians don't care about lives. THey care about saving souls, which is why they focus on the mores of sex as per their religion. On another note, this is the same argument one may use against Mother Teresa, the fake savior who spent money to save peole's souls rather than their lives. Faith is the realm into which people go when they don't want to deal with reality. It's sickening.

[Alonzo]

I give it a few days before technocrats comments on faith are taken as my personal beliefs on faith by some board members. After all, all us liberals think alive, don't we?

[Technocrat]

I give it a few days before technocrats comments on faith are taken as my personal beliefs on faith by some board members. After all, all us liberals think alive, don't we?


I am not a Liberal. What gave you the idea I was? I am far from it.

[Alonzo]

If I think you're liberal then definately conservatives will.

Your info says independent, but how do you describe yourself?

[Technocrat]

If I think you're liberal then definately conservatives will.

Your info says independent, but how do you describe yourself?


I am a Utilitarian Technocrat

[BoogyMan]

Ironically, as I will show tomorrow, in Africa, Good Christians(TM) are largely responsible for increasing the spread of AIDS due to their abstinence only education tactics and outright lies about condoms. Christians don't care about lives.Â*Â*THey care about saving souls, which is why they focus on the mores of sex as per their religion. On another note, this is the same argument one may use against Mother Teresa, the fake savior who spent money to save peole's souls rather than their lives. Faith is the realm into which people go when they don't want to deal with reality. It's sickening.


Egads Techno, this is akin to poking someone in the eye with a stick and saying "I didn't mean to hurt you" while you go after the other eye.

Who even brought up "mother Teresa?" Gads, didn't I mention the arrogant supposition previously? You don't know one 10th of what you assume to know about me or what I believe.

You ranted previously about logical fallacy? My goodness man what do you think you have been doing with this creation of a false truth in your mind to which you ascribe all kinds of horrible things and then hold that up as proof? You truly are the KING of logical fallacy.

Your hatred and arrogance towards, well, just about everyone is what is truly sickening.

I think I am done with you after your last diatribe. You do mean to be nasty, you do mean to be hateful, and you do mean to try and anger rather than educate.

[BoogyMan]

I give it a few days before technocrats comments on faith are taken as my personal beliefs on faith by some board members. After all, all us liberals think alive, don't we?


Lonely tonight Zo? Who tried to tar you with Techno's ideas?

[Alonzo]

Lonely tonight Zo?Â*Â*Who tried to tar you with Techno's ideas?


No one, but there's been a lot of "liberals say X, so why are you complaining about Y?", when I never said X (to be fair, it's happened to conservatives too). Ya its expected for people to generalize, and maybe it's because I'm responding to too many of anthony's posts, but that seems to be happening a lot more than normal. I think I'm just starting to expect it.

[Technocrat]

Who even brought up "mother Teresa?" Gads, didn't I mention the arrogant supposition previously? You don't know one 10th of what you assume to know about me or what I believe.

I do believe I brought up M.T. I think that's obvious from my post which contains her name, no?


:rolleyes:


You ranted previously about logical fallacy? My goodness man what do you think you have been doing with this creation of a false truth in your mind to which you ascribe all kinds of horrible things and then hold that up as proof? You truly are the KING of logical fallacy.

I have made no fallacy. There is no creation of a false truth. Everything I have said is true. By all means, show otherwise using actual evidence, not your personal opinion.

On the issue of false-truths, though:

If something is false, it's not a truth. If it's a truth, it's not false. So false-truth is a meaningless platitude. Almost as worthless as tautologies, except the latter are actually true. I'd be interested for you to cite this "false truth" fallacy and show where it lies. Be more specific instead of ranting about hate and other stuff.




Your hatred and arrogance towards, well, just about everyone is what is truly sickening.

I am also not arrogant. I am merely correct.

Also, against whom do I show hate? I am not hateful toward you.

Also, I am also not being mean now. If I truely wanted to be nasty, I would be, but out of respect for the moderators requests, I am showing remarkable civility.

However, if you think my comments about religion are "mean" and "hateful" they are in fact not. I am merely blunt and tell the truth as it is without the luxury of sugarcoating it or using PC language. By all means, point out where something I said is false, and not merely saying it is. Show how, using facts, statistics etc.

This should be sweet =D




I think I am done with you after your last diatribe. You do mean to be nasty, you do mean to be hateful, and you do mean to try and anger rather than educate.


No one is forcing you to read, so what you do is your own problem


My statements about Faith are facts
My statements about Mother Teresea are facts
My statements about AIDS and Abstinence are all facts.

None of the above are disputable. They are 100% fact. I never lied.

Again, I will prove you wrong tomorrow, and I expect a prompt apology, but I doubt you will even believe hard statistics. I don't expect you to switch your ideology overnight to something proper.

If you don't like the sound of the truth, I cannot help you there in all honestly.

We call that a Stylistic Fallacy.

http://experts.about.com/e/s/st/Style_over_substance_fallacy.htm
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm


Don't worry. I will fully support everything I have said in this thread today. Just over a period of two days. I have work to do first tomorrow and I need to move stuff into my dorm.

[BoogyMan]

Techno,

I do believe that i previously said I was done with you. Arrogance, hatred, and feigned civility are truly the hallmarks of an adolescent intellect with which reason is impossible and as such I will waste no more of my valuable time on you.

[firefox]

Damn only 1 for me. That's more info than I really needed to know though. On the other hand, some chicks invited me to be in their 3some one time but I said no.

[Rider]

You all should stop picking on Techno. He has a self image problem, you know. If you don't quit, he'll never come out of his shell.

[Technocrat]

Techno,

I do believe that i previously said I was done with you. Arrogance, hatred, and feigned civility are truly the hallmarks of an adolescent intellect with which reason is impossible and as such I will waste no more of my valuable time on you.




Blah blah blah. Your concession is accepted. You haven't provided any evidence for your claims after myriad times of being asked. You can appeal to your own false intelligence and attack my style all you want.

Then again, I don't expect to convince you, since you don't think you need evidence to prove claims. As you said, scientific and empircal evidence aren't required :rolleyes:

You are being willfully ignorant, and I can only help you if you want to help yourself.

Since I am generous, I will ask one more time. Where is the evidence that Abstinence education works. Show it or concede.

[piratemonkey]

Don't ask them for facts, Technocrat...

That gets in the way of their Dogma and belief in their Leader.

BTW, Conservatives will call anyone who knows more than they know "arrogant."

When they start correcting your grammar, you know you are winning:
Complete sentences would be nice techno, but I will answer the broken mess you posted.

[lily]

The last thing I want to do is pull the scab off, but I think there is still some discussion left in this thread. While I %100 agree that abstinence only is an utter and complete failure. With or without boogyman's willingness to discuss the topic further.....I'd like to see the stats that technorat promised to show......probably for purely selfish reason. I do like reading his posts.:D

[Rider]

Lily wrote- The last thing I want to do is pull the scab off, but I think there is still some discussion left in this thread. While I %100 agree that abstinence only is an utter and complete failure. With or without boogyman's willingness to discuss the topic further.....I'd like to see the stats that technorat promised to show......probably for purely selfish reason. I do like reading his posts.
It seems to me that abstinance only programs are few and far between. I can't imagine that these programs make up even 5% of school programs in the nation. So if abstinance only programs are such a failure, what does that say for sex ed? Now I also do not blame sex ed for the problems of teen pregnancy and transmission of aids and other std's. The cause of these problems can be found in the general moral decline of our society over the last half century or so.

I don't think that the schools really have any business meddling in the private moral affairs of families. The schools are having a hell of a time just teaching kids to read and communicate. Why spend money on any sort of sex ed program? They certainly don't seem to be doing much if any good. Why should we trust them to handle this? Why don't we put this responsibility back onto parents? This will eliminate the whole argument. Let parents teach morality to their children as they see fit.

[lily]

Rider.....I said pages ago, that I think kids should be getting sex ed from both the school and their parents. If the parents object, a simple note will do.

[Technocrat]

Alright, here is one of the souces I promised to display a while ago. I am sorry for the delay, but I have been quite busy with other responsibilties, so I didn't post it earlier.

Tomorrow, as I get time, I will add comentary to this one, but all commentary will be through the edit function. I will bold anything I add so as to notify you of what has been added.


This is the source: The Journal of Religion and Society. No, it's not a secular source, so it's not manipulated by all of those eeeeeeeeeevil atheists. In fact, the Journal is Operated by a Rabbi.

Positive Correlations: Religiosity and Teen Sex (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ybbB1jksJpwJ:moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf+Journal+of+Religion+and+Society%2Bteen+preg nancy&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a/)

Some preliminary facts:

1. "Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with
levels of religiosity"

This essentially means belief in evolutionary science falls as belief in religion increases. In other words, their relationship is like a seasaw. If you put weight on one, the other goes up. Weight on the opposite side causes the other to go down.

2. [T]he United States is the only prosperous [first world] nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular.


As I have mentioned before, the United States is a first world nation unlike many others. Americans are unique among First World citizens insofar as they have an unusually high belief in God, the Creator, or literal biblicalism. I have mentioned that the most prominant theists are found either in the flyover district of the American central-west as well as American South. Essentially, the stronger the religion, the more likely it is you live south of the Mason Dixon, the home of religious Fundamentalism.

3. "Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the firstworld. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-
evolution America performs poorly."

As we can clearly see from the above, the correlation between dysfunction and religosity is strongly positive. On the other hand, there's a strong negative correlation in social dysfunction and increasing adherence to secular humanism and scientism.


The Primary Thesis of the Theist.

"In broad terms the hypothesis that popular religiosity is socially beneficial holds that high rates of belief in a creator, as well as worship, prayer and other aspects of religious practice, correlate with lowering rates of lethal violence, suicide, non-monogamous sexual activity, and abortion, as well as improved physical health. Such faith-based, virtuous “cultures of life� are supposedly attainable if people believe that God created them for a special purpose, and follow the strict moral dictates imposed by religion."

Is it true? No. Observe.


Results of Study

Social Violence in the First World.

1. "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows."

This information is critical, since it shows a general historical trend in the world. Prior to the development of the United States, and even throughout the 19th century, Europe was far more religious. Throughought this religious history, they have had horrendous problems. Their problems only started to decline with the introduction of modern science, humanism, and a decrease in religiosity among the populations.

As they show in the study, the historical trends have reversed themselves. Now, instead of being dysfunctional, the United States is. Ironically, the United Statesis the most theistic of all of the modern First World Nations. By comparison, European nations are vastly more secular, and in correlation, they have vastly fewer problems of STD's, Teen Pregnancy, and Youth Mortality.

Homicide rates have dropped significantly, for example, in secular Europe. ON the other than, the same cannot be said of the United States. Observe the following:


2. "Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000)

As the study indicates, although rates have declined in the United States from earlier peaks, they have not declined nearly to the extent that homocides have in Europe. It is a fact that, in contrast to the predictions of the Theist, religious belief does not correlate to reduced homocide, even in the regions of the United States MOST religious, such as the American South as you will later see.


3. "Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided
somewhat since the 1990s,


[i] This is rather self-evident, and thus requires little commentary. However, it's important to note that the United States is the most gun crazy of the First World. However, it is obvious that the vast quantity of "true believers, fundamentalists, and highly religious citizens" did not, does not, and will not prevent any of these problems. It's simply unrealistic that "faith" will do anything.

Ironically, instead of stemming violence, religions and 'faith based' initiatives are known to create violence. Religion has done that all throughout history. Religions cause more wars and conflicts than perhaps any other possible human motivation. What it ironically seems good at is instigating and motivating people to hurt, kill, and discriminate against others. It seems rather weak when it comes to promoting "wholesome" values, as you will continue to see observe:

4. "The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, ttendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates
on a cross-national basis."


Results of the study show that, among the First World, the United States and its religious sectors rank significantly higher than most secular nations in the quantity of juvenile early mortality. There's a positive correlation between the level of religiosity and youth death. That always gives me a chuckle, but perhaps only because I am positively mean.

Contrary to the claims of Theists, religion does NOT increase life span or make life better. In fact, most nations that are highly religious tend to be the most dysfunctional in terms of life quality. In the United States, for example, life span is positively, and horrifically tied to the level of religiosity.

Obviously, "true belief" does nothing to stem the cost of human life; in many cases, it actually causes death. For an example of this, I will tomorrow post an example of the Heaven's Gate cult as well as the recent Preacher who drowned while trying to walk on water like Jesus.

Premarital Sex, STD's, Abortion, and Teen Pregnancy

1. "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed
democracies." "The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates." The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia.


These results make me positively giddy with joy. It seems that, compared to the majority of European secular nations, increased secularization, believe in the power of SCIENCE, has lead to an increase in health quality, a decrease in STD aquisition. In the LATE 20th century, STD aquisition has decreased in the most secular nations and in proportion to the secularization of a nation.

This is likely due to the lack of influence of abstience only education problems and superior, more comprehensive community-based sex education programmes in Europe, compared to the relatively ineffective, faith-based sex education in the United States.

As with most cases of international comparisions of dysfunction, the United States, the preeminate fundamentalist nation of the world, ranks lowest in positive results. Again, religiosity positively correlates with the frequency of STD aquistion.

My hypothesis for the disparity is due to the aforementioned STD awareness and Sex Education programmes as well as a lack of overbearing fundamentalist influence on sexual culture. Christianity is a cult of depression. In a way, it represents a memetic virus. It spreads regardless of the cost to the host; the host must undergo vast repression of desires, urges, and often, the religion leads to social institutions that enforce the religious practices, thus helping it repress the urges of the indivdual.

These urges are pent-up frustrations which, once the host cannot take the repression any longer, burst at the first opportunity. Since Christianity, and necessarilly the inferior sex education it produces, keeps them in relative ignorance to other, better educated and secular children, they tend to acquire higher STD rates. Often, Catholics and other groups actively despites and create disincentives for proper sex education. Children grow up unable to deal with sexual desires due to lack of education, knowledge, and guilt.

If you look through the Journal of Adolescent Resarch, especially the following article:[i]The Impact of Religiosity on Adolescent Sexual Behavior:: A Review of the Evidence by Rostosky et al, it gives good details on this positive correlation. You will realize that increased sexual promiscuity is often positively correlated with high levels of belief, largely of the fundamenalist level. While males tend not to be affected (and mixed in results), females, however, tend to have their sexual mental maturity delayed. This fits in with the hypothesis of female sexual repression.


2. "Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again [B]rates [...] uniquely high in the U.S." "Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data."

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies." "Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are
usually the least dysfunctional."


This is critical.

Despite the heavy focus on religion and increased religiosity in the United States, teen pregnancy increases and has incresed. There's also a positive correlation between the level of religiositiy and teen pregnancy discussed within the report.

3. "Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates [...] two to dozens of times higher in the U.S.



4. "There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms"



Conclusion:

The thesis of the Theist has clearly been falsified.

The major thesis of the theist is that religion is necessary for social health, is beneficial, and that liberal secular humanist, atheist, or scientifically based societies are inferior insofar as they lead to "moral decay." Moral decay usually means "higher rates of teen sex, STD aquisition, suicide, or teen morality for other reasons." Contrary to this thesis, the majority of evidence indicates that, of members of the First World, the United States is THE most dysfunctional nation. It is no coincidence that it is, by far, also the most religious nation. After all, religiosity clearly and positively correlates to dysfunction. Other nations, such as the Scandinavian countries and other European secular nations, although they got problems, do not have nearly as many of the relevant problems discussed in this study, namely, the STD problems, teen pregnancy, etc, compared to the most religious sectors of the United States.

Now, referring to the above fact, nearly all polls and studies show that, among first world powers, the United States ranks as the most religious in almost all areas studied, from faith-based programmes, to sex education, to public education. This has a massive correlation to negative societal results, and ironically, as I mentioned, some of the most negative results occure in the bible belt itself. Ironically again, the most religious sections of the country tend to be some of the most prolific parties who engage in free , premarital sex, who attain teen pregnancy, and who succeed in getting STDs. Now on to the study. Before we begin, it is important to understand the difference between correlation and causality. I am not saying religion causes the problems, although I do believe that IS the case. I am merley showing here that it doesn't FIX the problem, and it often coincides with more problems.

Evangelists and religious fundamentalists usally opine that, due to the eeeeevils of secular atheism, a nihilistic culture envelopes the land, thus killing culture and causing teen pregnancy and evil to reign the land. Specificially, they say: "“if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.� However, even where religion is most fervently followed, everything is still permissible, it seems


I also recomend this source: http://www.barna.org. I strongly recomend following the above post with a reading of this source:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

It reinforces the ideas throughtout and gives the images missing.















Abstinence Education Resource: This is one I promised as well. The informaiton on it coincides with the BULK of scientific research on this topic, so this should be settled once and for all.

1. "One of the ways that the debate between supporters of abstinence and comprehensive approaches to sex education has been framed is in terms of which is the most effective. Comprehensive sex education can reduce behaviours that put young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy. Studies have repeatedly shown too that this kind of sex education does not lead to the earlier onset of sexual activity among young people and, in some cases, will even lead to it happening later.


In contrast there is no such robust evidence for the effectiveness of abstinence education. Almost all the studies which have claimed to show any positive outcomes are not well-enough designed to sustain these claimsso it is not possible to infer where they work or not from the research reports.

2. The research that is available currently shows at best mixed outcomes for abstinence-based approaches to sex education, benefiting some young people in the short term but placing them at greater risks later. For example, two studies suggest that for some young people making pledges to abstain from sexual intercourse until marriage does lead to delay in the timing of their first sexual intercourse. But these young people tend to hold strong religious beliefs and enjoy being an exclusive group among peers who do not take abstinence pledges.


It is important to note that, although it doesn't work overhwelmingly, it might work for some. Ironically, two studies point out that in some individuals with strong "religion" it might delay sex, but at greater health and socioemotional costs later. However, these two studies are contradicted by the majority of studies which show that religiosity in fact doesn't prevent teen pregnancy, and, as mentioned earlier, is actually positively correlated with in in international comparisions.

For those with "strong" religious values, it is less the religious values and more a strength of will. They are an anomaly. Overwhelmingly, those both religious and not religious, faith pledges are unsuccessful.

Parental supervision and discipline are also more cruel and heavy in extremely Christian households, therefore teens must deal with a greater quantity of repression of sexual urges. I would hypothesize that there would be a positive correlation between parental involvement and discipline and repression of desires.

Again, the issue here is "might" delay sex. Overwhemingly it in fact doesn't, and ironically, it gets worse with increasing religiosity. The cases in which the trend doesn't pan out are anamalous statistical noise. As I have mentioned earlier:

3. "In addition, while making an abstinence pledge may work for some groups of young people as a way of delaying when they have sexual intercourse, the majority still have sex before they are married and when they do they report using condoms less often than 'non-pledgers' and are more likely to substitute anal or oral sex for vaginal sexual intercourse".


Even in the few cases in which sex is delayed to an extent, they still have premaritial sex, religion or no religion, and when they do, the repression of the early youth that was "successful" leads to increased cases of youth STD aquisition, as the Journal of Religion and Society indicated. They simply do not get proper contraceptive and STD education in Abstinence-only programmes.

It is also ironic to point out that, with increasing religious repression, teens and youth adults find ingenious ways of "skirting" the definition of sex to make it seem as if they really aren't engaging in sex. Instead of traditional sex, they will instead of anal and oral sex, thinking they are "following the religion" but avoiding the sex. Clever lads. But no go. Again, cases in which peole do significantly delay sex, the cases must be those in which control is exerted. The vast majority of religious people, aside from a tiny minority, will still have sex, as I said. Often, the lack of education that results from Abstinence-only leads to horrendous long-term consquenes. In Africa, for example, it actually increased the spread of AIDS. In the USA, it leads to an observable increase in STD aquisition and sexual immaturity.


I suggest reading further about how Abstience programmes in America tend to lie about contraceptives, thus hurting children.

Abstience Doesn't Work (http://www.avert.org/abstinence.htm/)

[bobbylien]

Let parents teach morality to their children as they see fit.
If they don't want the school teaching their kids they can say so. The problem is that a many kids don't have such great parents. Abstinence is a joke.
Great posts techno, I agree with you on almost everything. I don't agree with your comments about religion though.

[piratemonkey]

Excellent post, Technocrat.

Let's see if the Right comes back with anything other than unproven assertions.

[lily]

Technocrat, interesting post. I'd just like to comment on a couple of things.

While males tend not to be affected (and mixed in results), females, however, tend to have their sexual mental maturity delayed.

Most studies show that females develop their sexual maturity sooner than males.

This fits in with the hypothesis of female sexual repression.

I'm going to also have to disagree with this statement. Studies also show that girls more than boys are molested as children. I would think that alone would explain sexual repression.

If you'd like links to these, please let me know.

Contrary to this thesis, the majority of evidence indicates that, of members of the First World, the United States is THE most dysfunctional nation. It is no coincidence that it is, by far, also the most religious nation. After all, religiosity clearly and positively correlates to dysfunction. Other nations, such as the Scandinavian countries and other European secular nations, although they got problems, do not have nearly as many of the relevant problems discussed in this study, namely, the STD problems, teen pregnancy, etc, compared to the most religious sectors of the United States.

While I will agree with you that religion does play a big part, Scandinavian nations as a whole are noteably more open sexually. They speak about it more and in general are more comfortable with their bodies.

[Alonzo]

Techno, the first half of your comment on the effectiveness of abstinence I agree with. The second part, I'm not particularly comfortable with but it's not wrong per se.

The initial part though, going on about religion and it's negative effects, it's just a manipulation of evidence to reach the conclusion that is desired. Correlation is not causation, and there are significant problems with that. They take basically one country (the u.s.) and try toÂ*Â*claim that's the norm for first world religious countries. The sample, even if its by necessity, is way too small. The differences of the u.s. from the rest of the first world is assumed to be the result of its religion, but I see nothing that pinpoints that. It seems more "They're religious, so therefore that's why it's so much worse". The whole sex ed bit is the only play where that seems to hold any validity.

And, even in the u.s., there are significant differences between religious and less religious areas. The less religious ones tend to be in cities, on coasts. There's more contact with different cultures, different ways of thinking. That changes things. They're, as a whole, wealthier, that changes things. They're more heterogenuous, that changes things. The whole non abstinence related part of your post is largely baseless. It's just what the author wants to find. There's nothing that indicated "This is the causal factor". Simply being able to present facts doesn't mean much if the facts don't prove your point. In this, the evidence that the facts are even directly linked is weak.

There's also extensive bias, in terms of language, throughout, indicated by how religiousness is referred to and some of the terminology used.

[Technocrat]

Most studies show that females develop their sexual maturity sooner than males.

I agree that girls usually do mature faster than boys. I don't think the study is saying this is a normal phenomenon. I think it's pointing to the affect of outside variables in morphing or changing the norm.

Christianity, I believe, represses natural feelings, urges, drives, and desires, or at least it tries to. To accomplish this, it uses fear, threats, and punishment in a perverse form of ABA (applied behavioral analysis). I call it perverse becaues it almost entirely relies on primitive threat/benefit learning.

You ought to be good to get everlasting life and joy or we will torture you for all eternity. Often, in Christianity, evil is defined openmindedness, a desire to learn, joy, freedom. One thing it demonizes, though, is the body and sexuality. This is the overwhelming philosphical basis behind religious abstinence; it's a product of a desire to control the bodies and sexuality of others so that they fall in line with what the religious cast sees as "virtue." This philosophy of repression began as early as the writings of Paul by continued into the philosophy of St. Augustine. I can go deeper into this if someone wants later.


I'm going to also have to disagree with this statement. Studies also show that girls more than boys are molested as children. I would think that alone would explain sexual repression.

Sure, I would like the links. That could cause some sexual repression, but what is the relationship between molestation, sexual repression, and religion? It could very well be true that the above you mention also causes it. It could be both that contribute. I would think so, since most observations seem to suggest that the core values of Christianity are repressive (when it comes to free thought, the body, etc). The body is seen as evil; this relates somewhat to the story of Adam, Eve, and original sin. The body has always been seen, not as a holy temple as in other religions, but a pit of dispair and evil. Human nature, being sexual, is evil because this evil was part of Adam's and Eve's evil.

To fight this "evil" Christianity seeks to suppress natural urges, which are automatically deemed vile. Why do you think Christians were the primary force for altering greek statues of nude figures? It was purely out of prudery. I think that, when parents demonize the body, refuse to educate their children in sex (except for fables and lies), and punish natural behavior like that, it causes repression of feelings. Naturally, I think the level of repression would correlate with the severity of punishment and suppression techniques.



While I will agree with you that religion does play a big part, Scandinavian nations as a whole are noteably more open sexually. They speak about it more and in general are more comfortable with their bodies.


I agree, but I don't think that undermines my point. I think that actually helps it. Scandinavia IS more open about sex. It doesn't demonize it. Largely because it doesn't have the vast Christian influence which does just that here.

In America, nude+body=bad, which is a holdover from the Puritan and Victorian Christian era influence on US culture. Scandinavia has largely backed away from that.

I don't think we can be that open or talk about it here precisely because of the religious influence most people have. The prudery is bred into us through accultration.

[Technocrat]

The initial part though, going on about religion and it's negative effects, it's just a manipulation of evidence to reach the conclusion that is desired.

How so? I said nothing dishonest.


Correlation is not causation, and there are significant problems with that.

If you read closely, I do believe I said that; I never implied or tried to iply that religion causes any of that. I do infact believe that it DOES play a role in some areas, but that wasn't the point of my commentary or posting of the resource.

The resource, nor I, claimed that religion caused any of that. If you read my post again as well as the source, we both say that directly. What I did do, and I will mention later, is hypothesize cause in SOME of the aforementioned problems in US society, namely education, sexual repression, STD spread. It's entirely plausible it contributes. It might not necessarily be the entire problem. I don't think it is. But this is all moot, since causality isn't the point of my commentary anyway, which I will explain later in this same post.


They take basically one country (the u.s.) and try to claim that's the norm for first world religious countries. The sample, even if its by necessity, is way too small. The differences of the u.s. from the rest of the first world is assumed to be the result of its religion, but I see nothing that pinpoints that. It seems more "They're religious, so therefore that's why it's so much worse". The whole sex ed bit is the only play where that seems to hold any validity.

I don't see how the sample is too small; it's actually much larger than all previous epidemilogical studies. Also, they are not claiming that the US is the norm for first world countries. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. It's not claiming that at all.

Also, the report isn't saying that any of the above is caused by religion. It's actually pointed out something else entirely. Where do you get that they say all the problems are caused by religion? I will accentuate the point they and I are making:

Theists claim morality and society will decline if we don't baes our values on religion and that religion should correlate to low STD rates, low mortality, low violence, and low teen pregnancy rates. Evidence I present shows that thesis is false. It's NOT that religion causes it to be false. The point is to show that faith-based programmes promoted do not work, even in a nation that is highly religious. They might not cause the problem, but they don't prevent or fix it either. In fact, it's ironic because thevery societies they harp on as evil do NOT have these problems, yet they are not highly religious. Obviously, some other variable is actually responsible. Understand now what I mean?



And, even in the u.s., there are significant differences between religious and less religious areas.

Of course there are. I never said there weren't. In fact, I and the report address this very issue you bring up. I didn't post everything the report said, but it goes into an analysis of correlations between religiosity, location within the US proper.


The less religious ones tend to be in cities, on coasts. There's more contact with different cultures, different ways of thinking.

Indeed. I don't see how that affects anything I said though. That would actually be a strike against the religious argument. Exposure to reality and other ideas takes away from religious inculcation.


That changes things. They're, as a whole, wealthier, that changes things. They're more heterogenuous, that changes things. The whole non abstinence related part of your post is largely baseless. It's just what the author wants to find. There's nothing that indicated "This is the causal factor". Simply being able to present facts doesn't mean much if the facts don't prove your point. In this, the evidence that the facts are even directly linked is weak.

It's hardly baseless. There was no "casual" statement anyway, except for what I hypothesized in ONE situation. Understand? You would have a point had the report or I said that religion was the sole cause of the discrepency. But we didn't.

This wasn't a causality paper. It's a paper on trends, correlation, which I mentioned and explained in my commentary what I thought was pretty clearly. Whether the less religious live in cities, are wealthier, or whatever is entirely irrelevant to the point of my argument. I am not saying religion causes the bad stuff, like school shootings, etc.

I AM saying that the religious hypothesis that secularism is "the great satan" and that religion fixes the problem is bogus. It clearly isn't and does not.

Look at my earlier argument and you will understand to what my post was in response. I am responding to the notion promoted above that faith-based programmes are the magic bullet or are even useful. Someone said that faith-based programmes ought to be promoted, we ought to have faith-based sex ed values, and he disagreed with me and tried to imply that my secular, technocratic society would increase all those bad things. Obviously that's an untrue hypothesis.

It also applies to faith-based abstinence. It simply doesn;t work, which is what my argument supports. If religion really DID do those things, and if secularisim really DID cause the bad things they predict, the vast evidence would show that to be true. Since it's not, I have falsified that argument.

I haven't a clue what causes all the problems; it's probably a combination of religious mind colonization and repression, miseducation, poverty, etc.



There's also extensive bias, in terms of language, throughout, indicated by how religiousness is referred to and some of the terminology used

Could you give an example? You probably should try to separate my commentary from the report. Some of my commentary IS biased in language.

[Hendrik]

There is a major difference between atheists and theists wich is easy to describe. Atheists most time stick to scientific explenations when they want an answer to some question.
In science you are allowed to criticise anything, if you have proof. You have proof that birds don't fly? Show your proof, let it be revieved by others and if it turns out right, it will be accepted.

However in religions there are rules and you have no right to question them. You have to follow them blindly without right to oppose them. Only few people have faith and still question anything they think is wrong.
(This is also a major reason why Mr Bush won the last elections, but we can elaborate on this in another thread if You want to)


The only choices are not Christianity or atheism. I have a passionate relationship with God, but reject the Judeo/Christian/Islam mythology as myth and a deliberate effort to have power and control over others.

...
This is acceptence of God and rejection of religious mythology. The way to discover God is through science. The way to make moral decisions is through logic. Being scientific and logical and developing the higher skills of reasoning, is not oppose to a belief in God. This understanding of God is essential to democracy and our liberty and justice.

The problem with God comes up when people insist their myths are the literal truth.
...

(postet in some other thread (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=844&pid=7204#pid7204))

I really want those who think abstinence is right to question their attitude towards sexuality.

Hendrik

[lily]

Technocrat




Christianity, I believe, represses natural feelings, urges, drives, and desires, or at least it tries to. To accomplish this, it uses fear, threats, and punishment in a perverse form of ABA (applied behavioral analysis). I call it perverse becaues it almost entirely relies on primitive threat/benefit learning.

In this instance, I'm going to have to disagree with you. In order for your theory to work, the child would have to live in a vacuum. Taking out any other source of information, such as media, friends, and mostly what we are/were discussing, teachers. While I will also have to agree that the Catholic Church does surpress normal sexual relations, and does teachÂ*Â*abstinence,Â*Â*by preaching the Virgin Birth.

You ought to be good to get everlasting life and joy or we will torture you for all eternity.

Is that what it really teaches? I see it more as if you do something wrong, you will have to pay as in real life.


Sure, I would like the links. That could cause some sexual repression, but what is the relationship between molestation, sexual repression, and religion?

There isn't any connection between molestantion sexual repression and religion, which was my point. It's another variable.

Here are the links.

http://www.grin.com/en/preview/21990.html

1. Incidence


This first part of the paper deals with the question of how to define child
sexual abuse. Differences in the definitions that impede a comparison of
different studies conducted on this topic are examined. Child sexual abuse
has long been thought to be rare or at least occurring in small numbers
only. In recent decades, however, the incidence of child sexual abuse cases
seemed to explode. Probably only the higher number of reported cases is
responsible for that phenomenon. The incidence of child sexual abuse
probably did not really change. The number of child sexual abuse ranges for
females somewhere between 6% to 62% and for males between 3% and 31%
(Whetsell-Mitchell, 1995; Finkelhor, 1993). The large difference between
these numbers is due mainly to the fact of different definitions in the
studies. In the following paragraphs three different elements for which
definitions seem necessary are discussed. First the phrase child sexual
abuse is to be defined. Second phrases for the sexual inappropriate behavior
are examined, and third terms to name the abuser are defined.


http://web4health.info/en/answers/sex-abuse-effects.htm

Sexual problem:

While making love problems often occur. The partner may be confused by a
certain remark, touch or behavior that brings back memories of the abuse.

Patients sometimes don't want to make love at all anymore or make love less.

Sexual relation problems may occur, together whit pain while making love,
not wanting to make love and problems in getting aroused. Problems with the
orgasm and coming also occur.



To fight this "evil" Christianity seeks to suppress natural urges, which are automatically deemed vile. Why do you think Christians were the primary force for altering greek statues of nude figures?

I think this comes in stages. No facts to back it up, but it seems to me that we go from one extreme to another.