Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Abstinence] Sex and the Lack There Of

2456710

Posts

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    celandine wrote: »
    One thing I like is Dan Savage's point about sex that's not intercourse -- oral, mutual masturbation, and so on. That makes sense. You can't get pregnant if you don't attach the baby-making apparatuses. But I grew up being taught that "men are pigs" so if you so much as make out, or even go to the wrong party, a boy will physically force you to go "all the way". One of the most pernicious ideas ever, imo. If schools could add one more thing to the curriculum, it should be this: all guys are not rapists. Not only the "Guys, get consent" angle, but also "Girls, don't be cowed and terrified of everything with a penis."

    I hate to rapid-fire post but Savage was wrong on that point. You don't have to ejaculate inside a woman to get her pregnant. A few sperm just have to get into the va jay jay and make the journey to the egg.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Cantido wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Farthing wrote: »
    Rawr, we had some woman come into our school that said, and I quote:
    If you have sex, you will get an std.

    We don't even have sex education, it's more 'don't have sex' education. (ba dum tisss)

    They think if they teach us how to use condoms, we will be encouraged to have sex.

    'tis very silly.

    edit, perhaps I was a little harsh.


    Must've been a leftover from a local Town Hall meeting.

    Did she also scream "YOUR HEATHEN SCHOOL IS RAN BY SOCIALIST" and yelled out a "Heil Hitler" for added measure?

    Ah Shit, fuckin just Godwined this thread.
    Yep. The abstainers win. Sex is EVIL! Touching condoms is an eternal sin, and God will not forgive you! Vaginal intercourse will turn you gay, and we all know the gays have HIV.

    That should be the new Slogan on the newest King Whatever Version of the Bible.

    And it could end with an "After all..its God's Will anyway...fuckers!"

    And married intercourse cures your HIV and gives you antioxidants.

    Oh of course, married vaginal intercourse acutally cures homosexuality, gives you a raise at work and reduces Global Warming. The effects are doubled if it's in the missionary position.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.
    Yeah but that's a minor surgical procedure and apparently just about impossible to get implanted if you haven't already had children (a fact I learned here).

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    One thing I like is Dan Savage's point about sex that's not intercourse -- oral, mutual masturbation, and so on. That makes sense. You can't get pregnant if you don't attach the baby-making apparatuses. But I grew up being taught that "men are pigs" so if you so much as make out, or even go to the wrong party, a boy will physically force you to go "all the way". One of the most pernicious ideas ever, imo. If schools could add one more thing to the curriculum, it should be this: all guys are not rapists. Not only the "Guys, get consent" angle, but also "Girls, don't be cowed and terrified of everything with a penis."

    I hate to rapid-fire post but Savage was wrong on that point. You don't have to ejaculate inside a woman to get her pregnant. A few sperm just have to get into the va jay jay and make the journey to the egg.
    Well, more then a few. The vagina is setup pretty much to kill sperm. It should be renamed the Spermkiller. Sperm go in, motherfuckers come out.

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    One thing I like is Dan Savage's point about sex that's not intercourse -- oral, mutual masturbation, and so on. That makes sense. You can't get pregnant if you don't attach the baby-making apparatuses. But I grew up being taught that "men are pigs" so if you so much as make out, or even go to the wrong party, a boy will physically force you to go "all the way". One of the most pernicious ideas ever, imo. If schools could add one more thing to the curriculum, it should be this: all guys are not rapists. Not only the "Guys, get consent" angle, but also "Girls, don't be cowed and terrified of everything with a penis."

    I hate to rapid-fire post but Savage was wrong on that point. You don't have to ejaculate inside a woman to get her pregnant. A few sperm just have to get into the va jay jay and make the journey to the egg.
    True, but the statistical likelihood of that happening is right up there with Jesus walking into my room right now and giving me a blowjob.

  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    1) DARE doesn't work? I loved cop day as a kid!
    2) My sex-ed was pretty cool. It taught abstinence, but the teacher said (which I believe was against curriculum) "I know that me standing up here won't stop you all from having sex. When you do, go to the nurse - she'll give you some condoms for free. What I'm getting at is, if you're going to do it, please be safe about it - nobody needs an STD or a pregnancy at the ripe old age of 15."
    3) Hi5 saint2e! I was a virgin until 24 and got married. That night was... interesting to say the least.

    steam_sig.png
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    One thing I like is Dan Savage's point about sex that's not intercourse -- oral, mutual masturbation, and so on. That makes sense. You can't get pregnant if you don't attach the baby-making apparatuses. But I grew up being taught that "men are pigs" so if you so much as make out, or even go to the wrong party, a boy will physically force you to go "all the way". One of the most pernicious ideas ever, imo. If schools could add one more thing to the curriculum, it should be this: all guys are not rapists. Not only the "Guys, get consent" angle, but also "Girls, don't be cowed and terrified of everything with a penis."

    I hate to rapid-fire post but Savage was wrong on that point. You don't have to ejaculate inside a woman to get her pregnant. A few sperm just have to get into the va jay jay and make the journey to the egg.
    True, but the statistical likelihood of that happening is right up there with Jesus walking into my room right now and giving me a blowjob.

    Man I don't know what part of town you live in, but I have mexicans breaking into my pad all the time looking to trade some head for some rocks.

    But, um, yeah. If your birth control method is limited to not sticking a penis into your vagina, you've failed any reasonable standard of sex education.

  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.

    Honestly I'm really surprised more doctors don't push IUDs for young women. Cheaper (I believe) than the pill and less hassle.

    steam_sig.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.

    Honestly I'm really surprised more doctors don't push IUDs for young women. Cheaper (I believe) than the pill and less hassle.
    Not to mention just as effective!

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.

    Honestly I'm really surprised more doctors don't push IUDs for young women. Cheaper (I believe) than the pill and less hassle.

    IUDs did have (and still do) have some pretty horrific complications. Plus, the pill is clean and easy, and exposes the doctor to zero risk (IUD insertion carries a risk of bacterial infection, which can lead to sterility and the doctor getting sued for $$$$)

  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.
    Yeah but that's a minor surgical procedure and apparently just about impossible to get implanted if you haven't already had children (a fact I learned here).

    It is a surgical procedure for billing purposes. It takes about 5 min and involves no anesthetic. Paraguard actually went back and did a study and got approval for teenagers and nullips (women who haven't had children) so it isn't even off-label anymore. There are FPs and gyns around the country that will insert IUDs for nullips even in practices where most of them won't, the receptionist should know if any of the doctors in the practice will insert IUDs for nulilps. PP, for one, will if there are any in your area but they don't accept a lot of insurance plans. The other place that is pretty reliable is a resident clinic. They are younger and more likely to have learned that inserting in nullips is perfectly fine as opposed to older docs that had years of indoctrination about how dangerous it is to insert an IUD for a nullip.

    I go to a university that includes a medical school and I had to laugh when a girl in my class complained about not being able to find a doctor to insert an IUD b/c every single doctor in the OB-gyn department at our school will insert for nullips. (no the student health center doesn't... but the student health insurance covers IUDs and visits to the doctors at the medical school that is part of our university).

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.

    Honestly I'm really surprised more doctors don't push IUDs for young women. Cheaper (I believe) than the pill and less hassle.

    IUDs did have (and still do) have some pretty horrific complications. Plus, the pill is clean and easy, and exposes the doctor to zero risk (IUD insertion carries a risk of bacterial infection, which can lead to sterility and the doctor getting sued for $$$$)
    The pill is neither clean nor easy. It's hormonal control, and shit like that always comes with complications, be they physical or emotional.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    One thing I like is Dan Savage's point about sex that's not intercourse -- oral, mutual masturbation, and so on. That makes sense. You can't get pregnant if you don't attach the baby-making apparatuses. But I grew up being taught that "men are pigs" so if you so much as make out, or even go to the wrong party, a boy will physically force you to go "all the way". One of the most pernicious ideas ever, imo. If schools could add one more thing to the curriculum, it should be this: all guys are not rapists. Not only the "Guys, get consent" angle, but also "Girls, don't be cowed and terrified of everything with a penis."
    Well, first you'd have to hammer into everyone a clear definition of consent. One of the most disturbing things about young people and sex is that very young men in particular regularly turn up in surveys believing that clear examples of sexual assault are a-ok ("if she kisses you that's yes to everything", "if she's wearing a short skirt you can do what you want", "if you browbeat her until she stops saying no, that's a proper yes" etc etc). Something like 40+% in most of the surveys I've seen in the last couple of years, which focused on 14-16 year olds. Sadly, a lot of young girls also agree. Presumably, a fair few of them grow out of that (although not so many, take this UK survey of adult attitudes as an example), but there's definitely no widespread formal curriculum around that teaches proper consent (enthusiastic participation, people!!) or respect for a 'no' to young teenagers of either gender. So yeah, teaching girls to be gun-shy sucks, but right now its actually the most sensible option if you give a crap about teaching girls to keep themselves safe.

    Teaching girls to say no when they want to say yes is why there's such a fucked up situation with consent in the first place.

    The message should be: do you want to fuck? Go for it! Here's a condom. Here are the risks of STDs, and the reliability of birth control methods.

    Hey, that's awesome, the way you just managed to rhetorically dump all responsibility for sexual assault on young, inexperienced women.

    Oh, wait, no it isn't and you're a dreadful person for saying that.

    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.

    tmsig.jpg
  • southwicksouthwick Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBUpXvYbGyA

    This current 4parents.gov commercial is really infuriating to me. "Don't talk about the parts, just talk about your feelings."

    What good is that going to do?

  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.

    Honestly I'm really surprised more doctors don't push IUDs for young women. Cheaper (I believe) than the pill and less hassle.

    IUDs did have (and still do) have some pretty horrific complications. Plus, the pill is clean and easy, and exposes the doctor to zero risk (IUD insertion carries a risk of bacterial infection, which can lead to sterility and the doctor getting sued for $$$$)

    ...all false.

    Pills can have horrific side effects for women and doctors get sued far more often over women having strokes b/c of the pill than b/c of bacterial infection with a modern IUD. The only risk of infection with an IUD is if you already have chlamydia or gonorrhea and don't get treated within the first two weeks after insertion. Which is why all IUD insertion kits include STD testing kits.

    Dacron shield was a specific brand of IUD in the 70s that had really high rates of infertility but it was shaped differently and larger than modern IUDs. Modern IUDs are more effective and have lower rates of side effects than hormonal bc.

    Complication of hormonal bc: stroke, high blood pressure, mood swings, depression, pulmonary embolism, venous thrombosis,

    Complications of IUDs: irregular periods, uterine perforation (only occurs in the doctors office while they are inserting and therefore is generally treated immediately with no long lasting damage), PID - only if the patient already has and STD and the doctor doesn't test and treat, expulsion (easily treated by putting a new one in and both companies will give each woman a free replacement)

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • PhistiPhisti Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I read an old time magazine about this last night while waiting in a doctor's office of all things to see if my wife was pregnant...

    In general the article, and I tend to agree, indicated that Abstinence only, and actual Sex-Ed only both fail.
    GFX_PR_090107teenbirthrates_fix.png

    Most of us here would would think that graphic indicates where abstinence only education is taught, but that's not the case. The following link identifies which states are refusing Title V abstinence funding (sorry, I can't link just the map for you visual folks).

    That said... it was suggested that a blended approach which teaches both Sex-Ed and Abstinence, in conjunction with greater than 4 hours per month of sex ed (I think it was 4 hours mandated, can't recall exactly) was the best solution as states with the lowest pregnancy rates tend to use that technique. However, the article failed to indicate that, looking at the above map, and actually examining mean economic development of the states that the poorer states have by far a higher birth rate.

    From the Economist...
    human%20development%20index%20by%20state%20map.jpg

    The HDI combines normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita. It is claimed as a standard means of measuring human development—a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income, employment, etc. The basic use of HDI is to measure a country's development.

    Now, there are some correlations as I mentioned but it's not mutually exclusive. Lower birth rates are not isolated to upper echelon HDI states so there is clearly more to it.

    That said, of all the countries in the world, guess which has (had 2008) the lowest birth rate for teens 15-19? Yep, that hub of debauchery and social ambiguity... the Netherlands at 3.8/1000... whereas the US averages somewhere around 42.5/1000 (map above is 2006 figures... that number is actually climbing)

    Some food for thought, and no, my wife isn't pregnant - false positive it seems... time to go back to the drawing table :winky:

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Lowering pregnancy rates isn't just a matter of giving better sex ed. You also need to tackle the problem of teenage girls in poor areas who feel there are no opportunities are available to them beyond young motherhood, both by educating them and supporting them.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.
    I think the main problem is that while the pill is just a pill I'd feel far more hesitant suggesting someone else should get something surgically implanted.

    Although I suppose on the other hand the main issue is that no one is out there marketing reversible vasectomies where they don't absolve all responsibility for it. Although apparently there's some new wireless thing.

  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.
    I think the main problem is that while the pill is just a pill I'd feel far more hesitant suggesting someone else should get something surgically implanted.

    Although I suppose on the other hand the main issue is that no one is out there marketing reversible vasectomies where they don't absolve all responsibility for it. Although apparently there's some new wireless thing.

    Why?

    Your gf is more likely to have a stroke from you suggesting she go on the pill than have something bad happen from an IUD.

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Kistra wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.
    I think the main problem is that while the pill is just a pill I'd feel far more hesitant suggesting someone else should get something surgically implanted.

    Although I suppose on the other hand the main issue is that no one is out there marketing reversible vasectomies where they don't absolve all responsibility for it. Although apparently there's some new wireless thing.

    Why?

    Your gf is more likely to have a stroke from you suggesting she go on the pill than have something bad happen from an IUD.
    Social pressure.

    Actually I may suggest it next time the issue comes up since she's had sensitive breasts from the current one she's on, although previously with a different brand this apparently wasn't a problem.

    I am curious on how those statistics pan out though - are they all things considered equal, or does it aggravate existing conditions?

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Phisti wrote: »
    That said, of all the countries in the world, guess which has (had 2008) the lowest birth rate for teens 15-19? Yep, that hub of debauchery and social ambiguity... the Netherlands at 3.8/1000... whereas the US averages somewhere around 42.5/1000 (map above is 2006 figures... that number is actually climbing)
    If I remember correctly (hopefully Aldo will know the answer to this one), the reason the Dutch have such low teen birth rates is because there's a huge emphasis on practicing safe sex due to all the legalized prostitution and whatnot.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Kistra wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    MagicPrime wrote: »
    I had sex with my ex- for 3 years using just the pill pretty much the entire time.

    The two years after we got married we just used the pill. We figured during the college years we better double up on the protection.
    Honestly I consider the pill to be the more reliable of the two. We agreed an abortion was probably best should the worst happen. Now I'm doing a Ph D - I'm sure worse things could happen.

    The pill's reliability depends entirely on the compliance of the woman to a regular schedule of pill-popping. A hormone-treated IUD is the most reliable method out there, with 99.99% or so success rate.

    Honestly I'm really surprised more doctors don't push IUDs for young women. Cheaper (I believe) than the pill and less hassle.

    IUDs did have (and still do) have some pretty horrific complications. Plus, the pill is clean and easy, and exposes the doctor to zero risk (IUD insertion carries a risk of bacterial infection, which can lead to sterility and the doctor getting sued for $$$$)

    ...all false.

    Pills can have horrific side effects for women and doctors get sued far more often over women having strokes b/c of the pill than b/c of bacterial infection with a modern IUD. The only risk of infection with an IUD is if you already have chlamydia or gonorrhea and don't get treated within the first two weeks after insertion. Which is why all IUD insertion kits include STD testing kits.

    Dacron shield was a specific brand of IUD in the 70s that had really high rates of infertility but it was shaped differently and larger than modern IUDs. Modern IUDs are more effective and have lower rates of side effects than hormonal bc.

    Complication of hormonal bc: stroke, high blood pressure, mood swings, depression, pulmonary embolism, venous thrombosis,

    Complications of IUDs: irregular periods, uterine perforation (only occurs in the doctors office while they are inserting and therefore is generally treated immediately with no long lasting damage), PID - only if the patient already has and STD and the doctor doesn't test and treat, expulsion (easily treated by putting a new one in and both companies will give each woman a free replacement)
    The IUD may be a good option, but you're wildly overstating the risks of the pill while, I note, not linking said risks to any of the several dozen different formulas available or quoting any numbers. Here's a number: approximately 5% of women who go on the pill have enough problems with it that they can't continue to take it. Almost all of those problems are not life-threatening. The pill in all its forms remains the most heavily researched and field-tested classes of drug by an order of magntitude. Its safe for most women, almost all of the time.

    Its also the case that the pill is frequently used as a scapegoat for symptoms like weight gain and headaches, solely because "everybody knows" it makes you fat and crazy. In reality, most people just eat too much, exercise too little, and don't usually have a convenient scapegoat for all the little annoying things our bodies do to us.

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Kistra wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.
    I think the main problem is that while the pill is just a pill I'd feel far more hesitant suggesting someone else should get something surgically implanted.

    Although I suppose on the other hand the main issue is that no one is out there marketing reversible vasectomies where they don't absolve all responsibility for it. Although apparently there's some new wireless thing.

    Why?

    Your gf is more likely to have a stroke from you suggesting she go on the pill than have something bad happen from an IUD.
    She's also more likely to be struck by a magical falling whale and pot of violets than experience either of those outcomes, unless she's smoking a pack a day or has a relevant underlying health problem. Stop freaking out about the pill, its like watching those anti-vaccination loons.

    tmsig.jpg
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Lowering pregnancy rates isn't just a matter of giving better sex ed. You also need to tackle the problem of teenage girls in poor areas who feel there are no opportunities are available to them beyond young motherhood, both by educating them and supporting them.

    I'm not so sure this is true.

    Case in point is Maine - between 1991 and 2006 the teen pregnancy rate was reduced almost by half. This happened because the state stepped up sex education efforts in schools.

    In general women under 19 (and especially young women in high school) aren't looking to get pregnant because they have no other options. They get pregnant because they don't know what they should know about pregnancy prevention.

    Just because you're poor or you live in a rural area doesn't mean you want to become a baby factory at 17.

    steam_sig.png
  • daedelusdaedelus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    This is actually a pretty interesting subject. I went to school in South Carolina, which has a ridiculously high teen pregnancy rate and is a conservative hotbed, but my sex ed classes (three of them, grades 6, 7, and 9) all taught about sex in a very rational, comprehensive way. The process was discussed at length, as well as various alternative methods and what have you. The possible repercussions were also discussed (as I think they should be), and it was made clear that STDs could be contracted from any type of sexual contact. Abstinence was actually the least-discussed topic on the list (these classes lasted anywhere from one week to three; I can't remember which grade was which), and the basic gist was "Abstinence is the only way to avoid the negative effects of sexual contact." Abstinence was defined as a total lack of sexual contact. I mean, I know this is probably a rarity (hell, I've never met anyone who was forced to take three different courses on sex ed), but I thought my sex ed courses were pretty good. They didn't encourage premarital sex, but they also didn't leave you with a bunch of vague notions about it either.

    On a personal note, I decided to wait until marriage while an atheist and kept that belief after I converted to Christianity. There are perfectly logical reasons to wait, but it's a personal choice. I think it's a little bit narrow-minded to call people who do decide to wait until marriage idiots. My wife and I both waited and neither of us regret the decision a bit.

    Recruiter: Why aren't you a Marine yet, young man?

    Me: My Father was 82nd Airborne. He'd throw my ass out a window. Also, I'm older than you.
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    One thing I like is Dan Savage's point about sex that's not intercourse -- oral, mutual masturbation, and so on. That makes sense. You can't get pregnant if you don't attach the baby-making apparatuses. But I grew up being taught that "men are pigs" so if you so much as make out, or even go to the wrong party, a boy will physically force you to go "all the way". One of the most pernicious ideas ever, imo. If schools could add one more thing to the curriculum, it should be this: all guys are not rapists. Not only the "Guys, get consent" angle, but also "Girls, don't be cowed and terrified of everything with a penis."
    Well, first you'd have to hammer into everyone a clear definition of consent. One of the most disturbing things about young people and sex is that very young men in particular regularly turn up in surveys believing that clear examples of sexual assault are a-ok ("if she kisses you that's yes to everything", "if she's wearing a short skirt you can do what you want", "if you browbeat her until she stops saying no, that's a proper yes" etc etc). Something like 40+% in most of the surveys I've seen in the last couple of years, which focused on 14-16 year olds. Sadly, a lot of young girls also agree. Presumably, a fair few of them grow out of that (although not so many, take this UK survey of adult attitudes as an example), but there's definitely no widespread formal curriculum around that teaches proper consent (enthusiastic participation, people!!) or respect for a 'no' to young teenagers of either gender. So yeah, teaching girls to be gun-shy sucks, but right now its actually the most sensible option if you give a crap about teaching girls to keep themselves safe.

    Teaching girls to say no when they want to say yes is why there's such a fucked up situation with consent in the first place.

    The message should be: do you want to fuck? Go for it! Here's a condom. Here are the risks of STDs, and the reliability of birth control methods.

    Hey, that's awesome, the way you just managed to rhetorically dump all responsibility for sexual assault on young, inexperienced women.

    Oh, wait, no it isn't and you're a dreadful person for saying that.

    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.

    Yes, my suggestion that women not be taught that their virginity is some precious flower to be protected is saying women are responsible for rape. This view that women are "giving themselves up" is the root of the fucked up consent situation you so detest. Women think they need to say no by default, men think they need to convince the woman to say yes by default. Nowhere in this situation is the potential that a woman likes a dude, and wants to fuck him. Nope, she's got to say no. Why? Because girls are pure and pretty and boys are lustful creatures of sin. The dude has to convince and trick her, because she's been told to say no.

    Now obviously I'm not ruling out a scenario where the chick simply doesn't want to bang a dude, but the current rediculous and seedy situation where a dude has to work so hard pick up a chick is caused by this puritan view that sex is dirty and shameful and not a highly enjoyable aerobic exercise. Ask a woman how receptive she is to the idea of cruising for sex. I bet you'll see a markedly different view then you would from guys, and that's culture speaking.

    And my point about IUD vs Pill was from the POV of a medical provider. If something goes wrong with the pill, it's the drug company's fault. If the woman having the IUD inserted develops PID because of a bacterial infection and goes sterile, the doctor is now facing a malpractice suit.

    Risk of signing a scrip for the pill: 0
    Risk of inserting an IUD: very low, but not 0

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Lowering pregnancy rates isn't just a matter of giving better sex ed. You also need to tackle the problem of teenage girls in poor areas who feel there are no opportunities are available to them beyond young motherhood, both by educating them and supporting them.

    I'm not so sure this is true.

    Case in point is Maine - between 1991 and 2006 the teen pregnancy rate was reduced almost by half. This happened because the state stepped up sex education efforts in schools.

    In general women under 19 (and especially young women in high school) aren't looking to get pregnant because they have no other options. They get pregnant because they don't know what they should know about pregnancy prevention.

    Just because you're poor or you live in a rural area doesn't mean you want to become a baby factory at 17.

    I'm not saying that sex education is ineffective, such that stepping it up won't reduce teen pregnancy by a significant margin.

    And I'm not saying that all young girls in poor areas generally want to get pregnant. I'm just saying that this phenomena exists, that I feel it's not necessarily a rarity (I don't know where you'd find hard numbers, though, beyond the fact that Phisti's info suggests it), that it's probably more likely to occur in places where there aren't as many alternatives to full time motherhood, and that sex ed is probably ineffective against it.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Yes, my suggestion that women not be taught that their virginity is some precious flower to be protected is saying women are responsible for rape.
    Sorry, but you did, and you still are. Its a patriarchal system teaching women that nonsense (and men that other nonsense), from very early childhood - along with a whole lot of other harmful stuff about it being unfeminine to ever be aggressive or even assertive. This stuff doesn't just screw up sexual negotiation, it affects power relationships in all areas of life. You can't just isolate virginity fetishism, a social phenomenon very much driven by a subset of men, and blame women for absorbing messages that make it harder for you to get a leg over. Its just not classy.

    t robos: It is actually pretty common for women to opt for motherhood young when other options are limited. That's logical, what else are you going to do with your time if you know damn well that you're never going to get into college or get a job with any prospects of advancement beyond running tills.

    tmsig.jpg
  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Kistra wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.
    I think the main problem is that while the pill is just a pill I'd feel far more hesitant suggesting someone else should get something surgically implanted.

    Although I suppose on the other hand the main issue is that no one is out there marketing reversible vasectomies where they don't absolve all responsibility for it. Although apparently there's some new wireless thing.

    Why?

    Your gf is more likely to have a stroke from you suggesting she go on the pill than have something bad happen from an IUD.
    Social pressure.

    Actually I may suggest it next time the issue comes up since she's had sensitive breasts from the current one she's on, although previously with a different brand this apparently wasn't a problem.

    I am curious on how those statistics pan out though - are they all things considered equal, or does it aggravate existing conditions?

    Something like 90% of the women that develop blood clots have an undiagnosed thrombophilia. And most of the rest smoke. But there are women who have no other predisposing factors than being on hormonal BC.

    The current risk in the US (averaged over all the different formulas) is 3 in 10,000 for strokes on hormonal BC (pills, patch, ring) the risk is thought to be lower with pills with less estrogen.

    The current risk in the US (both models combined) for death from an IUD is 1 per 100,000, and the rates of infertility have been shown to be the same among users of modern IUDs and women who have never used an IUD.

    Both pills and IUDs are thought to cause problems during pregnancy if the woman gets pregnant and continues using the method. But these pregnancies are rare so I couldn't find any good statistics.

    I don't know if you guys will be able to follow any of these links so I will put links to a bunch of reviews and hope one of them is free to people not on university computers:
    no infertility with copper IUDS
    no infertility associated with mirena
    EBM review showing both modern iuds have no risk of infertility

    Note: I misspelled the IUD from the 70s that did cause infertility, it was Dalkon shield, not Dakron.

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • PhistiPhisti Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    This is supplementing my above post - regarding economic development and birth rate among girls 15-19: see post #57

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Where in your point to you talk about the fetish some men for busting the hymen, because I sure missed it. And the rest of your point is exactly what I was saying. So... we agree?

  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    Kistra wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.
    I think the main problem is that while the pill is just a pill I'd feel far more hesitant suggesting someone else should get something surgically implanted.

    Although I suppose on the other hand the main issue is that no one is out there marketing reversible vasectomies where they don't absolve all responsibility for it. Although apparently there's some new wireless thing.

    Why?

    Your gf is more likely to have a stroke from you suggesting she go on the pill than have something bad happen from an IUD.
    She's also more likely to be struck by a magical falling whale and pot of violets than experience either of those outcomes, unless she's smoking a pack a day or has a relevant underlying health problem. Stop freaking out about the pill, its like watching those anti-vaccination loons.

    How am I freaking out about the pill?

    I'm just pointing out that everyone else freaking out about IUDs are hilarious considering that the risks are on different orders of magnitudes (in IUDs favor). They are both infinitesimal. But the risks with the pill are a handful out of 10,000 and the risks with the IUD are a handful out of 100,000, people really shouldn't be freaking out about either.

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    And my point about IUD vs Pill was from the POV of a medical provider. If something goes wrong with the pill, it's the drug company's fault. If the woman having the IUD inserted develops PID because of a bacterial infection and goes sterile, the doctor is now facing a malpractice suit.

    Risk of signing a scrip for the pill: 0
    Risk of inserting an IUD: very low, but not 0

    And I pointed out that is false b/c doctors get sued when women have strokes from pills. The risk of singing a scrip for the pill is not 0.

    EDIT: and I apologize for so many posts so close together. I will go do work now.

    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • MelksterMelkster Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    daedelus wrote: »
    On a personal note, I decided to wait until marriage while an atheist and kept that belief after I converted to Christianity. There are perfectly logical reasons to wait, but it's a personal choice. I think it's a little bit narrow-minded to call people who do decide to wait until marriage idiots. My wife and I both waited and neither of us regret the decision a bit.

    And what are these reasons, exactly?

    I'm 23 right now. Please tell me what logical reasons there are for waiting until I'm 27, the median age of marriage for men.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    daedelus wrote: »
    On a personal note, I decided to wait until marriage while an atheist and kept that belief after I converted to Christianity. There are perfectly logical reasons to wait, but it's a personal choice. I think it's a little bit narrow-minded to call people who do decide to wait until marriage idiots. My wife and I both waited and neither of us regret the decision a bit.

    And what are these reasons, exactly?

    I'm 23 right now. Please tell me what logical reasons there are for waiting until I'm 27, the median age of marriage for men.

    It makes sense if you're planning to marry someone who waited for marriage themselves, or if your interest in sex is so small that the risks inherent in it are considered too large to make the experience worthwhile.

    Also, if you're a Praying Mantis or Dr. Zoidberg.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Kistra wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    And my point about IUD vs Pill was from the POV of a medical provider. If something goes wrong with the pill, it's the drug company's fault. If the woman having the IUD inserted develops PID because of a bacterial infection and goes sterile, the doctor is now facing a malpractice suit.

    Risk of signing a scrip for the pill: 0
    Risk of inserting an IUD: very low, but not 0

    And I pointed out that is false b/c doctors get sued when women have strokes from pills. The risk of singing a scrip for the pill is not 0.

    Those suits get tossed if the doctor read the riot act the pill company provided. It's very easy.

    That the doctor followed proper procedure in a sterile insertion ( :winky: ) is more annoying to prove.

  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    One thing I like is Dan Savage's point about sex that's not intercourse -- oral, mutual masturbation, and so on. That makes sense. You can't get pregnant if you don't attach the baby-making apparatuses. But I grew up being taught that "men are pigs" so if you so much as make out, or even go to the wrong party, a boy will physically force you to go "all the way". One of the most pernicious ideas ever, imo. If schools could add one more thing to the curriculum, it should be this: all guys are not rapists. Not only the "Guys, get consent" angle, but also "Girls, don't be cowed and terrified of everything with a penis."
    Well, first you'd have to hammer into everyone a clear definition of consent. One of the most disturbing things about young people and sex is that very young men in particular regularly turn up in surveys believing that clear examples of sexual assault are a-ok ("if she kisses you that's yes to everything", "if she's wearing a short skirt you can do what you want", "if you browbeat her until she stops saying no, that's a proper yes" etc etc). Something like 40+% in most of the surveys I've seen in the last couple of years, which focused on 14-16 year olds. Sadly, a lot of young girls also agree. Presumably, a fair few of them grow out of that (although not so many, take this UK survey of adult attitudes as an example), but there's definitely no widespread formal curriculum around that teaches proper consent (enthusiastic participation, people!!) or respect for a 'no' to young teenagers of either gender. So yeah, teaching girls to be gun-shy sucks, but right now its actually the most sensible option if you give a crap about teaching girls to keep themselves safe.

    Teaching girls to say no when they want to say yes is why there's such a fucked up situation with consent in the first place.

    The message should be: do you want to fuck? Go for it! Here's a condom. Here are the risks of STDs, and the reliability of birth control methods.

    Hey, that's awesome, the way you just managed to rhetorically dump all responsibility for sexual assault on young, inexperienced women.

    Oh, wait, no it isn't and you're a dreadful person for saying that.

    Also, IUD's don't have anywhere near the problems people think they do, and are even safer now than they used to be. They're actually the primary contraceptive choice among female OB-GYN's, and you'd think they'd have a clue or two.

    Yes, my suggestion that women not be taught that their virginity is some precious flower to be protected is saying women are responsible for rape. This view that women are "giving themselves up" is the root of the fucked up consent situation you so detest. Women think they need to say no by default, men think they need to convince the woman to say yes by default. Nowhere in this situation is the potential that a woman likes a dude, and wants to fuck him. Nope, she's got to say no. Why? Because girls are pure and pretty and boys are lustful creatures of sin. The dude has to convince and trick her, because she's been told to say no.

    Now obviously I'm not ruling out a scenario where the chick simply doesn't want to bang a dude, but the current rediculous and seedy situation where a dude has to work so hard pick up a chick is caused by this puritan view that sex is dirty and shameful and not a highly enjoyable aerobic exercise. Ask a woman how receptive she is to the idea of cruising for sex. I bet you'll see a markedly different view then you would from guys, and that's culture speaking.
    Exactly.

    I took all that bullshit to heart, and now it really bothers me when I see how prevalent it is, even today.
    Apart from predatory monsters who rape strangers, I think most men rape women because the basic model in our society is "man enthusiastically wants to bang, woman reluctantly lets him" and there's an easy slope from that to "man enthusiastically wants to bang, woman doesn't put up a fight." You have to conceive of women as beings who can desire sex before you can have an ethics of consent. The issues are connected.

    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I went to HS in South Carolina and found that my sex ed classes in middle school in New Jersey were significantly more informative. I was in ROTC in HS and, since it qualified as a substitute for both gym and health classes, sex ed got rolled into ROTC. Which meant that it was taught by a retired Lt. Colonel. I don't recall what he taught us, but it wasn't much. In middle school they went over the most common types of STDs, the importance (and potential failure of) birth control, and had an open forum for people to write down questions so that the teacher could answer them anonymously.

    The whole abstinence-only thing smacks of the same sort of blind magical thinking that leads to mothers not wanting their daughters immunized for HPV. As long as their children don't hear about that dirty old sex they won't want to have it. Considering that everyone is, at some point, a teenager I'm not sure I understand how anyone can possibly believe that abstinence-only sex ed could possibly work. Not only are teens hormonal and prone to being horny, they're known for being actively rebellious against what teachers tell them they should be doing.

    I guess I just really don't get the whole abstinence thing in general. I understand that it's the most effective means of STD prevention, but if you want to have sex and are willing to do it safely (get tested if you've had previous partners before having a new partner and use protection) I don't understand the hangup. First time sex is generally not especially pleasant for either party, and sexual incompatibility can be a pretty major hang-up for a relationship. Waiting for your wedding night to deflower one-another seems like a pretty much all-around bad idea to me. But then I don't tend to romanticize sex, so maybe the abstinence thing isn't for me.

    As far as IUDs and whatnot go... I know someone who had post-implantation complications from an IUD. I don't know the details other than that it perforated something in there and she had to have it surgically removed. She says it's a 1 in some-large-number case, but it scared my wife off of getting one. We really, really don't want kids, though, so I had a vasectomy and we still use both condoms and the pill. She also had ovarian cysts or something before I met her, which her doctor tells her gives her like a 40% chance or so of being able to get pregnant at all. And in the event of divine intervention somehow making her pregnant, she's had an abortion fund in her savings account since she was 16.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • southwicksouthwick Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Melkster wrote: »
    daedelus wrote: »
    On a personal note, I decided to wait until marriage while an atheist and kept that belief after I converted to Christianity. There are perfectly logical reasons to wait, but it's a personal choice. I think it's a little bit narrow-minded to call people who do decide to wait until marriage idiots. My wife and I both waited and neither of us regret the decision a bit.

    And what are these reasons, exactly?

    I'm 23 right now. Please tell me what logical reasons there are for waiting until I'm 27, the median age of marriage for men.

    Absolutely none outside of your own personal beliefs. At a certain point I would have to think abstinence leaves the realm of a preventative measure, and falls into the area of your own thoughts on morality and relationships.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    celandine wrote: »
    I took all that bullshit to heart, and now it really bothers me when I see how prevalent it is, even today.
    Apart from predatory monsters who rape strangers, I think most men rape women because the basic model in our society is "man enthusiastically wants to bang, woman reluctantly lets him" and there's an easy slope from that to "man enthusiastically wants to bang, woman doesn't put up a fight." You have to conceive of women as beings who can desire sex before you can have an ethics of consent. The issues are connected.

    Rape, in the traditional sense, is very rarely about wanting to bang someone. It's a domination and power crime. I think you're probably pretty close to the motivation for date rape, though (note: complete lack of studies to back this up, though I've seen the statistics before on the first bit).

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
Sign In or Register to comment.