Ah, Kevin

Seems any tripe is good enough evidence for you. Do that liberal bastion of looneydom Harvard says that youths disregard their virginity pledges, and you drink the kool-aide.

{snicker}

Duh?

I am not sure this is going to lead to a great debate.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Just a single pledge doesn't do it. It needs repetition to drum it in.

I propose that in all public schools, just after the Pledge of Allegiance is said, all the students should be asked to reaffirm their virginity pledge.

This has the added bonus that you can watch the students for the sluts who don't pledge.

and if you really wanna get creedped out -- don't forget the purity balls:

http://generationsoflight.myicontrol.com/generationsoflight/index.cfm?ID=C7D9C98F-F39B-4721-82312665A131C364

Purity Balls? Those wouldn't be blue, would they?

Why does fundamentalist Christianity preach the opposite to what is inherent in human nature such as sex?

We already know they hate sex--yet, violence is good and much more destructive--perhaps in their quest to become more "god like" they have come to hate humans....

And let's not forgot that the statistics are even further skewed by all those nice Christian girls who still count themselves as "virgins" even though they engage in frequent bouts of cocksucking and assfucking....but hey, as long as nothing goes up the vagina it's not really sex, right?

Many youths disregard their virginity pledges, Harvard study says

Now can we finally get a headline that reads "Many Bush appointees disregard their oaths of office"?

I think it's less a question of hating sex per se as much as it is about attempting to enforce male ownership of female sexuality. At the purity balls the young girls pledge to keep themselves chaste so that the fathers will be able to pass along an unambiguous virgin to the girls' future husbands, who will take ownership of their wives' sexuality at the wedding.

Like most elements of fundamentalism, this expresses a deep instinctual drive. Men are looking for secure knowledge that their wives' offspring are theirs and not some other man's, so they come up with all this rigamarole to keep womens' sexuality under their control.

We already know they hate sex--yet, violence is good and much more destructive--perhaps in their quest to become more "god like" they have come to hate humans....

Why do some liberals say stupid things about people they hate?

SweetP: Have you ever had a real conversation with a fundamentalist Christian about sex? about violence... about life in general? You might find a much more intelligent discussion of the real issues than you think. Its much easier to maintain your opinions if you demonize all your opponents. Perhaps if you would open your mind to the well thought out opinions of intelligent people whose views you oppose you won't come off like a close-minded bigot.

The last fundy I talked to was a pathological liar climbing a career ladder by denying needed help to eligible disabled clients. She was thrilled to learn we also watched Roller Derby. Hoo-Ray.

However, I think of her much differently now that I know the Virginity Pledge includes taking it up the butt. Hoo-Ray.

When I was in high school, some of us went to those Virginity Pledge ceremonies just to meet chicks. Worked out okay.

You have no idea how many teenagers who took those pledges give birth in hospitals I work for!

Looks like it's time for Al Franken to bring back "The Abstinence Heroes".

There is something extremely disquieting about going into a birthing suite in a hospital to collect the blood-bank specimen and seeing a 14, 15, 16 year old in the bed, clutching a Rosary and screaming to Mother Mary during contractions.

I just posted this at my place a few days ago:

Cause and Effect?

The non-profit Guttmacher Institute has just released a study that shows poor women, those living below the poverty line, have a four-fold rate of unintended pregnancy over more affluent women. This trend coincides chronologically with actions taken at both the state and federal levels that have severely limited or entirely eliminated contraceptive programs that serve low-income women. Pregnancy prevention programs have consistently shifted the focus of their efforts from contraception to abstinence, even in marriage.

Social conservatives continue to dismissively argue in the face of fact that all contraceptive methods have limitations to their effectiveness, so the only way to be sure an unintended pregnancy is avoided is through abstinence, so really, denying contraception doesn’t matter – God’s will is God’s will. Yes, no contraception is foolproof – but if I were a woman living below the poverty line, I would sure rather have access to the pill and it’s 98% effectiveness rate than nothing at all. Their argument is specious at best, and actually smacks of blatant intellectual dishonesty.

Let’s tally up shall we? The social conservatives have managed to curtail availability of contraception for poor women. They have managed to get laws passed at the state level that restrict access to abortion – actions that unfairly deny access to poor women while more affluent women are able to exercise their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy by taking a trip across state lines. And the final cruel twist of fate: once those unintended pregnancies come to fruition, and a baby is born, that child is on his or her own because Medicaid has been cut to the bone.

Reagan was wrong – people are not “poor by choice.” They are poor by circumstance, and not everyone has the skills; social, cognitive, or otherwise, nor the ability to acquire the skills necessary to escape the circumstances of their life. The Dickensian social measures being enacted at a phenomenal clip will most surely turn on us in the near future, and we will face a snarling monster with very large teeth that will bite us right square in the ass.

Just an attempt to get a policy discussion going...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4485691/

And for those who actually care about the details, there is no statistically signficant difference in STD rates between pledgers or non-pledgers. But they are lower for every ethnic group except Asians (who tend to have low STD rates anyway).

"28 percent of female non-pledgers were tested for STDs in the previous year, compared to 14 percent of female pledgers.

99 percent of non-pledgers and 88 percent of pledgers have sex before marriage."

Admittedly pledgers do cheat, but the pledge does have some effect on the amount of sex, the likelihood of sex before marriage and on the prevalence of STD's.

But they are lower for every ethnic group except Asians (who tend to have low STD rates anyway

Dude, I just am not buying that one, having worked in too many base hospitals - guys come back home with all sorts of funky bugs invading their urogenital tracts that they picked up in the orient.

Must be comforting to knnow you can sell your daughter into prostitution in a couple of years with no legal repurcussions should the funds get tight, eh McA?

You really don't like McAristotle, do you? I have noticed a few viscious hit-and-run's you have pummelled him with and he has been unable to respond. Is this the new version of Whack-A-Mole (Whack-a-Troll?)

Dude, I just am not buying that one, having worked in too many base hospitals

Posted by: Global Citizen on May 8, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

Dude, read the source cited by Kevin. I provided a link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4485691/

Lovely view of Asia you have there, Mr. Global Citizen. Learn a lot from your master race literature collection?

just from your arrogance, McA - by the way, I'm a Jewish female, and a daughter of a holocaust refugee - so kiss my ass with your "master race" bullshit.

I have, by the way, lived in the orient, and my son is teacking ESL in Japan right now. So bite me. Jerk.

You can grow up quite a bit in a year and a half, and being more mature at first intercourse sure can't hurt. But that appears to be the only significant benefit of pledges.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/22/health/webmd/main682359.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

"Four years ago, the pair reported that pledge-takers — those who promise not to have sex before marriage — tended to have sex later, delaying first intercourse by a year to 18 months.

Pledge-takers also tend to marry earlier, have fewer partners, and report more monogamous partners, say Bearman and Brückner."

But when it comes to STDs, there appears to be little difference between the two groups.

"Contrary to expectations, we found no significant differences in STD infection rates between pledgers and nonpledgers, despite the fact that they transition to first sex later, have less cumulative exposure, fewer partners, and lower levels of nonmonogamous partners," write the researchers."

I'd like to hear a pledge supporter defend the downplaying of the effectiveness of contraception.

If I understand it correctly, pledging abstinence is mainly a matter of upholding a moral (Godly?) virtue, and religious faith helps one do that. It doesn't seem to me like fear of pregnancy is the main issue, but rather the sex act itself. So why downplay the effectiveness of contraception, especially when 88% break the pledge and pledgers contract STDs at the same rate as non-pledgers?

I try not to be cynical about this, but it's hard not to conclude that pledge/abstinence supporters want kids to get STDs or get pregnant because these are consequences of sex before marriage. They want these deterrents out there. If that's not the case, someone explain why it isn't.

When I was young, I was taught that conservatives were known for their realistic grasp of human nature and the limits of the possible, and liberals not. Yet here we have professed conservatives trying to get horny adolescents to stop having sex, even to the point of forbidding education in harm reduction when you do have sex.
McAristotle may live in some parallel universe, but in the world where I live parents don't want their kids to have sex until LONG after the kids start developing an interest in it, and want to instill in them a sense of responsibility about it. This is common ground with just about everybody.
In the old days, however, conservatives would have realized that human nature can't be changed much. While it might be possible and useful to teach practical techniques to help kids who don't want to have sex resist peer pressure, if someone has come up with effective means of keeping horny adolescents who want to have sex from having it in, say, the last 3,000 years, I have yet to hear of it.
These days, the real difference of opinioon is between the people who believe in the sexual equivalent of seat belts, and the people who believe that the best way to assure careful driving is to stick poisoned spikes on the steering wheel.

I try not to be cynical about this, but it's hard not to conclude that pledge/abstinence supporters want kids to get STDs or get pregnant because these are consequences of sex before marriage. They want these deterrents out there. If that's not the case, someone explain why it isn't.

Posted by: Kurzleg on May 8, 2006 at 9:17 AM

---------------------------
Kurzleg has it right. This same fundamentalist effort is against any further development of an HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccine. Reason? Because HPV is a) a majority root cause of cervical cancer and b) can be (note: not "always is", just "can be") sexually transmitted.

In other words, the more lethal sex can potentially be, the happier the fundy. And they WILL take steps to see to it that it is. Dead women are just fine in that worldview. The brazen harlots had it coming doncha know.

my son is teacking ESL in Japan right now. So bite me. Jerk.

Posted by: Global Citizen on May 8, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

And is he the one telling you about STD's in Asia. Gee, how does he know? Does he catch 'em?

pledge supporter defend the downplaying of the effectiveness of contraception.

Posted by: Kurzleg on May 8, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure how this relates. No one is telling kids that if they break their pledge, contraception doesn't reduce the risk of pregnancy.

Just telling kids, that there are STD's that condoms don't stop, and there's always a failure rate.

Its more that people want to counter the strange perception that condoms stop everything.

I think the problem is, there's plenty of secular sex-ed teachers that do teach harm prevention but also insist on encouraging sex before marriage.

Being sexually active before you are old enough to buy alcohol legally isn't a particularly healthy idea.

"No one is telling kids that if they break their pledge, contraception doesn't reduce the risk of pregnancy. Just telling kids, that there are STD's that condoms don't stop, and there's always a failure rate. Its more that people want to counter the strange perception that condoms stop everything."
Posted by: McA on May 8, 2006 at 11:08 PM

But is this a good way to accomplish that goal?
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm#references
"Analysis of federally funded abstinence-only curricula found that over 80 percent of curricula supported by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services contained false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. Specifically, they conveyed:
False information about the effectiveness of contraceptives;
False information about the risks of abortion;
Religious beliefs as scientific fact;
Stereotypes about boys and girls as scientific fact; and Medical and scientific errors of fact.
(Cite: Special Investigations Division, U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs. Washington, DC: Author, 2004.)

"Being sexually active before you are old enough to buy alcohol legally isn't a particularly healthy idea."
Posted by: McA on May 8, 2006 at 11:13 PM

Now that's a comment that begs for substantiation. Are you suggesting that it's not healthy for 20 year olds to be sexually active? Is it realistic to think that such folks wouldn't be sexually active to one degree or another?

It's one thing to dissuade middle and high school kids from being sexually active, but beyond that I'm not sure it's realistic. That's where good sex ed comes into play, to mitigate the risks of sexual activity. And that's why the known distortions of much of the abstinence-only curricula out there is such a big issue.

Super color scheme. useful information. looks nice!
equity home loan rate http://site.neogen.ro/equityhomeloanrate | dining room furniture http://diningroomfurniture.lookseekpages.com | home jobs http://homejobs.lookseekpages.com | job bank http://site.neogen.ro/jobbank | shop http://site.neogen.ro/shopp |

Excellent site. useful information. all the best.
celebrity porn http://celebrityporn.freepagez.com | bank checks http://bankchecks.freewebportal.com | tokio hotel http://tokiohotel.freepagez.com | texas health insurance http://texashealthinsurance.freepagez.com | insurance lead http://insurancelead.freepagez.com |

I say briefly: Cool! awesome content. maybe you need some more pictures.
unfinished furniture http://site.neogen.ro/unfinishedfurniture | southtrust bank http://southtrustbank.galaxy99.net | pnc bank http://pncbank.741.com | homemade porn http://homemadeporn.freepagez.com | leptoprin http://leptoprin.justicewasgreen.com |

All the best. good job. will return in the near future.
alaska cruise http://site.neogen.ro/alaskacruise | health insurance quote http://site.neogen.ro/healthinsurancequote | insurance lead http://insurancelead.galaxy99.net | business loan small http://businessloansmall.freepagez.com | indian porn http://indianporn.freepagez.com |