STDs still on the rise, report says

[Babyblue]

Reba.


I feel teaching people prevention along with restraint and self control is what needs to be done.

and it IS being done. but a lot of people think by teaching sex ed is giving them permission. It is NOT. It is teaching them the dangers and how to protect themselves.


Like I have posted before and again.

It has been going on for years and years. The good book even speak of it.

 

[Reba]

We are already in worse shape because there are people out there that don't know they are carriers.

Then it should have been worse during the decades that testing for STDs wasn't available.

Secondly--there are more people here than there was 10 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Check the percentages, not raw figures.

 

[Daredevel7]

Reba,

Just for clarification: What do you think of money being spent on abstinence programs?

 

[Babyblue]

Then it should have been worse during the decades that testing for STDs wasn't available.

Secondly--there are more people here than there was 10 years ago.

Check the percentages, not raw figures.[/QUOTE]

and it was worst. not only ten years ago.... but way back when.

It was not announce back then, through the pony express or what not. With the technology of dianosing.

see my point? YET?

 

[Reba]

Reba,

Just for clarification: What do you think of money being spent on abstinence programs?

I prefer that tax dollars not be used.

 

[jillio]

You're wrong. Plenty of people have, are, and will abstain from pre-marital and extra-marital sex. If that weren't the case, we'd be in even worse shape.

Some do, the majority don't. Particularly with the average age of marraige increasing. If the above was the case, we would not be seeing a rise in both the diagnosed cases of STDs, nor the increase in teen pregnancy. If I am so wrong, please give us your explanation for the cause of increase in both.
I never said that people shouldn't be educated about the causes and risks of STDs.

What about how to protect themselves from STDs?


If education is the solution, why are STD cases increasing? There has been more sex education in the last 10 years then previous decades, and yet it increases.

Because we are educating from an abstinence only perspective.

 

[jillio]

What does that prove? That's a young person's answer to all kinds of things that go wrong.

It wasn't intended to prove anything. It was drawing a parallel between intentional and unintentional action.

 

[jillio]

Scary thing is....that attitude is still around.





Okay I am going to try to answer your question. In regards to #269, remember that some of these kids that are "claiming" to have had sex--DIDN'T because in high school--they are seeking popularity and acceptance from their peers. Peer pressure is astounding in today's society compared to 15-20 years ago. The kids would say anything to be accepted by their peers as it is "pretigious" to have that respect from them.

If the kids are having sex or not--I would prefer them to do it safely. Afterall--if the parents aren't talking about it and setting an example for their kids, then we are in big trouble. It goes back to parental responsibility and if they aren't doing their job--then it's for the society to teach these kids how to protect themselves.

Contracting STDS/HIV/AIDS is a burden on the economics of our society plus the medications of HIV/AIDS can ruin one's financial well being to the point where they would rely on the state for medical assistance.

As for the virginity question, I think you would have to look at Hollywood for it's de-glamourazation of virginity. Remember the movie, " The 40-Year Old Virgin?" Hollywood has portrayed the virgin to be an individual that is aloof. Which we know isn't true. But the society has bought into it.

As for the traditional marriage comment--nothing wrong with that because same-sex marriage can be quite traditional as well. If you need proof--look at my same-sex pictures in the Picture thread. It was "traditional" by our heterosexual-familial standards.

Lastly--I didn't laugh at your direct post to me because those are fair questions you are asking me. I'm answering it with a

 

[jillio]

When I graduated high school in 1969, there was no sex education at all in my public school. Are you saying that young people are no more educated about sex than my generation was?

In regards to the topics of STD transmission and protection, that is exactly what I am saying, and it is evidenced by much of the naivite in various posts in this thread. Not only are young people not more educated on these matters, adults aren't either, in many cases.

Because education alone is not the deciding factor. Personal morality is, and today's society doesn't honor or support that. We can clearly see that in the posts here.

Today's society does support morality. They simply support the concept that morality is subjective and culturally dependent, and that one person's morality is not necessarily the next person's morality. To me, it is decidedly amoral to place children in the position of not having information necessary to protect themselves from what could easily take their life.
I didn't say that education has no value. I said that the action requires a moral decision.

Then that decision should be left to the individual and their particular moral perspective. Since we cannot, nor should we, attempt to force our own moral perspective on another, and as it has been shown ineffective to do so through the trend toward abstinence only, adolescents need to have the correct information available to them so that their decision, from whatever moral perspective they take, does not risk their very life, nor the life of anyone else. Sex education should impart scientific and accurate medical information. Morality is the job of the family.

Even people who have received the best education from the best source will still make the wrong choices in life when they trust their feelings and external influences that can lead them astray.

So, you are saying that trusting one's feeling is wrong in all situations, and will always lead to an error in judgement? And that all external forces are negative? My, that leads to a dilema. If one can't trust one's internal messages, and one can't trust external messages, one is left with no trust at all.

 

[jillio]

Question for you all: How was sex ed. taught to you?

Biological and reproductive fact was taught to me by an educator trained to do so. The morality of sex education was left to my parents, and they did a fine job of not just conveying their views, but of instilling the understanding that another's person's morals are not necessarily the moral stance that all takes, nor should they be judged for that.

 

[jillio]

I said "will"--that's a future event. These things will happen, and at that time, the statistics will prove it out.

Then there is no statistical evidence to support what you are claiming. It is nothing more than a prediction, and a shaky one at that.

Do you have any examples of a declining morality resulting in an improved society? Has lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, abusing, drunkenness, etc., ever resulted in an improved society?

None of those are related to the topic at hand. But you must also keep in mind that without a degree of deviance in any society, morality does not exist because there is nothing by which to measure it.

That in itself is a judgmental statement used to attempt a deflection from the issue.

No, it isn't. But using a moral argument against a public health issue is.

 

[jillio]

Because it's true, and I have the right to present my viewpoint. I haven't told anyone here that they must do what I tell them. I present the viewpoint, and they can do whatever they want.

You absolutely have the right to your viewpoint, but the fact of the matter is, that viewpopint has not effectively reduced STDs or teen pregnancy, so it's truth most definately is under question.

 

[jillio]

Check the percentages, not raw figures.

and it was worst. not only ten years ago.... but way back when.

It was not announce back then, through the pony express or what not. With the technology of dianosing.

see my point? YET?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Congenital transmission was rampant, and the negative effects of having an STD, sometimes for decades, were too. Untold numbers of people were in mental institutions as a result of having had syphillis for so long that it destroyed brain tissue. Women were infertile as a result of untreated and undiagnosed gonorrhea. Babies were born blind and deaf as a result of congenital transmission. Babies were born mentally retarded as the result of congenital transmission. And it would appear that some are perfectly willing to return to such avoidable consequences all in the name of "just say no." How moral is that?

 

[shel90]

Reba, you know... I just don't understand why are they following in an animal's steps? Do we, humans, have to follow animal instincts...? If an animal sex with another animal is okay, then a human sex with another human should be okay too. That means ... that would lead to increase the number of humans like cats & dogs and other animals. I meant, look at that. Desire of sexual pleasure with no self-control and self-respect. Not just the rate of human race... there are also relationship crisis, often cheating, affairs, screwing around, and so on. Oh boy, I guess we should act like an animal because it is a "natural"... =/

In the note - this quote is my POV & opinion.

Dont take the animal example literally..I was being silly.


However, it is true..sex is a natural need. How one deals with that need is up to each individual. I am not proposing that we all act like wild animals and screw everyone.

 

[Daredevel7]

Sorry but I scoff when people say that morality is decreasing.

It doesn't even make SENSE. Morality is SUBJECTIVE. Let's take the example of pre-marital sex at a young age. I can guarantee you that there is a lot more of that now. Does this mean morality "decreased"? Probably to some people's eyes. However, what they have neglected to take into account is that a lot of women got married VERY young back then (13 or so). So technically a lot of young people had sex back then, they just happened to be married. Because they signed some paper or some priest spurted out words, it's okay for a 13 year old to have sex?

And death? Come on... no matter no matter which side of the war we are on, most people today have a hard time killing other people from far away with bullets whereas thousands of years ago, they wouldn't even blink twice slicing a person's head off.

I liked Jillio's quote:

"Today's society does support morality. They simply support the concept that morality is subjective and culturally dependent, and that one person's morality is not necessarily the next person's morality."

 

[shel90]

Sorry but I scoff when people say that morality is decreasing.

It doesn't even make SENSE. Morality is SUBJECTIVE. Let's take the example of pre-marital sex at a young age. I can guarantee you that there is a lot more of that now. Does this mean morality "decreased"? Probably to some people's eyes. However, what they have neglected to take into account is that a lot of women got married VERY young back then (13 or so). So technically a lot of young people had sex back then, they just happened to be married. Because they signed some paper or some priest spurted out words, it's okay for a 13 year old to have sex?

And death? Come on... no matter no matter which side of the war we are on, most people today have a hard time killing other people from far away with bullets whereas thousands of years ago, they wouldn't even blink twice slicing a person's head off.

I liked Jillio's quote:

"Today's society does support morality. They simply support the concept that morality is subjective and culturally dependent, and that one person's morality is not necessarily the next person's morality."

It irks me that just because I behave in a certain way or have certain beliefs, I have no morals or low morals. I work, pay my bills and taxes, own a house, be there for my kids, dont do drugs, dont break any laws, and etc so just because I had sex before marriage, I am not moral...scoffs!

 

[jillio]

Sorry but I scoff when people say that morality is decreasing.

It doesn't even make SENSE. Morality is SUBJECTIVE. Let's take the example of pre-marital sex at a young age. I can guarantee you that there is a lot more of that now. Does this mean morality "decreased"? Probably to some people's eyes. However, what they have neglected to take into account is that a lot of women got married VERY young back then (13 or so). So technically a lot of young people had sex back then, they just happened to be married. Because they signed some paper or some priest spurted out words, it's okay for a 13 year old to have sex?

And death? Come on... no matter no matter which side of the war we are on, most people today have a hard time killing other people from far away with bullets whereas thousands of years ago, they wouldn't even blink twice slicing a person's head off.

I liked Jillio's quote:

"Today's society does support morality. They simply support the concept that morality is subjective and culturally dependent, and that one person's morality is not necessarily the next person's morality."

Daredevil.

 

[Reba]

In regards to the topics of STD transmission and protection, that is exactly what I am saying, and it is evidenced by much of the naivite in various posts in this thread. Not only are young people not more educated on these matters, adults aren't either, in many cases.

Since high schools in the 60's weren't providing any sex education, and you say that young people aren't receiving any more education then that, then are you saying that there has been no sex education in the public schools ever?

Today's society does support morality. They simply support the concept that morality is subjective and culturally dependent, and that one person's morality is not necessarily the next person's morality.

Subjective morality is the problem. There are no consistent standards. It pretty much ends up whatever an individual wants.

Then that decision should be left to the individual and their particular moral perspective.

Again, that means doing "whatever". That's what we're seeing happen now. There are no moral standards. People do whatever they want.

Since we cannot, nor should we, attempt to force our own moral perspective on another, and as it has been shown ineffective to do so through the trend toward abstinence only, adolescents need to have the correct information available to them so that their decision, from whatever moral perspective they take, does not risk their very life, nor the life of anyone else. Sex education should impart scientific and accurate medical information.

Is there any proof that teaching "just the facts, ma'ma" reduces sexual activity amongst teens? Would that accurate medical information include explaining that there is no foolproof protection outside of abstinence? Since you have said that teens haven't gotten sex education at school, how would you know that it works?

Morality is the job of the family.

Yes, parents should teach and live the example of their morality. But does that mean public schools should be allowed to undermine or contradict what the parents teach at home?

So, you are saying that trusting one's feeling is wrong in all situations, and will always lead to an error in judgement?

Depending on feelings alone is untrustworthy. If the feelings are supported by facts, that's one thing. If feelings ignore the facts, then that's another. "I know that this is dangerous but it feels good." Aren't you the one who promotes teaching "facts?" Well, facts aren't feelings, and feelings aren't facts. Which do you really promote? Facts or feelings?

And that all external forces are negative?

No, not all external forces are negative but they have to be analyzed in the light of facts. But people don't do that if they let feelings take control.

My, that leads to a dilema. If one can't trust one's internal messages, and one can't trust external messages, one is left with no trust at all...

Not true.

 

[Byrdie714]

Since high schools in the 60's weren't providing any sex education, and you say that young people aren't receiving any more education then that, then are you saying that there has been no sex education in the public schools ever?

Things have changed since the 1960's.......

Yes, parents should teach and live the example of their morality. But does that mean public schools should be allowed to undermine or contradict what the parents teach at home?

If the parents aren't teaching morality at home, then who should? The schools.

 

[jillio]

Since high schools in the 60's weren't providing any sex education, and you say that young people aren't receiving any more education then that, then are you saying that there has been no sex education in the public schools ever?

Perhaps your high school wasn't, but mine and my brother's was. It was provided as a part of the curriculum.
Subjective morality is the problem. There are no consistent standards. It pretty much ends up whatever an individual wants.

As it should. That is why it is called morality and not legality.


Again, that means doing "whatever". That's what we're seeing happen now. There are no moral standards. People do whatever they want.

And what should people do? What you want?



Is there any proof that teaching "just the facts, ma'ma" reduces sexual activity amongst teens? Would that accurate medical information include explaining that there is no foolproof protection outside of abstinence? Since you have said that teens haven't gotten sex education at school, how would you know that it works?

There is proof that it reduces the incidence of STDs and teen preganancy. And there is also proof that teaching abstinence only does not reduce the sexual activity among teens./COLOR]


Yes, parents should teach and live the example of their morality. But does that mean public schools should be allowed to undermine or contradict what the parents teach at home?

They are not undermining it. They are teaching fact. Parents are teaching morality. Two very different things.


Depending on feelings alone is untrustworthy. If the feelings are supported by facts, that's one thing. If feelings ignore the facts, then that's another. "I know that this is dangerous but it feels good." Aren't you the one who promotes teaching "facts?" Well, facts aren't feelings, and feelings aren't facts. Which do you really promote? Facts or feelings?

I promote the teaching of facts so that one has the information necessary to deal with the emotional that will inevitably occur.

No, not all external forces are negative but they have to be analyzed in the light of facts. But people don't do that if they let feelings take control.

Exactly. But one is unable to do that when one is denied the facts.



Not true.

Very true. There is only that which is internal, and that which is external. Unless you have located a void somewhere that no one else is aware of.