Mr. Thunk's Forum For Spirituality and Sociology

[luke]

Oh, and Melon, fuck you.

[phil]

Maarts ~ whether we want it or not, women will always have the final say
when it comes to making/having/keeping a baby or not …

I remember one of my older friend learning about ten years ago that he had a 22 y/o son in France !!
They met briefly but agreed no father/son relationship would ever come out of this …

When I was 26 y/o, I felt madly in love with one of my young sister’s friend,
that girl was just 18 herself and the feeling was very mutual …

Two years into the relationship, she told me she wanted a baby !!

She was barely 20, way too young IMO to have a baby
and I was NOT ready myself for that kind of responsability !

It became enough of an issue that we separated after 3 years of living together,
both of us still very much in love with each other …

To make a long story short, after her appartment went up in smoke after a few months of separation,
we did share a few intimate moments even though she was seeing a guy from California
who was working in Montréal on a movie shoot …

One day I tried to call her but she had left me a message
that she was going to live in California with the guy ..

A few years later, I met her mother who told me her daughter
was still happily living in California with two kids
and the first one had my name !!

Now, I could very well be the biological father of a 22-23 y/o kid
but I never tried to find out nor do I ever intend to ...

She knows how to get in touch with me ...

[wayved]

Damn Phil. Woah.

[melon1]

Dang! I clicked on "Give Melon Hell" and immediately saw luke say "Fuck You," and I had to know what pissed him off so bad. I thought it might have been my last post about partial birth abortion or something (which, I believe, nobody responded to). So I was relieved to see that it was just a joke. Just had a huge PM interaction with luke and was wondering where the hell that came from. Oh well, lukes just giving me hell, like I asked for. I said in a previous post I would change the name of this board, not because I don't like being challenged but because it gives an appearance of self-absorption. So, finally I'm getting around to it.

[melon1]

And then I realized I don't know how. Guess I have to become the Moderator or something and unfortunately I don't have the time right now to find out how to. Oh well, guess I can expect some more hell from you guys for the next day or so.

[Mary]

Regarding the state of sex education in America - while it sounds like Chrisfan got a pretty damn comprehensive sex education, phil is right that there is a serious problem in this country with inadequate sex education. Here are stats from the Alan Guttmacher Institute from 2002 (since then it has probably only gotten worse) regarding sex education in America:


• More than 2 out of 3 public school districts have a policy to teach sexuality education. The remaining 33% of districts leave policy decisions up to individual schools or teachers.

• 86% of the public school districts that have a policy to teach sexuality education require that abstinence be promoted. 35% require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people and either prohibit the discussion of contraception altogether or limit discussion to its ineffectiveness. The other 51% have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens and permit discussion of contraception as an effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs.

• Only 14% of public school districts with a policy to teach sexuality education address abstinence as one option in a broader educational program to prepare adolescents to become sexually healthy adults.

• Over 1/2 of the districts in the South with a policy to teach sexuality education have an abstinence-only policy, compared with 20% of such districts in the Northeast.

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sex_ed02.html

More than one half of the districts in the South teach abstinence-only sex education?! That's SCARY.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that such an approach to sex education is virtually proven to be both ineffective AND dangerous, the Bush administration is increasing federal funding for abstinence-only sex education. And let's be specific about what this entails - in order to receive federal fund, abstinence-only programs must teach that "sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological or physical effects." That's an empirical claim - and if it's true, then it applies to nearly everyone in America, since nearly everyone in America has had premarital sex. The way in which abstinence-only programs meet this requirement is often incredibly disturbing; sexually active teenagers (especially girls) are driven to shame and fear. One example from a salon.com article:

A workbook for Choosing the Best Path includes this question: "Circle the item(s) that can be totally eliminated through the use of a condom? Infertility, isolation, jealousy, poverty, heartbreak, substance abuse, AIDS, pregnancy, cervical cancer, genital herpes, unstable long-term commitments, depression, embarrassment, meaningless wedding, sexual violence, personal disappointment, suicide, feelings of being used, loss of honesty, loneliness, loss of personal goals, distrust of others, pelvic inflammatory disease, loss of reputation, fear of pregnancy, disappointed parents, loss of self-esteem, leaving high school before graduation."

The answer, according to the teachers guide, is "None."

Then students are instructed to "cross out the item(s) that can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage.

According to the teachers guide, the correct answer is "All."


I'd love to know how abstinence eliminates depression, embarrassment, isolation, jealousy, heartbreak, loneliness, and distrust of others......

Let's be clear: this shit is DANGEROUS. It's bad enough to refuse to talk about contraception, but it's downright criminal to actively discourage the use of condoms, and to provide utterly misleading evidence to suggest that condoms are virtually worthless as protection against pregnancy or STDs. The fact that the Bush administration is actively promoting this kind of education is, for me, one of the most morally objectionable policies of the administration....and that's saying a lot.

And if only it stopped in America! But this anti-condom puritanical hysteria infects our policies for combatting AIDS abroad, which is truly unconscionable. Currently our law requires that one-third of all funds dedicated to fighting AIDS abroad must go to abstinence-only education. Abstinence-only education in Africa?? Teaching Africans that condoms don't work?? Now that is irresponsible - and that's an understatement.

M

[rockysigman]

mary said:

Abstinence-only education in Africa?? Teaching Africans that condoms don't work?? Now that is irresponsible - and that's an understatement.

This is just fucking ridiculous.

My brother is leaving in about a month to spend two years in Botswana with the Peace Corp, so I've reading up a little bit on this lately just to have some sort of idea of what sort of situation he's entering himself into.

The Peace Corp actually left Botswana in 1997 because their economy is (relatively) stable and developed. But now they're going back because the AIDS epidemic is so out of hand that it's having a massive impact on the economy, as they are now experiencing a lack of healthy workers (1/3 of people in Botswana have HIV!).

As Mary has pointed out, abstinence-only education in America is dangerous and irresponsible, but in the case of Africa, it's way beyond this. Any sort of humanitarian efforts to help Africa in the AIDS pandemic is insincere at best when there's that sort of rider attached to it. Are we trying to save a suffering population there? Or are we trying to preach some sort of warped set of supposed moral principles that puts more value on a pie-in-the-sky religious ideal than it does in actually preventing the spread of disease and saving lives (which is really what the case is with abstinence-only education in the United States as well, only on a much smaller scale). Are we getting involved in Africa to preach? Or because we have a genuine concern in saving lives? Interesting that a lot of the people who cite the value of human life in the abortion debate refuse to take the steps that will be most likely to actually save lives when it comes to the African AIDS pandemic.

Anyway, that was a little bit of a tangent, but as the topic of AIDS in Africa has been a point of interest for me lately, I couldn't help but chime in with my outrage.

[limitdeditionlayla]

melon1 said:

I thought it might have been my last post about partial birth abortion or something (which, I believe, nobody responded to).

I didn't see that post, so I went back.

Just to nitpick, referring to late-term abortions as "partial-birth abortions" isn't very fair. Its called an intact dilation/extraction & you should refer to it as that regardless of what legislation or pro-life media chooses to call it. The medical profession does not refer to it as partial-birth abortion.

Apart from the fact that its performed on so FEW women even in the States, there are medically necessary reasons for it. Yes, it is performed on healthy late-term pregnancies because the woman wishes to terminate

(which I even personally do not agree with totally...I support abortion to the end of the first trimester & about halfway into the second, when the foetus - er sorry FETUS - is NOT viable. After this the foetus/fetus becomes viable & its a hard area for me to judge. I don't really think a woman needs 7 months to consider whether she wants to go ahead with her pregnancy, but thats just me)

however! it is also performed when an abnormality is discovered with the foetus/fetus - this I am more inclined to support.

If I personally were 7 months pregnant & only just discovered my unborn child was already suffering from extreme deformity or disease, I would probably choose an intact dilation/extraction.

If I went ahead with a pregnancy & birthed a child I knew would be suffering & unable to lead a normal life, I would feel cruel if I chose to continue on with it. I sound harsh & selfish, but I don't want the burden of a disabled child, if I knew they would be disabled. Not only would it be horrible for myself, it would be incomparably terrible for the poor child, not to mention society is so inequipped to care for & help people with disabilities that, lets face it, you'd be doing the baby a favour by aborting it.

[phil]

35% require abstinence to be taught
as the only option for unmarried people

Where's Amp ... ?? I got a joke for him ...

[phil]

Here in Québec, we had in 1989 what became a "cause célèbre"
when a man tried to stop his pregnant lover from having an abortion ...

Case Summary

Tremblay v. Daigle
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 530

FACTS
In January 1989, Jean-Guy Tremblay proposed marriage to Chantal Daigle. In February 1989, the two began to live together. In July 1989, Ms. Daigle was informed by her doctor that she was pregnant.

Shortly after commencing living together, the relationship between the parties deteriorated. Ms. Daigle alleges that Mr. Tremblay became dominant, jealous and physically abusive. Ms. Daigle decided to end the relationship and to terminate her pregnancy.

On July 17, 1989, Mr. Tremblay was granted an injunction restraining Ms. Daigle from proceeding with the abortion. On July 20, 1989, the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Daigle’s appeal and upheld the injunction. Ms. Daigle immediately appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Ms. Daigle proceeded with the abortion before the Supreme Court made its decision.

Complete article with a brief summary of the supreme court decision ...

www.mapleleafweb.com/scc/public3/decisions/1989_2scr_530_02.html

And for the record, the jerk went on to abuse more women
and was even declared a dangerous offender in Alberta at one point ...

He didn't care about about any foetus/fetus life,
just controlling the woman he was with !!

[luke]

One good thing about abstinence ed in the South, for males at least-

Sex ed is taught to boys, typicall, by coaches. Now, if you can think of category of human beings in the work force who would be uncomfortable teaching sex ed in the South, it's Southern male coaches. Not only that, but coaches are usually pretty aware that most of their players are doing it by 13.

So I just remember sex ed being a lot of "That's what she said!" and "Man, put on a condom", and, worst of all, "When you're gettin' down with one of those [insert name of neighborhood/street/clique known for easy girls], try to stay "abstinent", but seriously, wear a condom." All this was backed up by Urban Coach going specifically at the black kids by going, "C'mon, man, we know them girls be lyin', you can't just be leavin' your thing in there!"

So basically, the whole thing is treated as a big joke. I know this is purely anecdotal and doesn't hold up under any real scrutiny, but it was the only silver lining I could think of.

Now, what pisses me off is the stress on abstinence "until marriage." And then what? You just fuck like bunnies and pop out nine, ten kids until she can't take it anymore? This is bullshit. This underlying assumption that when a couple of twenty year-olds get married, the magic sex fairy will come and tell them everything they need to know about contraception, or that they'll have "figured it out" by then. It's fucking crap, and all the proof you need that this bullshit has nothing to do with protecting kids, but upholding some looney religious moral bullshit.

[chrisfan]

Here's my take on abstinence education - I think it has a place in the schools, but I don't think that place is sex education. I think that sex ed for the most part should be rather mechanical. This is how babies are made. This is an overview of various forms of birth control, how they're used, their effectiveness and risks. This is an overview of STDs, which are treatable, which are not. You give the facts. The morals are up to the parents.

That said, I recognize that a portion of the education system has evolved to include issues dealing with self-esteem and personal growth. That is where I think that abstinence education belongs - as an option for kids to be a part of rather than a core cirriculum class. I think that there are some great abstinence programs out there, such as the silver ring thing. [/color] But to me, programs such as this are about self-esteem and personal growth - NOT health education. In many ways, it's the difference between teaching intelligent design in a science class vs a philosophy class. There is a place for humanities courses in our middle and high schools. We just need to stop blurring the lines between what is in those classes and what is in the core classes.

[phil]

Now all I can think about is a big burly football coach
with a small pair of wings and a wand ... LoLoLoL !

Luke ... Thanks !!

[JACkory]

My son came home with a letter from school stating that one of the coaches was going to be having a session with all the 5th grade boys to discuss puberty. The letter asked for my permission to let Bryan attend...If I didn't sign it he would stay in the library diring the session with the other kids whose parents weren't comfortable with a coach doing what WE are supposed to do (ie. talk to our kids about sex).
I did not sign it.
Instead I took it as a heads up that the time had come to discuss the subject with my son and that's exactly what I did. It was not uncomfortable or awkward for either of us and I'm sure that I didn't leave anything out that Coach Eby would have spoken of (in fact, knowing my son's level of intelligence and comprehension, he probably got a little more info than the coach's kids).
I'm not saying that such faculty-led seminars aren't useful and maybe even necessary for some children/parents. But I know this...Doing it myself was very important to me, as I knew that it would be a bonding experience between my son and I. Furthermore, by doing it one-on-one we were able to maintain a level of gravity and maturity about the subject that I just don't know is possible when such information is dispensed in a group setting.

This society places so much (read TOO much, IMO) emphasis on sexuality that to even suggest pre-marital abstinence is to make yourself a target for anyone who has decided that such a concept is impossible. Raging hormones rule the adolescent universe (and they don't stop there...).
And yet if I had a dollar for every time I've heard a happilly married person tell me that they wish they had remained chaste before marriage I would go out and buy the most high-end iPod I could find. And if I had a dime for every time I wish I had waited until marriage I would buy another one for my wife.
Hindsight is 20/20, I know, and I'm not chastising anyone for doing something that I did when I was their age, but the issue here is not so much whether it's "possible" to adhere to abstinence. It's about self-control and the integrity that comes from being yourself and not letting peer pressure sway you. Admittedly those are qualities that are severely lacking in the majority of teens (and I was as guilty as anyone).
But that's no reason to say "it can't be done". It CAN and it IS being done by many young people. Those people should be applauded, not ridiculed.

[chrisfan]

Nicely said Jac - on both points.