Teen Abstinence

[brownjenkins]

maybe even FREE birth control... think of the healthcare cost savings

[The Gaffer]

I could be wrong but I think they are free from clinics in the Netherlands.

[Blackheart]

Birth control should be mandatory.... you should have to take a special pill to have a baby...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I could be wrong but I think they are free from clinics in the Netherlands.

I'm not sure, the Netherlands had to cut deeply in their healthcare costs last year, I believe the pill among other things is no longer free.

[Nurvingiel]

On one end of the extreme... we have abstinence-only education. On the other end of the extreme, we have mandatory birth control.

Perhaps the most practical solution lies somewhere in between.


Unbury:
Post #175
Post #177

BTW Inked, are you saying it's only safe to eat shellfish from May to August? The heck?
All I know is if you cook mussels, don't eat the closed or partly open ones.
EDIT: Is that because of red tide?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Given how I know you're a proponent of truthfulness and knowledge, why is it that you do support Abstinence-only programs? This sort of program smacks of hiding knowledge and not being truthful about sexual activity IMO. (Erm... sorry about the bluntess of the question. )

AIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!! an improper assumption of my opinion!!! NOOOoooooooo!!!! The PAIN, the PAIN!!!!

I don't think I've ever said I support abstinence-only programs, Nurv. I really doubt that I've said that, because I don't know if I do support them or not - I haven't decided. I need more info on what info both programs really contain.

What I do support, based on what I currently know, is more of an emphasis on abstinence as a fully viable and extremely wise option, and more of an emphasis that using birth control, etc. is MERELY "safer" sex. I don't know, because it's been quite a while since I've been in a sex-ed class, but I have a feeling that if abstinence is mentioned at all, it's accompanied by snickers instead of well-deserved praise and promotion. Can anyone who has recently been in a sex-ed class tell me if this is true or not?

And no problem with blunt questions at ALL! As long as the questioner is polite (which you are!), I have no problem with ANY question, and IMO, the blunter the better! Just get to the facts, don't beat around the bush!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Bah. Men need to learn to deal, then.

I have heard that condoms do diminish the pleasure of sex, but to that I say, until I want children, too $#&*@ bad.

Good for you two! YOUR bodies will be affected the most if there is a pregnancy, and YOU should have the most say. I imagine most of the Entmoot females are fairly stongminded in this area, fortunately, but I don't think that's the case overall.

[Blackheart]

Vasectomy works... I no longer have to worry about making more little orkses...

And if I do ever decide that I want another mewling squalling heir to my evil dynasty, I can have some boffin extract the neccesary ingredients and impregnate a suitable host...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

AIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!! an improper assumption of my opinion!!! NOOOoooooooo!!!! The PAIN, the PAIN!!!!

Sorry Ri! I thought you had said you did support it for some reason. x10
*gives Erroneous Assumption soothing balm*

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think I've ever said I support abstinence-only programs, Nurv. I really doubt that I've said that, because I don't know if I do support them or not - I haven't decided. I need more info on what info both programs really contain.

What I do support, based on what I currently know, is more of an emphasis on abstinence as a fully viable and extremely wise option, and more of an emphasis that using birth control, etc. is MERELY "safer" sex. I don't know, because it's been quite a while since I've been in a sex-ed class, but I have a feeling that if abstinence is mentioned at all, it's accompanied by snickers instead of well-deserved praise and promotion. Can anyone who has recently been in a sex-ed class tell me if this is true or not?

Abstinence is a good idea, I agree. I strongly feel that is should not be presented alone, but dispelling the snickers in the class (is this possible in a sex ed class? ) is a good idea. No one should be stigmatized for their choices with their own bodies. I agree with what you said about birth control too - people shouldn't see this as impregnable *rimshot* armour allowing them to behave recklessly.
However, people should know about them if they do decide to have sex. They should know their options, and the truth about them. It seems that the only difference in our opinions is that I have one about Abstincence-only education. The reason I don't like them (though, this is not written in stone) is because not all information is divulged. This is dangerous territory when you're trying to teach anybody anything!
Imagine someone is teaching you how to play rugby. They teach you how to tackle, but not how to pass! As soon as you get in a game, you're going to think your coach is a moron for not knowing/teaching you about passing. Because you will learn about passing, as young people will become aware of sex.
And remember, always wear a scrum cap. They prevent a lot of concussions.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Good for you two! YOUR bodies will be affected the most if there is a pregnancy, and YOU should have the most say. I imagine most of the Entmoot females are fairly stongminded in this area, fortunately, but I don't think that's the case overall.

I think the majority of women are reasonably confident in this area, but there are a significant number of people who aren't. The strongest influence is your mother in this area. It's important to give your daughter confidence. WRT this situation, I think there's something about a mother (doesn't have to be your biological mother necessarily) that instills confidence the best.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

NOTE: This post contains "adult" words and phrases..... if the subject didn't already suggest this.


Aha. This makes sense. I did know they were user failure rates, but I forgot about good old theoretical data there. So if one was to use a condom properly (proper application, removal, disposal, etc.) then the user failure rate would approach the theoretical failure rate of 1%?

No. The theoretical failure rate of condom usage would be around 5 to 7%. This is the quality control known "leakage" rate. That means properly used, 5-7% of condoms would permit the leakage of sperm through an apparently whole device.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So do condoms have a lower (theoretical and user) rate of failure for STDs than pregnancy? (Since the STDs are larger and therefore easier to "block")?

No. Nicht. Nein. The viruses and bacteria and Chlamydia are all SMALLER than sperm and would transgress the barrier MORE EASILY. That's why Rian and I refer to it as "safer sex" rather than "safe sex". Condoms have a higer failure rate for STDs than pregnancy - particularly when you think of lesions on contact areas not covered by the condom. Thus condoms will not prevent lice! They also will not prevent transmission of herpes or other viruses (warts, HIV, etc) if the persons having sexual relations have broken skin contact with bodily fluids anywhere not covered by a condom.


I agree with the principles that RÃ*an stated behind using "safer sex" instead of "safe sex". Note I did not claim that condoms are 100% effective (in preventing pregnancy or STDs), but they're sure as hell better than nothing.
I still think that as long as you fully explain what "safe sex" is, this terminology is not harmful. I base this belief on the fact that that is how it was explained to me, and I'm quite responsible around sex.


This makes sense. The less chance people have to bugger something up, the less they will!

It is my sad repeated observation of humanity that there is no fool proof mode for any human behaviour. The fools are entirely too inventive. I have had patients empty OCPs into other prescription bottles so "no one will know I am taking them" and ended up PG for improper taking of the pill cycle. They have placed them intravaginally (it says "ORAL"). They have taken them only when thay have sex. They have borrowed their friends. And the list goes on...

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

When I read "rhythm techniques", I first thought "I'll pull out before I come baby" which, of course, is utter bollocks.
I see that you were actually referring to Natural Family Planning. About the success rate... it's from 2 - 98%!? A 2% success rate is... well... not really success eh? This suggests that a number of people are not even remotely skilled at this method. This indicates that maybe you might want some other form of birth control as back up. However, a lot of people who choose this method do so because it's the only one approved by the Roman Catholic Church (IIRC). The day the Vatican lifts the condom ban will be a joyous day for me. (I'm not Catholic, but I think it would be good for the world. However, I suspect ensuing dialogue on this would be for another thread.)
You practice this Inked? I'm not wanting to call your beliefs and/or personal business into question, (which really means I'm about to ) but why? The Anglican church does allow other choices in birth control. You can ignore this question - I'm just curious. Perhaps there are benefits about which I'm not aware.
Though I have heard good things about this method (mostly from my extremely intelligent and well-read devout Catholic friend), there is one flaw that I simply cannot overlook.
It requires the couple to have sex when the female is least biologically inclined. If I have sex, I want it to be when both myself and my partner want to, not just when it's biologically safe. Talk about killing the libido.
Note that this is a hypothetical and not a tested situation for me. I suppose it's relevant to note that thus far, abstinence has been my personal preference for various reasons. I believe that had I not been as informed about different birth control methods, I would actually be less inclined to choose abstinence. So to all abstinence-only proponents... put that in your pipe and smoke it.

It's only fair to give the data, Nurv. It has been a very successful technique for some of my patients through the years. And a 2% success rate is not very good. However, in a patient with regular cycles and adequate training, a 98% success rate is possible. So it is very much user dependent. And, by the by, Rian and I aren't arguing that other forms of contraception shouldn't be taught. We are arguing that abstinence is a valid option and should be SERIOUSLY included in the discussion. As my articles have noted, the impact can be successful. You prefer it, it seems. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I did know that vasectomies were the most effective and safest operation. I guess tubal ligation is the female equivelant eh? This is all very interesting.

No. Statistically, female bilateral tubal ligations would be the most successful if the 3 - 6/1000 procedures holds. Vasectomies have failure rates of 6 - 10/ 1000 procedures. But as you well know, the difference between 3 to 6 and 6 to 10 is only discernable in LARGE data bases. So they seem equivalent in failure rates. The operation is most easily an in-office procedures on males under local anesthetic. BUT SINCE SPERM PRODUCTION IS DAILY AND TAKES 6 WEEKS FOR MATURATION, A VASECTOMIZED MALE IS STILL PRODUCING SPERM CAPABLE OF FERTILIZATION FOR 6 TO 8 WEES AFTER THE SURGERY. I have always warned couples of this. I instruct them to obtain a semen analysis at 6 weeks post-vasectomy and, if still positive, repeat at 8 weeks postop. In females, a post-operative hysterosalpingogram can test for tubal occlusion 6 - 8 weeks. I have detected 2 failures in 20 years in this fashion. Many people do neither and sometimes discover failure by a bouncing new baby!

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Post-historectomy pregnancy? How can you get pregnant without any ovaries? (Or is that having the womb removed? Also hard to get pregnant without one of those. )

A hysterectomy removes only the womb (uterus) and fallopian tubes. The ovaries may or may not be removed determined by a number of factors. It is hard to get pregnant without a womb BUT IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. I have seen one of these (which is what got me intrigued into the literature search) but it was an abdominal implantation of an ectopic pregnancy with a womb present. The true rarity of the post-hysterectomy pregnancy is awesome (fortunately).

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Of course there are risks. Life is full of risk-taking activities. (Driving, eating chips, playing sports, etc. etc.) The best you can do is manage these risks in a sensible and well-informed (whenever possible) manner. The risks do not make sex a bad idea, it simply means risk-management is the best idea if you choose to have sex.

You should know the risks and all the options! Live! and die! It's really the only two option game in town, right?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

I have had patients empty OCPs into other prescription bottles so "no one will know I am taking them" and ended up PG for improper taking of the pill cycle. They have placed them intravaginally (it says "ORAL"). They have taken them only when thay have sex. They have borrowed their friends. And the list goes on...

sounds to me like utterly fantastic examples of why REAL COMPLETE sexual education is absolutely essential in our society. never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Im gonna guess simply saying "Premarital sex is wrong!! Never do it!!" would not disuade the vast majority of these folks.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

It's only fair to give the data, Nurv. It has been a very successful technique for some of my patients through the years. And a 2% success rate is not very good. However, in a patient with regular cycles and adequate training, a 98% success rate is possible. So it is very much user dependent. And, by the by, Rian and I aren't arguing that other forms of contraception shouldn't be taught. We are arguing that abstinence is a valid option and should be SERIOUSLY included in the discussion. As my articles have noted, the impact can be successful. You prefer it, it seems. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I already knew I misinterpreted what Rian said, and I don't think I said you thought that. (If I did - sorry!)

If we all agree about abstinence being a viable option, what the heck are we arguing about?

(I'll come back to the rest of your post later.)

[Juicybearfut]

note: sorry if im bringing up topics that are from a while back....i just read 10 pages of posts about this

personally, i dont beleive in abstinance...it doesnt mean im gonna go out and have sex with any guy, im just not gonna wait until marraige if i meet the right person. While i have respect for people who do support abstinance and will wait until marraige, i hate it when they try to shove it down your throats and tell you that your belief/opinion is wrong. By definition, an opinion cant be wrong, so people who tell you that having before sex before marriage is wrong for everyone sometimes are irritating.

now going way back to where the posts were about sex ed classes and putting condoms on objects:
Last year we had to do that, however instead of using vegetables, we used "realistic" plastic pink penis'(is that the plural form?) and condoms. I do think it is helpful because while our health teachers tell us that abstinance is truly the only way to be safe, they realize that not everyone is going to follow that so they teach us to be prepared. There is actually somethings that you need to know about putting on a condom, so i was helpful to have them show us (i dont think i need to go into details)

if our school just said "sex is wrong, dont do it" then im sure that we would have lots more pregnant teens. people are gonna do it no matter what, so the best thing we can do is teach them how to be safe and give them the right information so they know what they are getting into. (ever see the movie saved?)

*not bad for a 1st post eh?*

[Juicybearfut]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

maybe even FREE birth control... think of the healthcare cost savings

arent they free or at least cheap at planned parenthood centers?

[Nurvingiel]

You can also get free condoms in any police station in my home town. Or at least the Community Police station downtown (part of the city's police force).

Free (male) condoms make a lot of sense to me. I don't know about other birth control methods. Other barrier methods, like female condoms, are much more expensive, and knowledge of their use is much less widespread than condoms. I think a pharmacist or doctor should be the one distributing hormonal forms of birth control like the pill or the patch. (At least, you should buy them over the counter at a pharmacy.)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Juicybearfut

I do think it is helpful because while our health teachers tell us that abstinance is truly the only way to be safe, they realize that not everyone is going to follow that so they teach us to be prepared. There is actually somethings that you need to know about putting on a condom, so i was helpful to have them show us (i dont think i need to go into details)

if our school just said "sex is wrong, dont do it" then im sure that we would have lots more pregnant teens. people are gonna do it no matter what, so the best thing we can do is teach them how to be safe and give them the right information so they know what they are getting into.

well spoken Juicy. What grade are you in? It seems so simple and clear when you describe it. Its amazing that there is so much controversy surrounding this topic.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

No. The theoretical failure rate of condom usage would be around 5 to 7%. This is the quality control known "leakage" rate. That means properly used, 5-7% of condoms would permit the leakage of sperm through an apparently whole device.

Okay, thanks inked. I got a little confused around the user/theoretical failure rates. *files away information for future use*

Maybe this thread should be renamed the sex education thread or something..?

Originally Posted by inked

No. Nicht. Nein. The viruses and bacteria and Chlamydia are all SMALLER than sperm and would transgress the barrier MORE EASILY. That's why Rian and I refer to it as "safer sex" rather than "safe sex". Condoms have a higer failure rate for STDs than pregnancy - particularly when you think of lesions on contact areas not covered by the condom. Thus condoms will not prevent lice! They also will not prevent transmission of herpes or other viruses (warts, HIV, etc) if the persons having sexual relations have broken skin contact with bodily fluids anywhere not covered by a condom.

Oh I see now. I wonder why I got the size thing backwards. A barrier method is still the only way to lessen the chance of getting an STD right? I think people should have a physical with somewhat regularity (not that I am demonstrating this good idea. When I get back to Canada I will! Really! ), and especially before sex you should make sure you don't have an STD, even if you're a virgin! (I mean, you never know... there is that extremely minute chance...) Then if you find out you do have an STD, you can do something about it... I hope.
There isn't a lot you can do about HIV/AIDS aside from managing it as best you can, but what about less serious (???) STDs like chlamidia or herpes?
Do people still get syphillis?

Originally Posted by inked

It is my sad repeated observation of humanity that there is no fool proof mode for any human behaviour. The fools are entirely too inventive. I have had patients empty OCPs into other prescription bottles so "no one will know I am taking them" and ended up PG for improper taking of the pill cycle. They have placed them intravaginally (it says "ORAL"). They have taken them only when thay have sex. They have borrowed their friends. And the list goes on...

Borrowed their friend's medicine!? *dumbstruck* Oh... my...
Taken the medication intravaginally... *snerk* Maybe they were confused by the term "oral sex". But still... *head -> desk*
I hope you don't see too many awful examples of Darwinism in action as a doctor. Some people end up in hospital through random chance, but others through sheer stupidity. Don't forget that there are a lot of smart people that you just don't see in the hospital because they didn't play in traffic (or something else dumb) and weren't struck by the fickle hand of fate.

Originally Posted by inked

It's only fair to give the data, Nurv. It has been a very successful technique for some of my patients through the years. And a 2% success rate is not very good. However, in a patient with regular cycles and adequate training, a 98% success rate is possible. So it is very much user dependent.

I know it's only fair to give data, I was just pointing out that those people responsible for the 2% success rate data weren't very good at the technique. Conversely, those at the 98% end were brilliant at it.

Originally Posted by inked

No. Statistically, female bilateral tubal ligations would be the most successful if the 3 - 6/1000 procedures holds. Vasectomies have failure rates of 6 - 10/ 1000 procedures. But as you well know, the difference between 3 to 6 and 6 to 10 is only discernable in LARGE data bases. So they seem equivalent in failure rates. The operation is most easily an in-office procedures on males under local anesthetic. BUT SINCE SPERM PRODUCTION IS DAILY AND TAKES 6 WEEKS FOR MATURATION, A VASECTOMIZED MALE IS STILL PRODUCING SPERM CAPABLE OF FERTILIZATION FOR 6 TO 8 WEES AFTER THE SURGERY. I have always warned couples of this. I instruct them to obtain a semen analysis at 6 weeks post-vasectomy and, if still positive, repeat at 8 weeks postop. In females, a post-operative hysterosalpingogram can test for tubal occlusion 6 - 8 weeks. I have detected 2 failures in 20 years in this fashion. Many people do neither and sometimes discover failure by a bouncing new baby!

Did I get every statistic you quoted backwards? This calls for another *head -> desk*

This is very interesting though, thanks Inked. *files away more information*

Originally Posted by inked

A hysterectomy removes only the womb (uterus) and fallopian tubes. The ovaries may or may not be removed determined by a number of factors. It is hard to get pregnant without a womb BUT IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. I have seen one of these (which is what got me intrigued into the literature search) but it was an abdominal implantation of an ectopic pregnancy with a womb present. The true rarity of the post-hysterectomy pregnancy is awesome (fortunately).

I can certainly imagine that would be rare! But for those few cases... one must ask... where does the baby grow? *confused*

Originally Posted by inked

You should know the risks and all the options! Live! and die! It's really the only two option game in town, right?

But how?

[inked]

Nurv, there is a book with that title HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE by Schaeffer. It is a frankly evangelical Christian answer. But then, I am on the hot seat in the why you believe thread...Schaeffer may be shorter !

"Safer sex" is certainly the route one should go if one decides to be sexually active. Until a monogamous relationship (marriage, right?) and relative certainty, one does the best one can if sexually active to prevent disease and pregnancy. It is responsible to one's self, but you can also view it as responsible to one's future life-partner. The thing not to do is what one of my patients told me (X my heart I'm not making this up!) in response to the question, "Are you sexually active?"; - "No. I just lays there." I had to leave the room for a good 10 minutes before I could regain my composure! Both the nurse and I were unable to breathe due to laughing after we go out of the exam room. Since her PG test was negative, I was able to counsel her on the options and get her started on the pill.

Alas syphillis is on the rise in the USA. Chlamydia is the number two STD; venereal warts are #1 at present. GC is developing resistance to standard antibiotics. ETC, etc!

The one aspect of Darwinism I can verify by observation is that most mutations are negative, not progressive! Reproduction does not require intelligence in the initial stages, merely opportunity. "THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS DIRTY DIAPERS." "The fickle hand of fate finds it harder to strike through a glove (condom)!"

In ectopic gestations or intrabdominal pregnancies, the placental implantation site depends on where the PGcy lands. The literature reports peritoneal implantations in the pelvis and abdomen, over the intestines and the intestinal blood supply, and the liver, etc. A deadly prospect due to hemorrhage.

And back to "How?" to live the two option game of life:
1) The summary of the Law: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and mind and soul and strength. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two Laws hang all the Laws (Ten Commandments) and the Prophets (interpersonal relations in all degrees).
2) As the gift it is, in appreciation!

See ya on the What you Believe thread!

[Nurvingiel]

It just lays there! Bwahaha! That's awesome.

Speaking of awesome, you should submit "The fickle hand of fate finds it hard to strike through a glove" to National Condom Week! (When is that anyway?)

National Condom Week, among other things, is a collected list of humorous slogans as to why you (and/or your partner) should wear a condom. The most famous is "No glove, no love".

[Juicybearfut]

national condom week is from febuary 14th-febuary 21st

a coincidence it starts on valentines day?
i think not

i cant wait for health class this week.....