Teen Abstinence

[The Wizard from Milan]

I have already argued that promoting teen abstinence is immoral.
It also seems that it might be counterproductive

From Medical News Today

Although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" begin engaging in vaginal intercourse later than teens who have not committed to remain abstinent until marriage, they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active, according to a study published in the April issue of the... Journal of Adolescent Health,

Hannah Brückner Ph.D. and Peter Bearman Ph.D. "After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges", Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 36, Issue 4 , April 2005, Pages 271-278

[inked]

TWFM,

You have no basis for arguing the immorality of abstinence or anything! You have already elucidated the source of your morality as yourself. Remember?
I asked you then how it became applicable to others and I remarked that we had three individual moralities to deal with (yours, Lizra's, and, IIRC, Elemmire's).

How do you call anything immoral? What is the basis for your morality? Why should it apply to anything outside you?

By the by, check out post #42 for new studies contradicting the one you note!

And, have a nice day!

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

You have no basis for arguing the immorality of abstinence or anything! You have already elucidated the source of your morality as yourself. Remember?

How do you call anything immoral? What is the basis for your morality? Why should it apply to anything outside you?

I can because I am sure of my own morality.
I have already pointed out the following sentence, but now I have found an acceptable translation

All things are clean to the clean: but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers, nothing is clean: but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

You are free to think of me as the unbeliever, but actually I am the one that sees clearly.

Staying on topic: proselitizing teen abstinence is immoral because:
1. it is lie. Dressed up us pseudo-science, it is in reality a religious belief
2. it is meant to robbing young people of legitimate choices by creating ignorance
3. it pretends that a pseudo-value be a value
4. it is part of the politics of shame that cristianism often pursues
5. it is part of the politics of guilt that crisitianism often pursues
6. it pretends that something is universal while it is part only of a religion
7. it harms the young generations towards which it is directed

I will sooner or later look at your post #42 but it is well known that in states where catholicism (and possibly critianism) is strongest pre-marital heterosexual sodomy is higher than elsewhere

[inked]

National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 2002, 7.4% of sexually active women aged 15 to 44 yrs were not using contraception. This was a satistically significant increase over the 5.2% in 1995. It translated into an increase of 1.43 million women over the 1995 level (and equalled an actual number of ~4.6 million sexually active women not using contraception).

The statistics further indicated increasing contraception use, usually condoms, at first intercourse among teenagers. It also reported that more teens used condoms at their most recent intercourse (statistical significance not cited in precis). A growing percentage of adolescents use the pill and condoms at first intercourse.

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad350.pdf

The former data are of concern since an increase in pregnancy is likely.

The latter data are encouraging.

So, maybe those abstinence programs aren't as bad as the earlier arguments indicate?

Or, are the ~70% everything programs doing a better job in the US?

Further, a JAMA article noted the availability of Emergency Contraception (EC) on a study group in California. The abstract is at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/1/54 .

[Nurvingiel]

Minor quibble - it's Christianity, not Christianism.

I agree with you about morality - just because someone doesn't subscribe to a larger belief system doesn't mean they lack morals, or that their morality is unfounded. Why would the morality of one person be unacceptable while the morality of many people is?

However, I don't think it's fair to blame Catholics. Yes, Catholic beliefs are that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, and also that using birth control is wrong, but I don't think they're the sole proponents of Abstinence-only education (I think that's what you were addressing in your post) and this is probably also not the only factor in the USAs relatively high birthrate (according to the chart IRex posted earlier).
[EDIT]
I see now that you weren't blaming Catholics. I misunderstood your post because of this:

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I will sooner or later look at your post #42 but it is well known that in states where catholicism (and possibly critianism) is strongest pre-marital heterosexual sodomy is higher than elsewhere

To which I say... bwaa?
[/EDIT]

Originally Posted by inked

A growing percentage of adolescents use the pill and condoms at first intercourse.

Well that's encouraging. Yay!

What's an STI? Sexually transmitted infection?

Originally Posted by Snowdog

... on teen abstinence, I still say wait til they're 20...

[inked]

Nurv,

STI = sexually transmitted infection.

and as to morality:

2 entries found for morality.
mo·ral·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
Virtuous conduct.
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


morality

n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Morality is not individual but common. And the assessment of a person or subject is in regard to the common morality or it makes not a lick of sense. Thus my comment to TWFM that it there is an inherent contradiction in his stance. But who cares?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

So, maybe those abstinence programs aren't as bad as the earlier arguments indicate?

If teenagers use more contraception, then how could that be the benefit of abstinance programs when those don't even teach contraception?

[inked]

Earniel,

The point was that abstinence only programs mention condom usage and other forms of contraception to talk about how bad they are (per earlier posters).

My point was that if more teens are using condoms at first and most recent acts of intercourse (and this is what the data noted), then maybe the mere 32% of abstinence based programs are effectively disseminating knowledge of protect yourself from disease. Unless you want to allege a dramatic increase in the effectiveness of the 68% of other sex-ed programs (for which the last 20 years seems unlikely).

So, the good news is that the message seems to be being incorporated however the teens learn it regarding condoms. The bad news is that millions more females are not using any contraception. Why? They say they do not want to have babies (ages 15 - 44) but they aren't contracepting!

[The Wizard from Milan]

Inked, you insist on looking on the partial effect of the message on activity, taking in no consideration the harm that is done to the children by this ideological information that is creating a culture of fear, shame and guilt on something that is a foundamental rights for teen to do (here foundamental right is used in a moral sense, not a juridical sense)

[inked]

No harm is done. Unless you happen to erroneously believe that unrelieved sexual tension is the WORST of ALL POSSIBLE events in life. On the other hand (and alternating them provides different sensual inputs ), dirty diapers are the natural consequence of sexual intercourse in heterosexuals,
remember?

So you would have teenagers engage in an activity in which the pleasure is fleeting, the position(s) ludicrous, and the results damnable without regard to the consequences?

The act of sexual congress is not so innocuous as you would contend, TWFM. And it is the considered teaching of all societies that with engagement in that act the participants are responsible for the results.

Besides, you ignore the repercussions on the basis of an outmoded and unsubstantiated "benefit" that may well procure them STDs, babies, and broken futures because IT COMES NATURALLY? So does falling off a cliff.

Rational control of animal impulses is the hallmark of humanity, TWFM. Even you would seem to concede that point by your attempted use of argument with invalid premises.

[The Wizard from Milan]

There is only person here who uses arguments with invaild premises and that is you.

Of course having sexual intercourse entails some risks; every human acts entails some risks; going to school for instance is very risky; eating is very risky; not to talk about driving, and working.
The point is not to deny the risks; the point is that people with your attitudes create more risks by creating an atmosphere of shame, guilt and fear, instead of allowing the people like me to talk about the subject in a fair way.

It is FALSE that

No harm is done. Unless you happen to erroneously believe that unrelieved sexual tension is the WORST of ALL POSSIBLE events in life.

what about all the teens that committed suicide because of attitudes disseminated by people like you?
and all those grown up that are emotionally stunted because of preachings of people like you?
And is it no harm, according to you, to rob what is the right of people and what is a moral good for people from them?

Well, sexual intercourse among teens is a moral good (when it is consensual). As most acts that are moral goods they do entail some risk. No big discovery about that. But to rob people (teens, in this case) of what is a moral good on the basis of pseudo-value (that is presented as moral good, but it is not) by distorting information is morally blamable.
What an example of that? go to the 4parents.gov and use your brain to read the "supposed" faliure rates of condom for pregnanacy. I let you do this. If you are unconvinced I am going to explain you tomorrow why they are a lie.

[inked]

TWFM,
Life is a risk. Life is in fact a 100% fatal sexually transmitted disease.

Deprivation of sexual expression is not the reason teens commit suicide. Nor are people who contend for moral reasons for restraint of sexual expression.

Your level of invalid premises have reached another magnitude of ludicrousness.

The open promulgation of a doctrine of entitlement to satisfaction of every whim and desire has led to the increase of teen suicide. If your life doesn't suit you, kill yourself, after all you aren't responsible ( and there is no reckoning after, so you'll be peaceful - not that you'll know it ). What rot!

You'd best get your proving wand out and start waving it.

[The Wizard from Milan]

my dear, i want to point out that are getting more and more ideological. you are not giving any argument, just propaganda.

there is no doubt that it is an ideology of oppression that you and the likes of you promulgate under the cover of religion and that this ideology is damaging for teens as it is for adults.
You don't want to take responsibility for it; well I am going to hold you to that.
You just dehumanize sexual expression. Sorry for you, but sexual expression is ethically good. Sexual expression is encompassed by individual freedom and it has no thrid party effect. Sure it has third party effects when people like you discourage condoms, discourage abortion, discourage homosexuality...

You'd best get your proving wand out and start waving it.

I masturbate whenever I like and so should you.

[inked]

TWFM,

In your native tongue with translation:

Ogne forma sustanzial, che setta
è da matera ed è con lei unita,
specifica vertute ha in sé colletta,

Every substantial form, at once distinct
from matter and conjoined to it, ingathers
the force that is distinctively its own,


la qual sanza operar non è sentita,
né si dimostra mai che per effetto,
come per verdi fronde in pianta vita.

a force unknown to us until it acts-
it's never shown except in its effects,
just as green boughs display the life in plants.


Però, lÃ* onde vegna lo 'ntelletto
de le prime notizie, omo non sape,
e de' primi appetibili l'affetto,

And thus man does not know the source of his
intelligence of primal notions and
his tending toward desire's primal objects:

che sono in voi sì come studio in ape
di far lo mele; e questa prima voglia
merto di lode o di biasmo non cape.

both are in you just as in bees there is
the honey-making urge; such primal will
deserves no praise, and it deserves no blame.


Or perché a questa ogn'altra si raccoglia,
innata v'è la virtù che consiglia,
e de l'assenso de' tener la soglia.

Now, that all other longings may conform
to this first will, there is in you, inborn,
the power that counsels, keeper of the threshold

Quest'è 'l principio lÃ* onde si piglia
ragion di meritare in voi, secondo
che buoni e rei amori accoglie e viglia.

of your assent: this is the principle
on which your merit may be judged, for it
garners and winnows good and evil longings.

Color che ragionando andaro al fondo,
s'accorser d'esta innata libertate;
però moralitÃ* lasciaro al mondo.

Those reasoners who reached the roots of things
learned of this inborn freedom; the bequest
that, thus, they left unto the world is ethics.

Onde, poniam che di necessitate
surga ogne amor che dentro a voi s'accende,
di ritenerlo è in voi la podestate.

Even if we allow necessity
as source for every love that flames in you,
the power to curb that love is still your own.

La nobile virtù Beatrice intende
per lo libero arbitrio, e però guarda
che l'abbi a mente, s'a parlar ten prende».

This noble power is what Beatrice
means by free will; therefore, remember it,
if she should ever speak of it to you."

Purgatorio XVIII, vv 49 - 72
Dante
edit: http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/new/comedy/index.html
Dante and Mandelbaum translation

You err and dehumanize sexuality by making it mere animal passion ungoverned by intellect and free will. You would make it a moral virtue that uncontrolled and ungoverned sexual appetite rule the person. Humans are more than that.

Now, despite what you do with yourself in private, you have yet to wave the wand of explanation in your former increased magnitude of invalid premises. If you can spare the time or hand or attention, I await those explanations.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I masturbate whenever I like and so should you.

I don't think that's what he meant by "wand"! *ba dum tsshh*

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Minor quibble - it's Christianity, not Christianism.

I agree with you about morality - just because someone doesn't subscribe to a larger belief system doesn't mean they lack morals, or that their morality is unfounded. Why would the morality of one person be unacceptable while the morality of many people is?

However, I don't think it's fair to blame Catholics. Yes, Catholic beliefs are that you shouldn't have sex before marriage, and also that using birth control is wrong, but I don't think they're the sole proponents of Abstinence-only education (I think that's what you were addressing in your post) and this is probably also not the only factor in the USAs relatively high birthrate (according to the chart IRex posted earlier).

Al I can say is that I went through 12 years of catholic school - and we didn't have abstinence only education. We also learned about birth control. I think Milan is having trouble with making generalized statements.

I was thinking today with the pope dying that it's sort of strange. So many in Europe thinks that the US os conservative and religious - but the American Catholics were and are a headache to the papacy - because we don't follow what the Pope says as much as European Catholics and Latin American Catholics do. Catholics in America are far more liberal with birth control and other things than European Catholics.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

You err and dehumanize sexuality by making it mere animal passion ungoverned by intellect and free will. You would make it a moral virtue that uncontrolled and ungoverned sexual appetite rule the person. Humans are more than that.

You err and dehumanize sexuality by baselessly comtrapose it to free will and some purported rightful passion governed by intellect.
You are the one who compares human sexuality with beastly instincts. Who posulates the existance of a heavnly form of sexuality as opposed to carnal sexuality? You do.
There is only one sexuality. And when it is consensual it is a moral good. Sometimes this sexuality is accompanied by the perspective of a long term relationship and sometimes it is not. Well, it is a moral good even when it is not. It is still the expresssion of the free will of people that intend no harm and therefore morally right.

Originally Posted by inked

Now, despite what you do with yourself in private, you have yet to wave the wand of explanation in your former increased magnitude of invalid premises. If you can spare the time or hand or attention, I await those explanations.

My dear, as already in the other thread, you either pretend not to understand what I am saying, or you are unable to do so becuase your heart is hardened in front of the Truth that I present. In any case I am not going to explain things any thurther until I see a good-faith attempt from you to try to understand what I say.

[inked]

TWFM,

Dante had this confusion between desire and engagement. Note his words to Virgil in Canto 18 PARADISIO preceeding my first quotation:

Però ti prego, dolce padre caro,
che mi dimostri amore, a cui reduci
ogne buono operare e 'l suo contraro».

Therefore, I pray you, gentle father dear,
to teach me what love is: you have reduced
to love both each good and its opposite."

«Drizza», disse, «ver' me l'agute luci
de lo 'ntelletto, e fieti manifesto
l'error de' ciechi che si fanno duci.

He said: "Direct your intellect's sharp eyes
toward me, and let the error of the blind
who'd serve as guides be evident to you.

L'animo, ch'è creato ad amar presto,
ad ogne cosa è mobile che piace,
tosto che dal piacere in atto è desto.

The soul, which is created quick to love,
responds to everything that pleases, just
as soon as beauty wakens it to act.

Vostra apprensiva da esser verace
tragge intenzione, e dentro a voi la spiega,
sì che l'animo ad essa volger face;

Your apprehension draws an image from
a real object and expands upon
that object until soul has turned toward it;

e se, rivolto, inver' di lei si piega,
quel piegare è amor, quell'è natura
che per piacer di novo in voi si lega.

and if, so turned, the soul tends steadfastly,
then that propensity is love-it's nature
that joins the soul in you, anew, through beauty.

Poi, come 'l foco movesi in altura
per la sua forma ch'è nata a salire
lÃ* dove più in sua matera dura,

Then, just as flames ascend because the form
of fire was fashioned to fly upward, toward
the stuff of its own sphere, where it lasts longest,

così l'animo preso entra in disire,
ch'è moto spiritale, e mai non posa
fin che la cosa amata il fa gioire.

so does the soul, when seized, move into longing,
a motion of the spirit, never resting
till the beloved thing has made it joyous.

**************************
Or ti puote apparer quant'è nascosa
la veritate a la gente ch'avvera
ciascun amore in sé laudabil cosa;

Now you can plainly see how deeply hidden
truth is from scrutinists who would insist
that every love is, in itself, praiseworthy;


però che forse appar la sua matera
sempre esser buona, ma non ciascun segno
è buono, ancor che buona sia la cera».

and they are led to error by the matter
of love, because it may seem-always-good;
but not each seal is fine, although the wax is."
**************************

«Le tue parole e 'l mio seguace ingegno»,
rispuos'io lui, «m'hanno amor discoverto,
ma ciò m'ha fatto di dubbiar più pregno;

"Your speech and my own wit that followed it,"
I answered him, "have shown me what love is;
but that has filled me with still greater doubt;

ché, s'amore è di fuori a noi offerto,
e l'anima non va con altro piede,
se dritta o torta va, non è suo merto».

for if love's offered to us from without
and is the only foot with which soul walks,
soul-going straight or crooked-has no merit."

Ed elli a me: «Quanto ragion qui vede,
dir ti poss'io; da indi in lÃ* t'aspetta
pur a Beatrice, ch'è opra di fede.

And he to me: "What reason can see here,
I can impart; past that, for truth of faith,
it's Beatrice alone you must await.

If you note the verses between the asterisk in particular, you will note that Virgil demonstrates why the position you take is incorrect. He says simply that all loves are NOT equal either in intrinsic worth or particular enaction!
The imprint of the seal in the wax may be imperfect even though the wax is good. He then discourses into the nature of will in choosing proper ordering of loves - which was the quotation noted above posting.

I do not misunderstand you. I flatly contradict you and state that your position is less than human. It is a surrender to animal instinct - imperfectly impressing the wax because not governed by the will - and therefore less than truly human. It is hedonism pure and simple with disregard to partner(s) and offspring and society in general. Self-satisfaction elevated to the highest principle remains lust in this mode.

Humans are capable of and called to more than hedonism.

[The Wizard from Milan]

I am waiting for a quote from Inferno. I even give you a hint; you might find the one on Paolo and Francesca to your liking.

I hope you will forgive me if I don't take a piece of poetry seriously as guidance in important ethical matters.

A part from the fact that I don't hold Dante in any authority on the matter of ethics, your quote does nothing but restating your own position. I had understood it the first time.

Originally Posted by inked

I do not misunderstand you. I flatly contradict you and state that your position is less than human.

Too bad for you. It just shows your heart.

Originally Posted by inked

It is a surrender to animal instinct - imperfectly impressing the wax because not governed by the will - and therefore less than truly human. It is hedonism pure and simple with disregard to partner(s) and offspring and society in general. Self-satisfaction elevated to the highest principle remains lust in this mode.

Rethoric of oppression, as I have witnessed it countless of times. You refuse to see the intrinsic good of people manifesting their free will in consensual acts. You try to distort my point by throwing in a "disregard to partner" when I specifically say consensual. You again try to mischaracterize my position by mentioning offsprings - offsprings that are a likely results of your view of intercourse, but not of mine.

Originally Posted by inked

Humans are capable of and called to more than hedonism.

You keep of disparaging many things that are morally good by using the term "hedonism".
But I do agree that that humans are capable of more than that. I myself am an example of high moral standards and self-less acts. Funny enough, I am such an example in this very moment. In this very moment, I am forgoing more pleasent activities to protect teens (that I don't even know) from hearing unchallenged only your rethoric of oppression which I deem harmful to them.
As far as the "called to" part of your statement, I don't recognize any caller (in the manner of gods or deities), but I do agree that humans are "called to" moral imperatives. An example of moral imperative is to stop publishing misguiding pseudo-information about failure rates in condom usage.

[Janny]

If teenagers* can't understand the value of the teaching of abstinence how do you expect them to understand the teaching of safe(r) sex?

*I am one. We're idiots.