How many times can I use the same headline?
Evidently, it will be useful as long as we have the current White House.
Investigations into the Bush Administration’s spinning, folding, and mutilating of science have finally begun. I’m glad to see this underway, and I’m very glad someone at Congress is not only interested in this topic, but actively doing something about it.
This most likely touches on every agency that does any kind of science: NASA, NOAA, the FDA… and as fond as I am of space, it’s that last that really gets me very, very angry. The FDA is in charge of our health, and Bush’s political appointees there have been doing copious damage. From the manipulation and outright lies about Plan B to this new ridiculous program that promotes abstinence-only to people up to age 29 (when it’s been shown over and over not to work at any age).
As long as these attacks on science continue, we must be diligent. And they will go on, no doubt, forever. Eternal vigilance, fellow humans. Stay on your toes, and don’t let those antiscientists turn the clock back to the Middle Ages.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Well what do you expect when politicians and lawyers (most are both) play scientist?
November 1st, 2006 at 10:50 pm
You might have to use Cantor’s aleph set notation for different orders of infinity in future.
Promoting abstinence-only to age 30?
I’d have more respect for anti-abortionists if they handed out contraceptives at their rallies- but these people are not interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies- their real motive is to erode church-state separation.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Sorry to interrupt:
“spinning, folding, and mutilating”
You don’t happen to be a fan of the Reptile Palace Orchestra, do you?
November 1st, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Oh yes, this MUST be a nation crisis!
Here’s the plan, we go in with an assasin, to get Bush. And at the last second we… BACK OUT! ZOMGXORZ!
XD Seriously, The elections are about 2 years away. If you don’t like the way things are going vote for a different guy. America’s fault for voting for Bush!
Quit complaining there’s nothing you can really do about it, no one really cares exept the few who laugh at you. HAHAHA!
November 1st, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Confuddled:
I don’t want to seem too political here, but
There’s nearly ~3000 Americans who’ve died in Iraq (mostly kids I imagine) who aren’t going to get a chance to vote for Bush- or anyone else for that matter in 2008.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Christian Burnham I think the topic here is politics… sadly. =(
There are Americans dying, but you also have to remember those who died in the WWs, the Civil War, the Revolution War, ect. It seems that the world is always at war and people keep dying. With the UN just sitting there in luxery I doubt there’s much we can do about it.
And Bush won’t get to run for office in 2008, this is his second term.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:05 am
I remember when astronomy actually was the topic here. Now it has simply turned into a “dailykos” lite, sad.
P.S. If anyone is still interested NBC (I believe) while reporting on the Hubble servicing mission last night actually said “it’s been 400 years since Galileo INVENTED the telescope”.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 am
Um, confuddled, you seem a little – befuddled. You see, the way the system works in America is that we have these two bodies called the House of Representatives and the Senate and they have the power to place a check against the policies of the President in a number of ways. They finalise spending, they organise commissions, they institute bills, they can override vetoes – together in the role of the Legislature they constitute one-third of the “checks and balances” of our government system.
And there’s this thing called a mid-term election happening right now in which we vote on who we wish to take some of those seats in those institutions. If the landscape of the legislature shift significantly it could mean greater control over the recent excesses of the President’s power.
So, in effect, we don’t have to wait two years in order to put the brakes on Bush. We can do it in less than a week. It will be interesting to see how it goes.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 am
Al- this is getting boring. See the last billion discussions about what this page is and isn’t.
Assuming you really don’t know-
This page is a blog written by the BA. It is not limited to discussion of astronomy.
If you don’t like the more political articles then just skip them. You can always choose to just read the astronomy related entries.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 am
HvP I doubt anything exiting will happen, we’ll just have to wait and see.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 am
Are the republicans really _trying_ to lost the next election? Telling kids not to screw is bad enough. Telling millions of voting-age adults they shouldn’t be screwing sounds insane beyond all belief.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 am
Gee Christian really? Thanks for the update. You miss the point, I was refering to how the page used to be and comparing it to what it has become. No where did I say the BA didn’t have the right to write what he wanted on his site. The BA is free to express what he wants and he has given us this forum to express ours. Perhaps you best take your own advice and ignore posts you don’t like.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 am
[...] Link. (via) [...]
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:39 am
Al-
OK, but then I don’t understand why you feel the need to hang around and complain. This is a personal blog- if you don’t enjoy the writings of this particular person- then go read another blog. There are billions of them out there.
I’m not saying that people who disagree with the BA on a particular topic should leave. There’s plenty of room for everyone to present their own opinion and debate controversial topics. I’m just saying that if you don’t enjoy this page then you should probably turn to a blog that you do enjoy
Whatever. I think this subject has been done to death of late. I’m not sure what response you’re looking for.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 am
From the topic link:
The officer, George Deutsch, a political appointee, had resigned after being accused of trying to limit reporters’ access to James Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist, and insisting that a Web designer insert the word “theory” with any mention of the Big Bang.
He may have resigned after the above but the reason wasn’t his anti-science actions, it was the lie he put on his resume that he had a degree when he actually was a dropout.
It would be nice if getting caught blatantly altering government sponsored science reports to agree with corporate and religious goals got one fired, but that hasn’t happened yet.
And let me guess, the money our tax dollars being spent on the abstinence education targeting young single adults is going to evangelical churches that are most likely to send their congregations out to vote Republican. Faith based program funding is nothing more than another scheme to bilk the taxpayers for funding political cronyism. Follow the ‘faith based’ money if you don’t believe me.
Libertarians and real Republicans might want to look at what actually lies beneath the cover page of that Republican label they are voting for.
Confuddled Says:…
XD Seriously, The elections are about 2 years away. If you don’t like the way things are going vote for a different guy. America’s fault for voting for Bush!… Quit complaining there’s nothing you can really do about it, no one really cares
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections half the country did not support the Bush government. Why should that half stay silent just because Bush ended up in office? For that matter, why should anyone stay silent in between elections? The US government is a representative republic only when the people are truly represented and that can only happen if the people are informed and involved.
As far as no one caring, that’s shows you either don’t get out much or the defense mechanism of denial is operating in your brain.
Al- I can understand though not agree with your whining over the torture and abuse of power entry, but don’t be so quick to dismiss a science blog that discusses the attacks on science being made by our government. One of the investigations included in the news article was the appointment of ‘the church lady man’ to censor NASA scientists who revealed evidence that contradicted the Bible.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:06 am
Strike out code was ignored above so it appears as typos
the money -> our tax dollars
church lady -> man
Oh well.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:21 am
But you’re flat-out wrong, sorry to say. Phil’s post above is exactly what the blog has always been…a mixture of topics mostly related to science, some having nothing to do with science. Have you been reading here since Phil started the blog? It really hasn’t changed. What you might be seeing is that there are more people reading and commenting on the more political posts, because that’s easier to contribute to rather than say, the finer points of pulsars, but he has no control over people’s comments or how subjects digress. He probably attracts more people who agree with him on these particular issues, naturally. Anyway…
“Eternal vigilance” is a good axiom. When I was younger I naively thought we wouldn’t still be debating things like Roe vs. Wade, evolution teaching, separation of church and state issues, etc., as if we were all going to get collectively better and smarter about these issues. Ha! But Cicero’s “Six Mistakes of Man” still hold true, and we can’t take anything for granted, including that our govt will act with integrity. Heck, they whited-out lines on EPA documents to spin it to their advantage. Complacency is the worst thing.
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:13 am
It’s interesting how people assume that the Bush Administration actually thinks that the Apparatus of the US Government (EPA, NASA, NOAA, DoD, and everyone else) is meant to serve the ‘People’ – when it is clear that the Appartus is meant ONLY to serve and further the aims of the Bush Admin. Like it (or not) – the Entire Federal Bureacracy has been turned into a tool (by the Bush Admin) to support getting Bush as well as Republicans elected. period. And I’m not just talking about a few PR stooges at NASA. I’m talking everybody included the entire Dept. of Defense. The decision to attack and Iraq is beginning to look more like it was a ‘wag the dog’ scenario but on a grand scale that unfortunately went horribly wrong. The suppression of science is just one aspect of the Bush Admins subverting Federal Agencies to advance their own agenda – namely getting re-elected. The war in Iraq, the Faith-Based iniative, tax cuts for the rich – the list is endless. Hence, calling the Bush Admin anti-science is accurate – but misses the big picture.
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 am
“It’s interesting how people assume that the Bush Administration actually thinks that the Apparatus of the US Government (EPA, NASA, NOAA, DoD, and everyone else) is meant to serve the ‘People’ – when it is clear that the Appartus is meant ONLY to serve and further the aims of the Bush Admin.”
Actually, both of these are wrong.
The Apparatus of the US Government has pretty much always been meant to employ the supporters of whoever was elected/appointed to run thaqt particular agency.
Who cares if it’s Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Nixon, or any of the Bushes. They all operate under the guise of helping out the people, but ultimately are staffed by means of political decision.
That’s what makes Phil’s rants so humorous… the ONLY thing that will change any of this is to elect new people. And even then, it will only change the staff.
Al, IMHO you are right. Maybe the content of this blog hasn’t changed, but the tone has. It’s currently become more… desparate. With an election coming, and a REAL chance for the Democrats to take control in both bodies of the Legislature, I’d expect no less.
And Phil, that’s why your rants are not only humorous, they are a good thing.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 am
Joe: I think you’re risking exaggeration there.
Not even the Republicans can turn back the clock on science or subvert NASA and the DoE etc. to their nefarious ends. Scientists are a prickly lot and they don’t follow orders very well. The worst any government can do is to cut funding in programs they don’t like or put a spin on press-releases.
If conditions become too bad (e.g. stem-cell research) then the scientists will tend to migrate to countries that will fund their research.
Maybe that’s bad enough- but I don’t believe that any power is capable of truly muffling science in today’s world. Well- not as long as there’s a mass-media, the internet and enquiring minds.
The ‘war on science’ is over. Science won. Some politicians are still fighting science in the hope of turning up some wedge issues, but they will never be successful in turning back the clock.
Maybe I’m trivializing the efforts of people who have to fight against this anti-science-
-But maybe we should remind ourselves from time to time that evolution and the big-bang will be knowledge that will stay with humanity long after this current crop of politicians has been and gone.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:51 am
What I don’t understand is why the republicans want less government interference everywhere except in the bedroom!
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:16 am
Didn’t you know, Phil? Everything is FAITH-BASED now. Faith-based war, faith-based health, faith-based science, it goes on and on. You can read more about it here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19590
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:21 am
I think what you are really upset about here is that morality solves problems like the spread of disease and teenage pregnancy. Problems that science has done diddly to prevent.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:24 am
Phil said: “The FDA is in charge of our health,”
Actually, I’m not exactly enthralled with that idea under ANY Administration.
We’re all ultimately responsible for our own health. Life expectancy keeps rising, so we must be doing something right.
The only thing that bugs me more than Bush’s antiscience is his refusal to secure the borders. I live in So Cal, and see first hand the devastation that issue is causing, especially in the ruined school system and emergency rooms dropping like flies. Yeah, yeah, nation of immigrants and all that, but this is a BAD situation.
And, yes, I’m more than willing to spend money helping Mexico fix itself. Maybe a forced regime change.
Ha ha. I tease. Mostly. But seriously, as an engineer, I’m a “fix the problem at the source” kind of guy.
As for the use of this blog, this is overall a skepticism blog, and it fights anti-science, so this is a valid topic from that POV.
Dave said “With an election coming, and a REAL chance for the Democrats to take control in both bodies of the Legislature, I’d expect no less.”
Maybe I’m over skeptical on politics, but to me that’s “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” as The Who sang.
I think I’m in love with skeptigirl. Oops, did I type that out loud?
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:49 am
*sigh* Time to break out my old mantra once more:
Patriotism is obedience in a dictatorship; in a democracy it’s vigilance.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:03 am
And screw like bunnies, especially if you’re under 30. And if you’re a single woman and you want to be a mother, don’t let the fracking government, or anyone else for that matter, tell you that you need a husband to do so. What a load of crap. Just make sure you are emotionally and financially ready for the responsibility of motherhood. This stigmatization of single mom’s has got to stop. This idolization of marriage has got to stop.
Finally when young girls and women were starting to feel empowered on their own and in no need of a knight in shining armor to come and rescue them, the government starts to beat them down? What a load of crap.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:49 am
[...] White House tampering of science, part ∞ How many times can I use the same headline? Evidently, it will be useful as long as we have the current White House. Investigations into the Bush Administration’s spinning, folding, and mutilating of science have finally begun. I’m glad to see this underway, and I’m very glad someone at Congress is not only interested in this topic, but actively doing something about it. [...]
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:59 am
To Whom It May Concern: All the political rantings on a website called “Bad Astronomy” (which I really, really, really used to like) has caused me a great deal of dismay. You really need to knock this crap off Phil. I mean, you’re a good guy. But like some Hollywood types who are really good at “their” business (makin’ movies), I’m completely turned off when the conversation turns to politics. Therefore, I’ll simply leave the “Bad Astronomy” community. Although this is a painful decision there just doesn’t seem to be any other choice. Guess I’ll have to get my Good/Bad Astronomy elsewhere.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:29 am
First, I’d like to say that I love this sight (and blog), and come here regularly. I agree that Phil seems to be doing more posts that have political content, but I also think that Phil is doing his duty. This is about a political party’s attacks on science. So, Phil has as much of a right as anyone to point it out on his blog. If you only want the science, just don’t bother reading anything that is filed under ‘politics’. Myself, I’ll read it all, and make an independent decision before becoming upset about Phil’s supposed motives.
-Berlie
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:41 am
So if I read that abstinence one correctly, the official position of the US government is that people are supposed to wank to internet porn as much as they can until they turn 30?
Must be a plot driven by the Kleenex and big-tissue in general, and probably says something about the USA… I wonder if the people who think up these abstinence plans truly understand they’re advocating a national toss program.
But Confuddled is essentially correct. You can whine, you can howl, you can investigate, you can expose – but you won’t change anything until the next election and even then change will require two very important things to happen:
1) That people actually get out and vote.
2) That the people who vote actually engage their brains and think about the ramifications of what they are doing before they do it.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:47 am
To David Willard and all the other people trying to tell Phil to shut up about politics:
You are far more annoying than any political post on this blog could ever be.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 am
“To Whom It May Concern: All the political rantings on a website called “Bad Astronomy†(which I really, really, really used to like) has caused me a great deal of dismay. You really need to knock this crap off Phil. I mean, you’re a good guy. But like some Hollywood types who are really good at “their†business (makin’ movies), I’m completely turned off when the conversation turns to politics. Therefore, I’ll simply leave the “Bad Astronomy†community. Although this is a painful decision there just doesn’t seem to be any other choice. Guess I’ll have to get my Good/Bad Astronomy elsewhere.”
IMO nicely said! =) The BA is great at astronomy/physics/other sciences but when it comes to politics I don’t think the BA gets it. He twists the truth into something different which results in something weird.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 am
“If you use contraception effectively and consistently, you will not be in the pool of out-of-wedlock births.”–from the link
Are they saying that contraception is 100% effective? I always wondered about that.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:20 am
Sigh.
I guess I’ll start linking to a disclaimer whenever I make a political post, to prevent some of the whining.
And Confuddled, wow. Me, twisting truth? Care to back that up with some evidence?
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:30 am
While i generally thing the big bad BA is on the money with a lot of his politicking I KIND of agree that the site is more fun when its just space stuff.
That said, what the BA stands for isn’t nessasarily fun for funs sake. He takes important issues and MAKES them fun. Granted his “boobs in science” segments are more light hearted in tone than his “boobs in politics” But I see these segments as a logical segway for someone trying to carry on a bit of the C. Sagan legacy.
I may disagree sometimes with what BA thinks about some political matters but I’m not going to leave just because I see some ideas that are contrary to mine.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 am
Unfortunately, kingnor, the politics crap is REAL, and it DOES affect science – so the BA, talking about how science is doing these days (which is well even the more narrow-minded definitions of what this blog is about) would be wrong not to write about the politics crap.
To further defend the BA: he is not pushing any partisan agenda here – he is defending science. Partly, I guess, because science is his job (and who can blame him for defending his job?), partly because he thinks science is fun (and who can blame him for THAT?), but mostly because, if folks like those the BA rants about had had their way all the time, we´d be living in mud huts and trembling before the anger of the gods during every thunderstorm.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:47 am
Yeah, that’s basicly what I was saying, Chaos.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Personally I wouldn’t mind if every single web page on the entire Internet became an anti-Bush blog if the end result would be a turning of the entire U.S. social, political and religious juggernaut away from the cliff that it’s blindly racing towards. Like BA, I am sick of the rampant idiocy and wanton ignorance that is rapidly enveloping the world of reason like a cancerous fog. FSM help us all.
Keep it up, Phil. Fingers crossed for next week.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:07 am
Wow. What to say here. Ok, two things:
1. Perhaps some people believe Phil’s science is tainted by his politics. And perhaps these people do not believe that there is a science-related website that represents their own political believes. If so, I have good news for you. It’s called http://www.junkscience.com
2. I, for one, do NOT believe that Phil’s science is tainted by his politics. Of course, belief without evidence is useless, and since science makes predictions, I’m going to make a prediction about my statement. If the Democrats take back control of Congress in 2006, and if the Democrats take back the presidency in 2008, and if this new administration starts pursuing anti-science policies in the same way that the current administration has, then you will see the BA railing against them just as loudly as he has railed against the Republicans. Silence from the BA would mean either that the Democrats have good science-friendly policies, or that he is choosing to ignore them when they stray from this path. And if *this* is the case, the regular readers of this blog will rise up and alert the BA to his hypocrisy. Perhaps then it will be reasonable to whine that Phil just “doesn’t get it.” But not today.
Let us see what the future brings.
J. D.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:08 am
Aaagh! “believes” should be “beliefs.”
J. D.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:13 am
[...] “White House tampering of science, part “, no Bad Astronomy. Novos dados de um velho problema da administração Bush em relação à ciência; [...]
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:19 am
Oh goody, something to whine about,,,
Morality is relative(that should piss off someone)!
Disease has no morality. People are going to do whatever feels good. Science tells us what causes the spread of disease, especially STDs. Use of condoms is ethical but is not necessarilly moral(though it can be).
Science means knowledge( check the origen of that word).
Knowledge is quite different from opinion or belief.
Scientific Method is the ONLY,,repeat,,,ONLY method humanity has EVER developed to check the accuracy of our knowledge.
I love that it was first(as far as is known) delineated by a Moslem Sufi in the 11th century.
I LOVE THIS BLOG!!!
GAry 7
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
What separates political posts on this site from political posts on other sites is that here you read “I’m BA and I say >blahblahfnord
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:51 am
OK, so you can’t use greater-than and less-than in posts…
What separates political posts on this site from political posts on other sites is that here you read “I’m BA and I say -blah- and here’s some reputable links that make me think >blah
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:52 am
OK, so you can’t use greater-than and less-than in posts…
OK, so it also appears my eyes need checking as well. My apologies, please delete the two munged posts prior to this one.
What separates political posts on this site from political posts on other sites is that here you read “I’m BA and I say -blah- and here’s some reputable links that make me think -blah- and you should read them and decide for yourself.”
That differs markedly from the plethora of sites that say “I’m ARLS* and I say -fnord- and if you don’t believe me, look it up for your self on http://www.nukethebabygaywhalesforjesus.com and if you still don’t believe me you must be stupid.”
Since the politics has a DIRECT AND TANGIBLE effect on the direction and effectiveness on scientific research in the nation that does, by far, the most scientific research, I think that there are certain political discussions that are highly relevant to the overall topic of “Bad Astronomy”
* A Rush Limbaugh Sycophant
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:53 am
“I think what you are really upset about here is that morality solves problems like the spread of disease and teenage pregnancy. Problems that science has done diddly to prevent. ”
This is a joke, right? It’s hard to tell these days…
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 am
Recently, an American that I have had many dealings with and had always considered educated and generally knowledgeable maintained that Ann Coulter was much brighter, better educated, better read and just generally smarter than pretty much any scientist in any field.
Initially, I thought he was kidding and pressed on this issue, waiting for a punch line, but he was serious.
That sort of thing is why US politics and Science are currently doing this dance.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I don’t understand the mentality that causes someone to voluntarily visit a personal website, voluntarily read the content on that personal website, and then complain that they don’t like what they read. If the BA was your elected government representative and he was saying things that you, as a voter, did not like, you would have every right to criticize and complain. But he’s not. This is HIS website, expressing HIS views on things. He can post whatever he likes. If he wants to express his views on bananas dressed in miniature fur coats then who cares, you don’t have to read it. But complaining about it is just silly.
Phil, don’t let these few rude posters discourage you. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of us that really enjoy what you write about. I have been a fan of yours since before this blog even existed and you have helped turn me from a one-time CT’er into a full fledged skeptic. Us loyal readers hope you don’t change a thing.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Science rocks.
Politics is a necessary adjunct (or evil,,,your preference) to a hierarchical civilazation.
Such a structure appears necessary to the development of a complete understanding of nature via scientific method.
See ,,, SCIENCE ROCKS!!!
Gee, am I being recursive???
GAry 7
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I agree. The BA should change his politics and personality to better suit my preconceived ideals. I feel uncomfortable reading someone whose views differ from mine.
I also request that the BA don a wig and dance around a little to make himself look more like Britney Spears.
I’m too lazy to actually go to the Britney Spears website- so I will just sit here pressing the reload button and wait for these changes to come into effect.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Phil, can you treat the “I-used-to-like-this-blog-but-now-it’s-all-politics” comments as spam and delete them? They do nothing but detract from the current topic.
Keep up the good work,
Pieter.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Some one please explain to me how abstinence doesn’t help prevent pregnancies and the spread of STD’s? For a community that prides itself on skeptical assessments, the allegedly pro-science “liberals” seem to exclude from that logic and rational thought anything that interferes with their instant gratification. If “something” indicates that I shouldn’t have sex whenever, whereever, however, with whomever I want, then it must be wrong.
It’s not “prudish” or “intrusive” for me or my government to tell kids that the best, most effective way to avoid a whole host of “life complications” is to control your body’s urges and stay away from situations that would weaken your resolve. Contending that we can’t or shouldn’t control ourselves is nonsense. “Abstinence only” instruction only fails because society is busy trying to make it fail.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
If you attack someone’s passion and livelyhood, do you expect them to just bend over and take it? Regardless of whether his invective is effective or not, why wouldn’t Phil complain about distortions and misrepresentations of science in general?
Phil is a scientist. Science is under attack. Phil doesn’t like that. Phil says so.
What would you expect?
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
As many people don’t post in astronomy-related posts and yet people complain. Isn’t that just special.
Most amusing comment in this thread:
“If he wants to express his views on bananas dressed in miniature fur coats then who cares…”
Kelfazin, what made you think of that??
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:07 pm
DennyMo:
You’re right that IF people refrain from sex then they will have a zero risk of contracting STD’s.
But- it has never been shown that abstinence education is an effective method for stopping people from having sex. Contraception and realistic sex education are generally much more effective.
Even if abstinence education did work- I would be against it. What business does the government have dictating morality in our private lives? I thought conservatives were supposed to be against intrusive government practices.
The only people who support abstinence education are doing so out of religious reasons- based on a pre-scientific view of morality.
I don’t happen to believe that morality arose from a God who was sitting on a mountain handing out stone tablets to the leader of his followers.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
You’re attacking a straw man — no one’s claiming that abstinence fails to prevent these things, but rather that abstinence-only education fails to prevent these things. Numerous studies have been done showing that abstinence-only education fails to achieve its goals (and may even result in higher STD and pregnancy rates).
Here’s an analogy, to get us away from the emotional aspect of this argument. Imagine if driver’s ed courses taught that the only way to avoid injury and death from auto accidents is to abstain from driving, instead of teaching about seat belt use and defensive driving. Now this is technically true, but it’s useless — people are going to drive no matter what you tell them about the risks, so the proper thing to do is educate people on effective ways to minimize that risk.
You can say whatever you want about morality, but unless these programs are addressing reality, they’re useless.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“DennyMo
Says:
Some one please explain to me how abstinence doesn’t help prevent pregnancies and the spread of STD’s?”
Of course abstinence stops STDs and pregnacies and I doubt a single person that has posted a response here disagrees with that. Their point is that abstinence only teaching, which means teaching abstinence as the only birth control method doesn’t work. Sex education would be better served teaching that abstinence is the only 100% effective method which is what I was told in 1973.
Why doesn’t abstinence only teaching work? There are a plethora of answers. Teens don’t do what authority figures tell them to do. I didn’t and I was considered a model teenager (I rebeled in areas other than sex). Teens like to experiment. Compared to adult thinking, teenage thinking isn’t as logical. Not every kids pays attention in school or cares about themselves. Not every parent cares about their kids to teach them about sex. Teens think that it would happen to them.
“DennyMo
Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
It’s not “prudish†or “intrusive†for me or my government to tell kids that the best, most effective way to avoid a whole host of “life complications†is to control your body’s urges and stay away from situations that would weaken your resolve. Contending that we can’t or shouldn’t control ourselves is nonsense. “Abstinence only†instruction only fails because society is busy trying to make it fail. ”
I was told those exact things when I took sex education. I was also told that the only way to avoid getting an STD or causing a pregnancy was to not have sex. That was later reinforced by my mother who said “Getting a girl pregnant will change your life for the rest of your life” Something I still remember everytime I go on a date and I’m almost 45.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Some one please explain to me how abstinence doesn’t help prevent pregnancies and the spread of STD’s?
Certainly, and the explanation is actually very easy to understand.
On paper, abstinence is the be-all-and-end-all solution to a whole list of major problems:
1. STDs
2. Unwanted pregnancy
3. Overpopulation
4. Genetic diseases
5. Sexual addiction
and many others.
Unfortunately, abstinence works better on paper than it does in reality. It is utterly unreasonable and in defiance of the most basic human instincts to expect that people will just decide to stop porking. Abstinence has as much grounding in reality as world peace. Sure, everyone would say world peace would be cool, but it’s never going to happen regardless of how loudly we sing “Give Peace a Chance”.
Instead, the effort that is being put into getting people to abstain might be better spent on some more realistic endeavour – like recognizing that people will boink, whether or not it’s a good idea, and teaching those people to do it in a more responsible, safe way.
Teaching people abstinence instead of sexual safety has these limitations:
1. It totally denies the reality that most people think it is utterly unreasonable to not have sex. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with that position, the position itself is a reality. Like it or not, we’re all made to have sex, and the desire is programmed in our brains. It’s going to happen and telling people not to is a highly unreasonable expectation. You can’t expect people will embrace celibacy en masse any more than you can expect people to hold their breath to save themselves from air-pollution related diseases.
2. By pushing abstinence over alternatives, it actually makes promiscuous sex something taboo… and thereby lending it an interesting and rebellious air, which in turn ENCOURAGES young, rebellious people to do it. Telling people not to drink and not to smoke and not to look at porn hasn’t exactly gotten rid of booze, cigarettes, and the internet amongst teens has it?
3. By pressing abstinence over alternatives, and denying the simple biological reality, it leaves the the target groups uneducated and unprepared for the situations into which they absolutely WILL get themselves. Thus, it actually does more harm than good, in my opinion.
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
A few more days till daylight (hopefully). How about a few more political posts by Tuesday? Possibly you’ll be able to help a few more voters see the light and help save the world.
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Christian Burnham said:
> I’d have more respect for anti-abortionists if they handed out contraceptives at their rallies- but these people are not interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies- their real motive is to erode church-state separation.
One could argue they should evaluate their own priorities. Which is more important, judging people for promiscuity, or preventing abortions? If they truly feel abortion is murder, then shouldn’t that trump their own judgment of sex?
Confuddled Said:
> Seriously, The elections are about 2 years away. If you don’t like the way things are going vote for a different guy. America’s fault for voting for Bush! Quit complaining there’s nothing you can really do about it, no one really cares exept the few who laugh at you. HAHAHA!
You seriously need to increase your civics education. Voting itself is important, but that’s only part of the process. Another important part of the process is publicizing your own views and trying to convince others to share them. The marketplace of ideas doesn’t work if nobody shows up to barter. The only way to improve the quality of the politicians is to improve the amount and content of the discussion of the issues to weed out the bad ideas and promote the good ones, and to sort out which politicians support which ideas. True, there are different opinions on which are bad and which are good, which is why there is a debate and not an agreement. Complaining is “doing something about it†– it’s trying to break through the complacency and apathy and get people motivated enough to understand the issues and do something about them. If you want to stick your head under a rock, that’s your business. But your complaining is the stuff that isn’t doing anybody any good.
> There are Americans dying, but you also have to remember those who died in the WWs, the Civil War, the Revolution War, ect. It seems that the world is always at war and people keep dying.
Yes, but irrelevant. The important issue is this war, the one that’s going on now. Why is it going on? What is it supposed to be accomplishing? Is it accomplishing that? What are the other effects?
> With the UN just sitting there in luxery I doubt there’s much we can do about it.
UN sitting there in luxury? What are you talking about? If the UN seems ineffectual, that’s a topic for discussion, and if you think they should be playing a role they aren’t, that’s another topic. But I hardly see how the UN is a relevant issue to whether or not our government officials are being straight with us, the citizens. Or whether they are pursuing their own agenda that many of us find abhorrent, against the values of decency and respect that we cherish.
>And Bush won’t get to run for office in 2008, this is his second term.
At least we can be happy about that. Unfortunately, that doesn’t keep the Republicans from finding someone else to run on the same platform of increasing Presidential authority and removing oversight, elimination of checks and balances, gutting the freedoms of religion, speech, search and seizure, and due process, and generally pissing off the world to promote the agenda of “U.S. good, everyone else badâ€.
vigilant20 Said:
> I think what you are really upset about here is that morality solves problems like the spread of disease and teenage pregnancy. Problems that science has done diddly to prevent.
That would be amusing if it wasn’t so insidiuously assumptive. My morality does not equate “sex†with “evilâ€. My morality does not limit love. My morality is far more concerned over people who advocate violence, oppression, and torture than people who seek to share pleasure.
As for “morality solves problemsâ€, I would point out that statistics show the incidence of teenage pregnancy, unwanted babies, and abortions are all higher in cities/states/countries that advocate “abstinence only†than in those that include full-spectrum sex education. If you measure quality by outcome, it’s very difficult to justify abstinence only. Condoms, blood tests, and antibiotics have done more to solve sexually transmitted diseases than abstinence education has ever done. Heck, there was a time when syphilus was a way to die.
Quiet Desperation Said:
>We’re all ultimately responsible for our own health. Life expectancy keeps rising, so we must be doing something right.
Reasons life expectancy is rising:
1. Better sanitation and clean water supplies.
2. More food production and wider distribution.
3. Better health monitoring on food processing and distribution.
4. Better medical research.
5. Better medical technology.
6. Better access to health care.
7. Better access to neo-natal health care.
8. Better occupational safety monitoring (regulations and oversight).
9. Better protections from environmental pollution.
10. Better safety consciousness and awareness with respect to everyday lives, consumer products, etc.
Each individual is ultimately responsible for his or her own health. However, there are things that it takes a community to address. Many of the items above are those types of issues. Several are due to government regulation.
Evolving Squid Said:
>But Confuddled is essentially correct. You can whine, you can howl, you can investigate, you can expose – but you won’t change anything until the next election and even then change will require two very important things to happen:
1) That people actually get out and vote.
2) That the people who vote actually engage their brains and think about the ramifications of what they are doing before they do it.
You are correct that those two items are the only things that will truly make a change. However, what actions are we to take to help get there? (a) Sit quietly at home, keep our mouths shut, and hope/pray that people wake up and grow sense. (b) Raise our (electronic and otherwise) voices, spread the word, stir up interest, stir up awareness, get people to see that it does matter. Rationally, it seems (b) is the set of actions that will help us gain actions 1 and 2 above.
Confuddled said:
> The BA is great at astronomy/physics/other sciences but when it comes to politics I don’t think the BA gets it. He twists the truth into something different which results in something weird.
Please cite examples.
hhEb09′1 Said:
>Are they saying that contraception is 100% effective? I always wondered about that.
Contraception is not 100% effective. It is, though, about 99% effective when used consistently. It’s misleading to suggest it is 100% effective, but the odds window is pretty small. Consistency is the key. Most contraception failures come from failing to use it consistently rather than a miss on the small percentages of the method itself.
Abstinence is 100% effective, when used consistently. Now the next question, which is easier to use consistently, abstinence or contraception?
And contraception (whether it’s condoms, the pill, neuvaring, tubal ligation, or vasectomy) certainly does work more effectively than doing nothing, or relying on the “rhythm methodâ€. You know what they call women who use the rhythm method of contraception? Mothers.
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
That’s one of the best arguments on this issue I’ve ever heard. I just have to give you props for that.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I beleieve Bill Clinton was the first President against stem cell research. Yet I only here bashing of the current administration. How about how the past administrations.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Dennymo:
Prudish? Intrusive? When it comes to what we do with OUR bodies,yes, you are! AS far as “controlling” our primal urges,well, society has been trying to do that for millenia and usually failing abismally. Sex has been one of the areas most screwed with by the Puritan culture and I quote a number of lies told in that endevor:
1) “don’t play with that. It’ll fall off,,,”
2)” If you masterbate, you’ll go blinddddddd,,,”
3) ” or grow hair on the palms of your hands,,,”
and in other areas,,,
“if you smoke that you’ll go crazzzzzyyyy”
etc,etc,,,
Most of us learned it was all lies, lies and damned lies. Now you want to try it again?Is it any wonder so many don’t trust their government?
Science knows UNPROTEDTED sex has many negative connotations, so, PROTECT yourself. Sex is FUN. Condums keep it from being lethal or productive of children. I told my 3 children the truth from day one.
I’m 63 and they’ve never been afflicted with any STDs or unwanted offspring. I think the truth works and I know they had fun. What else is life good for?
(That should raise some nasty comments)
,,,or are you one of those who believe life is for suffering, then you die?
Gary 7
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Arrgghhh
This is a riot. If you want to do something about it go write a novel.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Adam said:
“I beleieve Bill Clinton was the first President against stem cell research. Yet I only here bashing of the current administration. How about how the past administrations.”
Um, because Clinton’s not President anymore? If he were President now, and said he were against the research, then I’d call him out on it. But he’s not, Bush is. And once Bush is out, I’ll take on the next guy.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
It’s pretty absurd. When I first read it elsewhere I chuckled. I guess the road to hell as well as the road to wasted money is paved with good intentions. I can’t wait until Bush is gone.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Perhaps it’s time to remind people to vote. You can’t have much effect on a political process if you don’t do that…
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:40 pm
vigilant20 Says:
I think what you are really upset about here is that morality solves problems like the spread of disease and teenage pregnancy. Problems that science has done diddly to prevent.
What planet do you live on?
Check out the evidence instead of the fantasy. Abstinence programs are total failures. What other supposed morality solutions do you claim solve problems?
And sex is moral. Just because some religions claim sex is only for procreating (that’s a crock) doesn’t make it so. Responsible sex might be argued for but only within a marriage is your problem, not mine or millions of other people’s.
As far as stopping infectious disease and unwanted pregnancy, science really does have those solutions despite your ignorance of that fact.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
I just wanna say I love my commenters.
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:15 am
So, to resume:
- Do you know how to avoid computer viruses?
- Don’t use computers.
- Do you know how to avoid car accidents?
- Don’t use cars or get in contact with them.
- Do you know what is the best way to avoid banking frauds?
- Don’t have a bank account.
- Do you know how to avoid getting your credit card number stolen?
- Don’t have a credit card.
- Do you know how to avoid getting robbed in your home?
- Be homeless.
- Do you know how to avoid STD?
- Don’t have sex.
- Do you know how to avoid industrial accidents?
- Don’t work in the industry.
- Do you know how to avoid food poisoning?
- Don’t eat food.
- Do you know how to avoid fires?
- Avoid fires.
- Do you know how to avoid reality?
- Be a politician.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
[quote]skeptigirl Says:
[i]vigilant20 Says:
I think what you are really upset about here is that morality solves problems like the spread of disease and teenage pregnancy. Problems that science has done diddly to prevent.[/i]
What planet do you live on?
Check out the evidence instead of the fantasy. Abstinence programs are total failures. What other supposed morality solutions do you claim solve problems?
And sex is moral. Just because some religions claim sex is only for procreating (that’s a crock) doesn’t make it so. Responsible sex might be argued for but only within a marriage is your problem, not mine or millions of other people’s.
As far as stopping infectious disease and unwanted pregnancy, science really does have those solutions despite your ignorance of that fact.[/quote]
See, This Is Exactly Why I’m Glad I’m Jewish, we’re Brought Up Without All of This Baggage …
In Fact, your Morality of Sex Argument, Is Practically Paraphrased from The [i]Talmud[/i]!
What REALLY Bothers me About Preaching Abstinence-Only to 19-29 Year Olds, Is I’m Riight at The Upper Bound of that Range …
The Ultimate Irony Is, Now it’s Not Just All of The Women of The World, But Also My Own Government that Doesn’t Want me Having Sex, And The Only People Who Do Are My Parents!
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
-Do you know how to avoid death?
-Don’t live.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pm
I must have missed the news broadcast when Morality solved the spread of disease and teenage pregnancy. Did anyone Tivo that?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Forgive me if this has already be said, but I personally believe the fundie moralists also have a long range goal with the absitnence hoopla. If this issue went the way they wanted it to, the next step would be to ultimately to make sex between un-wedded consenting adults illegal at any age, with jail time attached. Other religious fundie countries already do this, and in fact, even make the woman “at fault” for rape.
Sex, even for married couples, would ONLY be to have more fundies babies, and only allowed in the missionary position. No fun allowed! Fundies love to control, and are obsessed with our sexual organs.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Two words. Ted Haggard. Hahahahahaha
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Curiously, given the right wing Christian dead horse that it is, abstinence is NOT 100% effective…..Virgin Birth, hmmmmmmmmm?
Jess Tauber
November 5th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
I enjoy the Bad Astronomer’s political commentary. It’s usually dead on.
I’ve noticed that that several posters whine about what the BA can say on his own site, and then fail to challenge the BA’s comments with a cogent counter-argument.
If you disagree with what the BA says then why not offer an alternative position? If you dispute the BA’s facts, where are yours?
It’s one thing to disagree with a blog post and challenge its content with your own reasoning and evidence, quite another to simply whine and pout.
November 5th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Yes, it infuriates me that someone will post a comment about how scientists don’t know everything and how religion and prayer are the only answer. This will be typically followed by 5 counter-comments explaining exactly why the poster is wrong- using well reasoned argument and even citing empirical evidence.
Nine times out of ten, the original poster will not respond- or if he/she does- it will be to tell us that we’re idiots.
I still strongly support the right of posters who disagree with the BA to post here. What I can’t stand are the trolls who can’t or wont defend their POV and are just looking to annoy.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Interesting how so many of you took my comments in support of abstinence and jumped to the conclusion that I’m a some sort of a “fundie” who wants to deprive the world of its fun. I never said that, never implied it. I merely highlighted how society ignores, even ridicules, anything that interferes with what’s “fun”. If you don’t want to deal with consequences, don’t engage in the act. If you know the possible consequences of an activity, and engage in it despite them, then expect me (the taxpayer) to pay your medical bills, welfare costs, etc., and whine when you don’t get a big enough chunk of my money, I may be a prude but you’re a parasite.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
,,,ummmm, parasites,,, more than two sites, right? Ah, but parasites are the bravest little critters around. Just look at mosquitos, taking on a huge critter ten thousand times its size just to get a nibble.
Seriously, the USA has one of the worst records on the planet when it comes to equitable treatment of its underpriveledged folks. The Scandanavian countries, as socialist as they are, do a much better job AND have the highest R and D investment per GDP(about 4.2 % of their GDP vs the USAs 1.2%) which is what lets them provide so many social services and stay economically solvent. How come WE can’t do that? Is it just so much easier to blame people for being lazy or imcompetant or morally reprehensible? Gee, ain’t it great to live in such a generous, CHRISTIAN country???
GAry 7
November 6th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Only a fundie preaches abstinence instead of birth control, DennyMo.
And I wasn’t as concerned about crimping the fun as I was about the false claim morality (aka abstinence) prevents disease and unwanted pregnancy while science cannot. Abstinence might prevent those things but it is an unrealistic and unsuccessful approach. Nor does morality require premarital abstinence.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Well said, skeptigirl. “Nor does morality require premarital abstinence.” I think it is wise and also very prudent not to engage in premarital sex. But immoral? Not neccesarily. If it’s rape, that’s immoral. If you’re not married but your partner is, that’s immoral (though more so for your partner than for you). But in and of itself, sex is not immoral, whether blessed by the sacrament of holy matrimony or not. It all depends on context. Sex is a really big thing about far more than procreation; if it were only about procreation, I’m actually not convinced marriage would be neccesary. But in fact, as science has shown conclusively, sex functions to cement an emotional bond between two individuals, through the release of oxytocin (among other things). So if you’re not sure you’re gonna be with the guy in a year, you may want to reconsider that roll in the hay. You can spare yourself a lot of heartache that way.
Ironically, I see more motivation for monogamy in what I’ve learned from science than from what I’ve learned from “morality” (by which I mean an indoctrinated system of morals).
Does morality prevent the spread of disease. In a sense, perhaps. Morals, or rather their close cousin ethics, appears heavily in medical science. Disease is studied, treated, prevented, cured, and contained because scientists and doctors feel a moral imperative to concentrate on doing so for the greater good. Does morality prevent unwanted pregnancies? Occasionally, perhaps, by reminding people to think of the future before hopping in bed. But I think science has done more in that area, through the invention of birth control. Heck, I just read about a fascinating South African invention: a condom that can be put on in under three seconds, so as to avoid spoiling the mood (the single biggest complaint about condoms). That’ll definitely help prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies. And why did he invent it? Because he’s a moral person; he cares about this issue.
It’s downright silly to compare morals to science, as if the two are somehow in opposition to one another. The best scientists have strong morals. That’s not to say they adhere to strict religious doctrines in determining their code of ethics. It simply means they care about other people. Really, that’s what most morals come down to anyway. (At least, that’s what Jesus said they come down to. You’d think the religious right would take that to heart.)
November 6th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Adam said:
I beleieve Bill Clinton was the first President against stem cell research. Yet I only here bashing of the current administration. How about how the past administrations.
I’ve heard this repeated many times in the mainstream media, but it is simply not accurate. This myth is often repeated by Republican talking heads trying to characterize President Bush’s stem-cell policy as being basically the same as Clinton’s, thereby making it sound more reasonable to those who generally agree with Clinton. However, the characterization is wrong, and even it if was true, the “Clinton did it too” argument can only be considered a sufficient argument if you believe Clinton is infallible. And I don’t think even his staunchest supporters would go that far. I certainly wouldn’t.
The following links contain some good background on the history of the stem-cell issue:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stemcells/index.shtml
http://bioethics.gov/background/es_moralfoundations.html
Here’s the highlights
So in other words, Clinton supported research on human embryos, but drew the line at creating human embryos with the explicit intention of using them only for research. Embryos that are left over from IVF would be fair game.
Before the NIH can get around to funding any research involving human embryos, Jay Dickey (R-AR) leads the charge in Congress to block any federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.
The ban on use of federal funding for human embryo research predates the isolation of human embryonic stem cells. So the recommendations of the Human Embryo Research Panel, and the objections of the Dickey Amendment, were not specifically about stem cells, but about research on human embryos in general.
The NIH finds what is essentially a loophole in the Dickey Amendment. As long as private funds are used to derive the stem cell line, then federal funds can be used in research using those lines.
President Clinton supports the NIH in using this loophole.
President Bush closes the loophole, putting his policy in direct opposition to Clinton’s policy.
It is true that no federal funds were ever used for hESC research under the Clinton administration. However, this was not because Clinton opposed or blocked such funding, as many supporters of Bush’s policy imply. Rather, as the above shows, Clinton supported creating new stem cell lines from human embryos left over from IVF procedures. It is simply incorrect to say that Clinton was against stem cell research, or that Clinton’s and Bush’s policies were substantially the same.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Christian said: “I still strongly support the right of posters who disagree with the BA to post here.”
I will point out, none-too-gently, that this right actually does not exist. The First Amendment does not apply to this blog. I can turn comments off, delete them at will, and edit them as I see fit (within slander laws). I am not the U.S. Government, so I cannot violate the First Amendment in those ways.
I won’t say it’s a privilege to comment here, but it’s certainly not a right. However, I’m being pedantic. But I agree with Christian’s intent. If people want to disagree with me, then I encourage them to do so, if they can do it reasonably. If they can’t, then they can expect consequences… and of course they are welcome to go somewhere else and exercise whatever right they think they have to sound off.
November 7th, 2006 at 8:44 am
skeptigirl, first you put words in my mouth, then you contradict yourself. I never said anything about morality/immorality, and I never called any sense of religious codes into the discussion. You (and others) are adding that with your own ad hominem. Abstinence is “unrealistic”? You would call yourself a rational creature, but claim you’re unable to rein in a few hormones? How convenient…
Calli, thanks for your eloquent posting, you captured a lot of my thoughts much better than I did. “Sex is a really big thing about far more than procreation.” It’s also a big thing about far more than just recreation. As you point out, huge emotional implications swirl about the sex act, and these implications (i.e. consequences) can have as great an impact as the negative physical consequences do.
Gary, your comparison to Scandanavia is interesting, but it’s often not only easier but more accurate to blame people’s problems on laziness and poor decision making. That said, we (US society) need to do more to reward constructive productivity and encourage smarter decision making. In the case of “recreational sex”, the smarter (not “moral”) choice is usually not to engage. The risks and costs (physical, emotional, etc.) usually outweigh the benefits.
(Please not my use of the word “usually”: I can’t claim “always”, and I won’t itemize my exceptions to the case, but I’ll stand by “usually”.)
November 7th, 2006 at 11:18 am
DennyMo, you weren’t the only one posting support for abstinence only education. I believe skeptigirl’s comments about morality were aimed at vigilant20.
Nobody has denied that there are complications and ramifications to actions. Most of us promoting sex education do in fact want those possible complications and ramifications taught. We are not the ones who are opposed to educating children/young adults about sex – as a full human endeavor. It is the abstinence-only promoters that seem to want to revoke any sex education at all, and if they have to do it then limit it to one moral position.
> Abstinence is “unrealistic� You would call yourself a rational creature, but claim you’re unable to rein in a few hormones? How convenient…
Yes, abstinence is an unrealistic expectation. Just look at catholic priests for proof. Sure, many can uphold their vows of celibacy, but there is a sizable fraction that have not. If they can’t, despite their moral convictions and reasoned decisions to take those vows and personal beliefs about the spiritual ramifications to their acts, then how can we expect immature teenagers to make better decisions?
Furthermore, you do not know anything about me, skeptigirl, or anyone else here. You have no idea how we lead our own lives, what decisions we make, and whether or not we make decisions to rein in our hormones.
But that leads back directly to the morality question. Instead of assuming, I will ask. Do you believe that sex out of wedlock is ever acceptable? Do you believe that rational people can control their hormones and still choose to have sex for pleasure? Do you believe sex should be reserved only for long term relationships? Do you accept that some people may wish to have sex but not want children? Do you think that teenagers should only be given one option, or informed about all the options available and all the ramifications so they can make rational decisions?
November 7th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Irishman,
skeptigirl called me out by name, then never “redirected” her comments to anyone else. If I mistakenly inferred anything from her comments, I apologize.
“how can we expect immature teenagers to make better decisions?” Well, believe it or not, it does happen, they’re smarter than we give them credit for. You look at a group (priests) that fails to live up to its promises, and conclude that the promise is invalid, and that is a fallacious argument. The fact that many (even most) priests *can* uphold their vows is evidence that abstinence isn’t unrealistic.
OK, because I’m curious to hear what you’re going to do with my answers:
Do you believe that sex out of wedlock is ever acceptable? – It is not the ideal scenario for anyone.
Do you believe that rational people can control their hormones and still choose to have sex for pleasure? – A qualified Yes: if by “sex for pleasure”, you mean “with whomever whenever”, I’d question whether one is really controlling their hormones.
Do you believe sex should be reserved only for long term relationships? – Yes, sex without emotional “tie-in” presents all the physical and emotional risks with none of the emotional benefits.
Do you accept that some people may wish to have sex but not want children? – Yes.
Do you think that teenagers should only be given one option, or informed about all the options available and all the ramifications so they can make rational decisions? – Yes, but not like you mean the question. In today’s society, one option (abstinence) is routinely ridiculed, dismissed, ignored, etc., when it should be encouraged as the *simplest* and most logical method.
November 7th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
DennyMo:
Abstinence is neither simple nor logical. Sex is fun but informed consent is essential. America is not alone in it’s hedonic persuits. I recall a UPI report in 1990 detailing the lashing of two young men in Dubai, one for having sexual congress with his donkey, the other with his camel,,,Sex for pure pleasure,,,
I always reminded my children there was an emotional connotation when having sex (with other humans. Animal sex is just too foreign for me to contemplate). All that aside, knowledge of ALL options allows people to make their own choices and that is what this brave social experiment we call America is supposed to be about,,,personal choice.
GAry 7
November 8th, 2006 at 4:15 am
DennyMo: It’s not “prudish†or “intrusive†for me or my government to tell kids that the best, most effective way to avoid a whole host of “life complications†is to control your body’s urges and stay away from situations that would weaken your resolve. Contending that we can’t or shouldn’t control ourselves is nonsense. “Abstinence only†instruction only fails because society is busy trying to make it fail.
Interesting how so many of you took my comments in support of abstinence and jumped to the conclusion that I’m a some sort of a “fundie†who wants to deprive the world of its fun. I never said that, never implied it. I merely highlighted how society ignores, even ridicules, anything that interferes with what’s “funâ€. If you don’t want to deal with consequences, don’t engage in the act. If you know the possible consequences of an activity, and engage in it despite them, then expect me (the taxpayer) to pay your medical bills, welfare costs, etc., and whine when you don’t get a big enough chunk of my money, I may be a prude but you’re a parasite.
Only a fundie preaches abstinence instead of birth control, DennyMo.
DennyMo: skeptigirl, first you put words in my mouth, then you contradict yourself. I never said anything about morality/immorality, and I never called any sense of religious codes into the discussion. You (and others) are adding that with your own ad hominem. Abstinence is “unrealistic� You would call yourself a rational creature, but claim you’re unable to rein in a few hormones? How convenient…
What words did I put in your mouth and where is there any as hom?
The problem with abstinence is certain religious groups have and continue to influence the US government to enforce abstinence only programs whether it be in sex ed classes for kids or anti-condom programs for adults at risk of HIV such as in Africa. Federal funds are withheld if not just a focus on abstinence is the policy, but also it has to be the policy in exclusion to all else. The basis for exerting this influence on government policies is strictly Christian fundamentalism. Evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs to my knowledge has been they are universal failures.
Whether any individual maintains abstinence to avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease, the programs intended to promote abstinence have not shown any evidence they are the least bit effective. In fact, they have so far been harmful as well. The restrictions on promoting condom use in HIV prevention programs is dangerous to poor women who have no ability to refuse sex in their life circumstances.
Here are Christian fundamentalists living in Pleasantville, USA who have no idea what life is like for a poverty stricken woman in Uganda thinking they should dictate that US federal aid to prevent HIV should promote abstinence and any mention of condoms is the equivalent to promoting sin therefore shouldn’t be allowed.
They same is said about teaching kids anything other than abstinence. I heard one ‘fundie’ say she, “wasn’t going to teach any kid how to sin safely”.
I do not know what your religious beliefs are. However, only fundies preach abstinence only. Perhaps that isn’t what you said or meant. But that statement while in response to yours wasn’t saying you were a fundie. That is unless the shoe fits and you seem to be saying it doesn’t. I’ll take your word for it.
November 8th, 2006 at 4:17 am
errata: ad hom
Another annoying typo. I knew I should have re-read my post.
November 8th, 2006 at 4:19 am
errata: the same is said
November 8th, 2006 at 10:07 am
DennyMo, thank you for responding.
DennyMo said:
>skeptigirl called me out by name, then never “redirected†her comments to anyone else. If I mistakenly inferred anything from her comments, I apologize.
I’ll let skeptigirl speak for herself. I think there might be some assumptions on both sides here.
>“how can we expect immature teenagers to make better decisions?†Well, believe it or not, it does happen, they’re smarter than we give them credit for. You look at a group (priests) that fails to live up to its promises, and conclude that the promise is invalid, and that is a fallacious argument. The fact that many (even most) priests *can* uphold their vows is evidence that abstinence isn’t unrealistic.
Some teenagers do make better decisions than some adults. That doesn’t mean that the bulk of teenagers are mature enough to make good decisions. But even if the bulk are, that misses the essence of my point. With priests, we’re talking about mature adults who have spent years of contemplation and meditation to make a decision about how to live and act. They make a reasoned decision in light of their strong religious convictions and moral judgement. They then fail to uphold their vows. Yet you expect teenagers to make better decisions, when most do not have the maturity, wisdom, or thought put into their decisions.
Look, I’m all for encouraging better judgement. I’m all for teaching them to consider their actions, and all the ramifications. But if we can’t control underage drinking and smoking, how the heck do you expect to rely on their judgement for underage sex?
>OK, because I’m curious to hear what you’re going to do with my answers:
>Do you believe that sex out of wedlock is ever acceptable? – It is not the ideal scenario for anyone.
On what basis do you reach that conclusion?
>Do you believe that rational people can control their hormones and still choose to have sex for pleasure? – A qualified Yes: if by “sex for pleasureâ€, you mean “with whomever wheneverâ€, I’d question whether one is really controlling their hormones.
Fair enough. Clarification, “sex for pleasure” does not necessarily mean going to bars every weekend and taking home the first person that buys you a drink. In the context of the question, “sex for pleasure” means sex outside a long term relationship – sex without commitment. This can still be a reasoned decision, not an automatic response to getting drunk.
>Do you believe sex should be reserved only for long term relationships? – Yes, sex without emotional “tie-in†presents all the physical and emotional risks with none of the emotional benefits.
Okay, clarification required. Do you mean this should apply to everyone, or is this your personal decision for yourself?
>Do you accept that some people may wish to have sex but not want children? – Yes.
Okay.
>Do you think that teenagers should only be given one option, or informed about all the options available and all the ramifications so they can make rational decisions? – Yes, but not like you mean the question. In today’s society, one option (abstinence) is routinely ridiculed, dismissed, ignored, etc., when it should be encouraged as the *simplest* and most logical method.
Okay, I can see your point – abstinence should be included in any sex education program and emphasized as the best option to avoid all the complications that come with sex.
I’m not opposed to education about abstinence. I’m not even opposed to stressing it as the best solution for the reasons you mention. However, I am opposed to teaching it as the only solution. Not having sex does not prevent emotional attachments and the consequences of ended relationships. Birth control methods are valid within marriage. Humans are emotional and sexual beings. And not everyone shares your opinion about the limitations that should be placed on sexual encounters. You won’t change those opinions just by saying “abstinence is better, sex should be reserved for long-term relationships and/or marriage”.
November 8th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Sex out of wedlock not the ideal scenario for anyone? Sheesh, speak for yourself. I would think having sex before marriage might be something people would like to be sure they are compatible with before making a lifelong commitment. (In addition to the pleasure thing.
)
November 13th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
skeptigirl, I’m not going say sex out of wedlock is bad. However, I can understand someone having a feeling that is so that is not based purely upon religious dogma. It is possible to have an opinion about the importance of sex and how that affects relationships and intimacy, and to conclude that sex should really be used to build and deepen relationships rather than for random pleasure. If sex has a role in deepening relationships and strengthening emotional bonds, then that role is not fulfilled by casual sex. And a culture that promotes casual sex as the standard of behavior is then missing out on the value of relationship enhancement by sex. It treats sex as a commodity or a recreation rather than as an emotional bonding tool. It also prevents people learning about the value sex offers in committed relationships when that concept is actively suppressed.
Now that may not be correct. It may be possible for sex to work both ways. But poo-pooing anyone who tries to promote the idea of sex serving a higher goal the recreation does them a disservice. And declaring that their only justification is religious prudishness is inaccurate and unfair.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Irishman, your last post captures a lot of my perspective quite eloquently, thanks. As I see it, there are basically three camps when it comes to sex: one who sees it as nothing more than a form of recreation, another that sees it as a statement of intimacy, and a third which sees it as a purely procreational activity. I can’t accept the third one as valid, *especially* from a religious perspective. (Just check out Song of Solomon and ask yourself how God could not have intended sex to be fun and appealling.) As to one of your questions:
“>Do you believe that sex out of wedlock is ever acceptable? – It is not the ideal scenario for anyone.
On what basis do you reach that conclusion?”
I base it on my personal experience, coupled with my observations from high school and college, and amplified by my mother’s experiences as a high school teacher. I saw many relationships messed up when the couple succumbed to peer/societal pressure to have sex. It’s a stereotype, but an accurate one that I saw repeated over and over: most guys saw it as a conquest, most gals saw it as a statement of commitment, somehow moving the relationship “to a deeper level”. This fundamental misunderstanding/miscommunication can cut deep into the developing psyche of adolescents. When you add this potential damage to the list of negative physical consequences, I find it amazing that so many people argue that there’s nothing wrong with “casual sex”.
Regarding skeptigirl’s comment on sex as a compatiblily research tool for marriage, two problems with that: 1) If sexual compatibility is the primary measuring stick for the relationship, I’ll bet money it won’t last. 2) There will probably be lingering doubt about whether you’re “performing” up to a standard that somebody else has set. Whereas if both partners are virgins at the start of the marriage, you’re the best sex your partner has ever had, and it can become better as you learn each other’s wants and needs.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:56 am
DennyMo said:
>I saw many relationships messed up when the couple succumbed to peer/societal pressure to have sex. It’s a stereotype, but an accurate one that I saw repeated over and over: most guys saw it as a conquest, most gals saw it as a statement of commitment, somehow moving the relationship “to a deeper levelâ€. This fundamental misunderstanding/miscommunication can cut deep into the developing psyche of adolescents.
Okay, but it seems to me the inherent problem here is the dischord between expectations, not either of the particular expectations themselves. If the involved parties agree on the expectations, then there is no misunderstanding/miscommunication. The root of the problem is not casual sex, it is the failure of the involved parties to communicate thoroughly.
Now it may be fair to realize this is the way it has always been. It’s hard to get rational adults in committed relationships to actually communicate. That makes it difficult to get naive and immature teenagers to actually think about their expectations and then communicate them effectively and thoroughly with their partners before engaging in emotional activity – such as flirting, hand holding, kissing.
See that’s the problem. The emotional damage is already being done, it’s the act of living that we damage each other before we figure ourselves out. It’s not malicious, it’s not intentional, it just happens in the course of finding our way. I submit that a larger part of the problem is the fairy tale expectations of love rather than the act of physical entanglement.
>Regarding skeptigirl’s comment on sex as a compatiblily research tool for marriage, two problems with that: 1) If sexual compatibility is the primary measuring stick for the relationship, I’ll bet money it won’t last.
I’m not sure if that’s really a difficulty as much as a lack of experience and a failure to learn what the other wants/needs.
>2) There will probably be lingering doubt about whether you’re “performing†up to a standard that somebody else has set. Whereas if both partners are virgins at the start of the marriage, you’re the best sex your partner has ever had, and it can become better as you learn each other’s wants and needs.
Ah, but the root of that problem is really insecurity. A real relationship is not about the quality of sexual performance. In fact, if the true purpose of sex is intimacy and the act of pleasing the other, one should not be concerned with measuring up to anyone. The emotional bonding and the mutual experience is all that’s important. If you’re satisfying each other and emotionally connected, there’s nothing to measure up to. Measuring up is only a risk if you’re aiming for pure pleasure.
Someone concerned about his/her partner will care enough to learn what the partner needs/wants and how to provide it. That can happen whether virgins or tramps.
I submit for consideration that there’s nothing special about sex for building intimacy, it’s the attitude going in that makes all the difference. Are you focusing on your partner, or focusing on yourself?
November 14th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
As a science journalist and lifelong scientific enthusiast and amateur astronomer since I was a tyke, I am glad Phil is raising this extremely serious issue of scientific censorship by the existing US administration. For that reason I am perplexed at those who do not think this issue is relevant to a science-based website. How could the censorship of scientists and their work NOT be relevant to a science-based website? It’s 99.99999999999999999 percent tautological.
Because science requires the free and unfettered sharing and publication of work and data, any censorship of science for any reason is BAD for science, period.
Thanks.