The Gaming Den

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:51 am**

You can't prevent people from making stupid decisions; you can only hope to steer them towards a safe path.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:25 am**

Less people do smoke than earlier in history, so it must have some effect.

Also, strangely enough, states (and countries) that don't have sex ed and have abstinence or religious training instead have higher rates of teen pregnancy and stds.

No, saying stds exist doesn't work - that's abstinence training's favorite poster child. Hence recently campaigning against a vaccine for one std which caused cancer. The vaccine would have kept women from ever having that sort of cancer. Ever. At all.

-Crissa

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:40 am**

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1203740749[/unixtime]]Also, strangely enough, states (and countries) that don't have sex ed and have abstinence or religious training instead have higher rates of teen pregnancy and stds.

Telling people not to have sex doesn't and never will work; they're going to have sex and there's nothing (humane) that can be done about that. The only (humane) thing that can be done is try to increase the number of them who will have sex safely.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:53 am**

angelfromanotherpin at [unixtime wrote:1203741639[/unixtime]]
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1203740749[/unixtime]]Also, strangely enough, states (and countries) that don't have sex ed and have abstinence or religious training instead have higher rates of teen pregnancy and stds.

Telling people not to have sex doesn't and never will work; they're going to have sex and there's nothing (humane) that can be done about that. The only (humane) thing that can be done is try to increase the number of them who will have sex safely.

And why/how would you assume the religious types (who are very powerful in the U.S. and Europe) would agree with you or accept such an option? They will not change their beliefs on the situation, and will do what they think is best, even if you don't view said action as humane or reasonable.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:15 am**

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1203740749[/unixtime]]Hence recently campaigning against a vaccine for one std which caused cancer. The vaccine would have kept women from ever having that sort of cancer. Ever. At all.

It disgusts me that people would campaign against it. Apparently there are those out there who would prefer their daughter dies than her having sex.

I believe it's mandatory here to get the vaccine, kooky zealot parents be damned.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:26 am**

There's a vaccine that entirely prevents a certain type of cancer?

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:13 am**

It prevents the disease that causes the cancer.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:20 pm**

Captain_Bleach wrote:And why/how would you assume the religious types (who are very powerful in the U.S. and Europe) would agree with you or accept such an option? They will not change their beliefs on the situation, and will do what they think is best, even if you don't view said action as humane or reasonable.

Um, I would never make the assumption that people who routinely ignore the evidence of their own senses would listen to reason. I wasn't talking to them. I was talking to the people who read this board.

Of course, the religious nutjobs who believe in abstinence-only training believe in it pretty much the same way they believe in the sky-fairy: with no particular evidence. Which is actually good, because if they had to accept that the willpower of a pubescent can never be equal to a hormonal tide, they'd have to choose between sexual education and inhumane chastity enforcements; and too many of them would choose option 2.

Of course, today we live in the age of the mighty Internet, and kids can readily learn about the birds and the bees and the STDs online while their parents are sitting with their fingers in their ears and humming. The only obstacle is that most nanny programs block sexual education sites, but not actually porn; and while I've never seen a parent able to keep a child out of anything with software, if the kids can get the porn, they won't look for the sex ed.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:28 pm**

Yes, Maj. HPV vaccine

-Crissa

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:56 pm**

angelfromanotherpin at [unixtime wrote:1203776401[/unixtime]]
Captain_Bleach wrote:And why/how would you assume the religious types (who are very powerful in the U.S. and Europe) would agree with you or accept such an option? They will not change their beliefs on the situation, and will do what they think is best, even if you don't view said action as humane or reasonable.

Um, I would never make the assumption that people who routinely ignore the evidence of their own senses would listen to reason. I wasn't talking to them. I was talking to the people who read this board.

Of course, the religious nutjobs who believe in abstinence-only training believe in it pretty much the same way they believe in the sky-fairy: with no particular evidence. Which is actually good, because if they had to accept that the willpower of a pubescent can never be equal to a hormonal tide, they'd have to choose between sexual education and inhumane chastity enforcements; and too many of them would choose option 2.

Of course, today we live in the age of the mighty Internet, and kids can readily learn about the birds and the bees and the STDs online while their parents are sitting with their fingers in their ears and humming. The only obstacle is that most nanny programs block sexual education sites, but not actually porn; and while I've never seen a parent able to keep a child out of anything with software, if the kids can get the porn, they won't look for the sex ed.

Then find/make nanny programs that block porn, but not sex ed.

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:00 pm**

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1203660322[/unixtime]]Probably true, K.
Just educate kids with pictures of common venereal diseases and say "This is sex in Baltimore. With or without a condom. Be careful and very, very picky."

I heard that scare tactics can be a very effective form of birth control, unless it's "if you have sex for pleasure, then you burn in hell!"

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:17 pm**

Then I'm going to a hell of some other religion. Maybe all of them. *shrug*

"What's that have to do with the present?" is the common response I've heard.
That, or just a plain "Go fuck yourself."

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:23 pm**

IMO and final word: With sex, there is nothing best for everyone; abstinence may work for a few people, and there are some people who have multiple partners and are open and honest about it, without any sort of problems.
In short, there is nothing that is best for "everyone."

Posted: **Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:40 pm**

Bleach, wtf?

We're talking about training. Education.

Abstinence education results in eternally raised rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, etc, etc. This is mostly because the abstinence programs don't rely upon truth, accuracy, or efficacy. These programs get more money because of who makes them, not on whether they work or not.

Saying 'abstinence works for some people' is like saying that 'not every chicken that crossed the freeway was hit by a bus.'

-Crissa

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:34 am**

Koumei wrote:It prevents the disease that causes the cancer.

According to the Gardasil website (bold mine):

GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18.

HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases.

GARDASIL may not fully protect everyone and does not prevent all types of cervical cancer, so it is important to continue regular cervical cancer screenings.

So, it may prevent up to 70% of all cervical cancer cases. It also may not fully work on everyone. And there are cervical cancers that are not prevented by this vaccine.

So saying there's a vaccine out there that "would have kept women from ever having that sort of cancer. Ever. At all," is just a little bit exaggerated.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:42 am**

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1203810046[/unixtime]]Bleach, wtf?

We're talking about training. Education.

-Crissa

Okay, I understand what you're saying. I was saying that some people choose to be abstinent, and don't get pregnant/contract an STD, and if they are comfortable with that and aren't being forced to, then what is wrong? For education in general, only the unbiased truth should be taught. I wasn't saying that the "have sex outside of marriage and you burn in hell!" works for some people, because it isn't scientifically proven that you go to hell when you have sex outside of marriage.

P.S. For those who think that the last statement's scientifically proven, I'm not going to believe something is the truth because a book/religious leader says so.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:50 am**

sigma999 at [unixtime wrote:1203801439[/unixtime]]Then I'm going to a hell of some other religion. Maybe all of them. *shrug*

"What's that have to do with the present?" is the common response I've heard.
That, or just a plain "Go fuck yourself."

neh, I'll save you a table at the burlesque, right up front. Want me to order a Crazy Nun for ya?

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:17 am**

Maj: Okay, you're right there. But that's still a really good chance of saving a huge number of lives.

And I wasn't the one who said it "would have kept women from ever having that sort of cancer. Ever. At all,"

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:57 am**

I meant type, as in, the specific cervical cancer - there is more than one 'type' of cervical cancer.

And besides, of course they say 'may'. But the numbers from the studies basically say that it stops HPV in its tracks. Like killing polio levels of accuracy. Few of the new vaccines have that old-timey level of accuracy (although we should see a new set in this decade).

We don't have methods that block even 50% of cancer of any other organ.

-Crissa

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:03 am**

Maj at [unixtime wrote:1203820463[/unixtime]]
So, it may prevent up to 70% of all cervical cancer cases. It also may not fully work on everyone. And there are cervical cancers that are not prevented by this vaccine.

So saying there's a vaccine out there that "would have kept women from ever having that sort of cancer. Ever. At all," is just a little bit exaggerated.

As someone who has active argued against mandating this inoculation in the past, the idea that mandating it would not reduce the occurrences of HPV and therefore cervical cancer is laughable.

It's not that I don't respect the idea that a person should have the option of refusing an injection, I would just like it not to be a better reason than the ones that people who refuse them give.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:09 pm**

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1203810046[/unixtime]]Abstinence education results in eternally raised rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, etc, etc.

I'm going to sort of disagree, I think "abstinence" is an important message; I just find abstinence programs sorely wanting. There are a lot of things we have to really push the "just say no" to.

Drugs, coffee, sex, these are all things we need to get children off of. It must be coupled with education, so that people know why they have to generally say no.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:55 pm**

tzor wrote:I'm going to sort of disagree, I think "abstinence" is an important message; I just find abstinence programs sorely wanting. There are a lot of things we have to really push the "just say no" to.

There is no amount you can push that message that will keep adolescents from having sex. Telling children not to have sex impacts the rate of them having sex exactly as much as teaching them about safe sex: zero. The only impact either has is on the rate of safe sex.

Anyone who is actually interested in reducing teen sex rates has three effective options: physical isolation (cells), physical restraint (chastity devices), and physical modification (surgery). There might be some problems with implementation, though, as none of these are acceptable in the civilized world.

Drugs, coffee, sex, these are all things we need to get children off of. It must be coupled with education, so that people know why they have to generally say no.

Education has no effect on addiction. Do you have any idea how many oncologists are smokers?

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:42 pm**

angelfromanotherpin at [unixtime wrote:1203868548[/unixtime]]
There is no amount you can push that message that will keep adolescents from having sex. Telling children not to have sex impacts the rate of them having sex exactly as much as teaching them about safe sex: zero. The only impact either has is on the rate of safe sex.

Anyone who is actually interested in reducing teen sex rates has three effective options: physical isolation (cells), physical restraint (chastity devices), and physical modification (surgery). There might be some problems with implementation, though, as none of these are acceptable in the civilized world.

Contrary to what it may appear as, not all teenagers are screwing like rabbits. It's also about self-control and knowing what you're getting yourself into. The problem is, people in general need a person to look up to, and think that their role model's word would be best for everybody. The problem is, there is no such thing as what is best for everybody.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:29 pm**

Captain_Bleach at [unixtime wrote:1203882178[/unixtime]]
angelfromanotherpin at [unixtime wrote:1203868548[/unixtime]]
There is no amount you can push that message that will keep adolescents from having sex. Telling children not to have sex impacts the rate of them having sex exactly as much as teaching them about safe sex: zero. The only impact either has is on the rate of safe sex.

Anyone who is actually interested in reducing teen sex rates has three effective options: physical isolation (cells), physical restraint (chastity devices), and physical modification (surgery). There might be some problems with implementation, though, as none of these are acceptable in the civilized world.

Contrary to what it may appear as, not all teenagers are screwing like rabbits. It's also about self-control and knowing what you're getting yourself into. The problem is, people in general need a person to look up to, and think that their role model's word would be best for everybody. The problem is, there is no such thing as what is best for everybody.

It is about what gives the best result for the group.

Mandate vaccination: X people die.
Don't mandate vaccination: Y people die.
The assertion is that X is smaller than Y. Less people dying is better.
Sure, there are people who would go through their life not having any sex (hello, internet) but just so long as being vaccinated doesn't kill/harm any(or many) of them, no loss.

[edit] oops, swapped X and Y *doh!*

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:08 pm**

Captain_Bleach at [unixtime wrote:1203882178[/unixtime]]

Contrary to what it may appear as, not all teenagers are screwing like rabbits.

No such thing as a teen with self control. The only teens that aren't having sex are the ones that aren't able to because of physical or social unattractiveness. I had my first time at 19, but I would have been willing to screw any female that would allow me to from when I was about 14 on, it just didn't happen.

The Gaming Den

sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex

Re: sex