Abstinence education has never been effective anywhere to prevent anything, be it teen pregnancy or the spread of STDs. It's also worth noting that in the States, the states with the highest emphasis on Abstinence only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancies.
As it turns out, hormonal teenagers when left alone will have sex regardless of how much they are told not to. I know, I used to be one. Apparently this lesson still needs teaching in huge parts of the world.
It's a lesson which contradicts traditional religion and as such is willfully ignored as a matter of religious pride.
They're not stupid. They can read the same reports and data as you.
But they're religious. When faced with choosing data based policy and religious based policy, their reelection chances and their personal convictions lead them to religious based policy.
It's like the saying "you can't logic someone out of an idea that they didn't logic themselves into"
If you think you can 'teach' a religious politician why data refutes their beliefs, you're in for a very bad time.
I would counter that ignoring hard data with such a loud consensus that's relatively easy to read in favor of emotional appeal or personal belief is the very definition of stupid.
Well data suggests that 90% of new companies fail. So anyone who starts a new company is stupid, right?
I'm not advocating in favor of the religious people who go about preaching abstinence and spending taxpayer money on it. If I were in a position to influence this stuff, I'd fight their efforts. All I'm saying is it's wrong to call someone stupid when we don't understand all their motivations.
We aren't talking a 90% though, we're talking more like a 99.9999%. There is not a single case I know of where Abstinence has been effective at its stated goals.
And yes if in the current economy businesses fail at a 99.9999% rate, you are stupid to start a business.
>hormonal teenagers when left alone will have sex regardless
Because you have no faith doesn't mean no one else does, what you're saying is false. There are people who obey God, even though you clearly can't imagine it.
Speaking as a Christian, here's the thing: People fuck up. A lot. Everyone does and yeah, it would be a great thing if people would wait for "the one" before they went ahead with the act.
Out here in the real world, sometimes you think you found the one. Other times you just get stuck in a heated moment and do something dumb. It happens. And when it happens you should be equipped with the knowledge to keep yourself safe. I don't have a problem with Abstinence, I have a problem with Abstinence ONLY because it denies people who we are expecting to act as adults incredibly valuable information for their health and their future.
I mean seriously, would you buy a car with no airbags in it and when you ask about it, the salesman says "Well just don't crash then?"
I am a religious person but I don't believe you can use God to regulate hormones. The deep seated need to do what your body tells you to do is too powerful. However Religion is good for how you go about doing so for example you have a desperate need but avoid criminality around that need because it is morally wrong.
Did god personally told you to abstain?
It is always a bunch of morons who imagine that they know better than god himself how others are supposed to live.
tl;dr: PERPAR has cost nearly ~$50B all together. The abstinence aspect may have jelled nicely with how the Bush administration sees the world, but it certainly also would have been a "sweetener" in getting a Republican-controlled Congress to approve so much foreign aid for non-terrorism-related purposes during Bush's terms.
edit: oops, posted the excerpt from the link rather than the link itself.
You only need to google "bush abstinence only program" to see a great deal of documentation of the changes the Bush administration made to sex-education funding, both domestic and international:
Is there a link to the study? Do its conclusions throw any criticism towards other aspects of Bush's AIDS program (PEPFAR), such as its providing of antiretroviral treatment?
> When the Bush administration inaugurated the program in 2003, fewer than 50,000 HIV-infected people on the African continent were receiving the antiretroviral drugs that keep the virus in check and halt the progression toward full-blown AIDS. By the time Bush left office, the number had increased to nearly 2 million. Today, the United States is directly supporting antiretroviral treatment for more than 4 million men, women and children worldwide, primarily in Africa.
Obviously, there was more than one aspect to PEPFAR, and the abstinence aspect may have taken $1.4B on its own. According to the Wapo article referenced above, the total cost of PEPFAR was $46B. I wonder how much of the purpose of the abstinence program was predicated on a strategic angle to get Congress to approve the overall package. Because that's a ton of money to spend on humanitarian foreign aid, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress.
An interesting question to be asked as well is why a north american country is putting their effort and money in abstinence education in another continent ?!
18 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadAs it turns out, hormonal teenagers when left alone will have sex regardless of how much they are told not to. I know, I used to be one. Apparently this lesson still needs teaching in huge parts of the world.
They're not stupid. They can read the same reports and data as you.
But they're religious. When faced with choosing data based policy and religious based policy, their reelection chances and their personal convictions lead them to religious based policy.
It's like the saying "you can't logic someone out of an idea that they didn't logic themselves into"
If you think you can 'teach' a religious politician why data refutes their beliefs, you're in for a very bad time.
Edit: That was poorly worded. Bad Zeus.
I'm not advocating in favor of the religious people who go about preaching abstinence and spending taxpayer money on it. If I were in a position to influence this stuff, I'd fight their efforts. All I'm saying is it's wrong to call someone stupid when we don't understand all their motivations.
And yes if in the current economy businesses fail at a 99.9999% rate, you are stupid to start a business.
Because you have no faith doesn't mean no one else does, what you're saying is false. There are people who obey God, even though you clearly can't imagine it.
Out here in the real world, sometimes you think you found the one. Other times you just get stuck in a heated moment and do something dumb. It happens. And when it happens you should be equipped with the knowledge to keep yourself safe. I don't have a problem with Abstinence, I have a problem with Abstinence ONLY because it denies people who we are expecting to act as adults incredibly valuable information for their health and their future.
I mean seriously, would you buy a car with no airbags in it and when you ask about it, the salesman says "Well just don't crash then?"
tl;dr: PERPAR has cost nearly ~$50B all together. The abstinence aspect may have jelled nicely with how the Bush administration sees the world, but it certainly also would have been a "sweetener" in getting a Republican-controlled Congress to approve so much foreign aid for non-terrorism-related purposes during Bush's terms.
edit: oops, posted the excerpt from the link rather than the link itself.
and http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/28/ob...
Seriously. Bush is well loved in Sub-saharan africa, speaking very broadly of course.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bush+abstinence+only+program...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-geor...
> When the Bush administration inaugurated the program in 2003, fewer than 50,000 HIV-infected people on the African continent were receiving the antiretroviral drugs that keep the virus in check and halt the progression toward full-blown AIDS. By the time Bush left office, the number had increased to nearly 2 million. Today, the United States is directly supporting antiretroviral treatment for more than 4 million men, women and children worldwide, primarily in Africa.
Obviously, there was more than one aspect to PEPFAR, and the abstinence aspect may have taken $1.4B on its own. According to the Wapo article referenced above, the total cost of PEPFAR was $46B. I wonder how much of the purpose of the abstinence program was predicated on a strategic angle to get Congress to approve the overall package. Because that's a ton of money to spend on humanitarian foreign aid, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress.