5 ms·

To be fair, while I don't support it, abstinence only sex ed is usually in the context of high school, where it's probably not true that "virtually everyone has

by baddox 9y ago

To be fair, while I don't support it, abstinence only sex ed is usually in the context of high school, where it's probably not true that "virtually everyone has sex."

mikeash 9y ago
The abstinence part is (almost?) always in the context of "until marriage" which can extend well beyond high school and remains highly mismatched with people's behavior. It should also be noted that abstinence only sex ed usually involves many outright lies, such as that sex outside of marriage is objectively immoral, that waiting until marriage prevents STIs, vastly exaggerated figures for the risk of disease and failure rates of birth control, etc. Whereas smoking is actually dangerous, and "don't smoke, it'll greatly increase your chances of getting these various horrible diseases" is actually truthful.
- baddox 9y ago
  The "until marriage" part is usually part of the moral beliefs of the people who push for abstinence only sex ed in public schools, but I wasn't aware that public schools generally taught that part.
  - ChristianBundy 9y ago
    I can't speak for others, but I was never taught the "until marriage" clause, and I graduated high school in 2011. We were taught that abstinence was the only way to completely remove the risk of pregnancy or STD/STI, which really doesn't change once you're married or whatever.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Are they teaching abstinence "until you're out of high school"? Otherwise it's either "until marriage" or "until death." I think most kids understand that marriage usually involves sex, even with bad sex ed.
    - derefr 9y ago
      I think they're just teaching "until ..."—as in, they don't have an "until", it's just "don't have sex." As if sex was exactly equivalent to a drug, where if you avoid the particular subculture that "does" the drug, you'll just never need to think about it. Though I think the true implication is "don't have sex until an impulse comes along to do so, that is strong enough to completely drown out the voice of your superego in your head. And then—if the impulse really is that strong—the 'proper' order to do things is to get married to that person, and then have sex with them."
  - pm90 9y ago
    They do in the South.
    - numo16 9y ago
      And in the Midwest.
- olyjohn 9y ago
  Is that totally truthful though? How much do you have to smoke for it to really be dangerous? If I keep a pack around for 1-2 months, and have a few cigarettes a week, how much am I really increasing my chances? I don't smoke 1-2 packs a day like some smokers do, I certainly don't have the same odds do I? Can it be possible that the truth is that you can smoke in moderation without any significant increase in risk? I would certainly like to know the real picture. All I ever see is picture of black lungs, messages of certain cancer and death. To me, this is like those people who have pictures of dead fetuses for their anti-abortion message. It's extreme, and sets of red-flags in my brain. I fucking love smoking. It gives me a way to chill out and unwind for 10-15 minutes. It's great for my mental health, because I won't do it in my house... I have to get away from the computer, I have to stop what I'm doing. It gets me away from everything.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Searching around, it looks like even light smoking is still bad. Not as bad, but still bad. "Light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same risk for cardiovascular disease as daily smoking.... In addition, the risk of ischemic heart disease in light-smoking men and women aged 35 to 39 years who smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day is nearly 3 times that of a nonsmoker." http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518 http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518 There's nothing wrong with taking a calculated risk, but it is a risk.
    - bryondowd 9y ago
      Just for reference. 1-4 per day would be about a pack every 8 days, averaged. I'd be curious how that compares to a non-daily smoker who as the grandparent suggests, only smokes about once every other day on average. I expect it's still a significant health risk, but I've never seen studies on people who don't smoke daily.
      - posterboy 9y ago
        Those rare smokers practically don't exist; either they are wise and just stop because they were just testing, or they increase their habit, because they are still testing, until they forget why they even started and need the narcotics to numb the pain they caused themselves. How the damage happens is not important, but consider the possibility of slowly accumulating effects because of a slow rehabilitation potential.
jobu 9y ago
"Abstinence only" is terrible at any level. It's a good idea to encourage abstinence, but withholding education about birth control and STD protection is dangerous along the same lines as withholding vaccines. Getting back to the original topic, we need to know more information about the other additives in e-cigs as well. There are kids at my child's high-school that smoke non-nicotine e-cigs supposedly because they like the taste (they come in fruity flavors).
DanBC 9y ago
US government for some time pushed abstinence only AIDS prevention programmes in Africa, against all the evidence of ABC.

by baddox 9y ago

To be fair, while I don't support it, abstinence only sex ed is usually in the context of high school, where it's probably not true that "virtually everyone has sex."

mikeash 9y ago

The abstinence part is (almost?) always in the context of "until marriage" which can extend well beyond high school and remains highly mismatched with people's behavior. It should also be noted that abstinence only sex ed usually involves many outright lies, such as that sex outside of marriage is objectively immoral, that waiting until marriage prevents STIs, vastly exaggerated figures for the risk of disease and failure rates of birth control, etc. Whereas smoking is actually dangerous, and "don't smoke, it'll greatly increase your chances of getting these various horrible diseases" is actually truthful.

baddox 9y ago
The "until marriage" part is usually part of the moral beliefs of the people who push for abstinence only sex ed in public schools, but I wasn't aware that public schools generally taught that part.
- ChristianBundy 9y ago
  I can't speak for others, but I was never taught the "until marriage" clause, and I graduated high school in 2011. We were taught that abstinence was the only way to completely remove the risk of pregnancy or STD/STI, which really doesn't change once you're married or whatever.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Are they teaching abstinence "until you're out of high school"? Otherwise it's either "until marriage" or "until death." I think most kids understand that marriage usually involves sex, even with bad sex ed.
  - derefr 9y ago
    I think they're just teaching "until ..."—as in, they don't have an "until", it's just "don't have sex." As if sex was exactly equivalent to a drug, where if you avoid the particular subculture that "does" the drug, you'll just never need to think about it. Though I think the true implication is "don't have sex until an impulse comes along to do so, that is strong enough to completely drown out the voice of your superego in your head. And then—if the impulse really is that strong—the 'proper' order to do things is to get married to that person, and then have sex with them."
- pm90 9y ago
  They do in the South.
  - numo16 9y ago
    And in the Midwest.
olyjohn 9y ago
Is that totally truthful though? How much do you have to smoke for it to really be dangerous? If I keep a pack around for 1-2 months, and have a few cigarettes a week, how much am I really increasing my chances? I don't smoke 1-2 packs a day like some smokers do, I certainly don't have the same odds do I? Can it be possible that the truth is that you can smoke in moderation without any significant increase in risk? I would certainly like to know the real picture. All I ever see is picture of black lungs, messages of certain cancer and death. To me, this is like those people who have pictures of dead fetuses for their anti-abortion message. It's extreme, and sets of red-flags in my brain. I fucking love smoking. It gives me a way to chill out and unwind for 10-15 minutes. It's great for my mental health, because I won't do it in my house... I have to get away from the computer, I have to stop what I'm doing. It gets me away from everything.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Searching around, it looks like even light smoking is still bad. Not as bad, but still bad. "Light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same risk for cardiovascular disease as daily smoking.... In addition, the risk of ischemic heart disease in light-smoking men and women aged 35 to 39 years who smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day is nearly 3 times that of a nonsmoker." http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518 http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518 There's nothing wrong with taking a calculated risk, but it is a risk.
  - bryondowd 9y ago
    Just for reference. 1-4 per day would be about a pack every 8 days, averaged. I'd be curious how that compares to a non-daily smoker who as the grandparent suggests, only smokes about once every other day on average. I expect it's still a significant health risk, but I've never seen studies on people who don't smoke daily.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      Those rare smokers practically don't exist; either they are wise and just stop because they were just testing, or they increase their habit, because they are still testing, until they forget why they even started and need the narcotics to numb the pain they caused themselves. How the damage happens is not important, but consider the possibility of slowly accumulating effects because of a slow rehabilitation potential.

jobu 9y ago

"Abstinence only" is terrible at any level. It's a good idea to encourage abstinence, but withholding education about birth control and STD protection is dangerous along the same lines as withholding vaccines. Getting back to the original topic, we need to know more information about the other additives in e-cigs as well. There are kids at my child's high-school that smoke non-nicotine e-cigs supposedly because they like the taste (they come in fruity flavors).

DanBC 9y ago

US government for some time pushed abstinence only AIDS prevention programmes in Africa, against all the evidence of ABC.