"Sex on TV will cause more teens to have sex! So will teaching about contraceptives!" - typical conservative argument
The National Center for Health Statistics has put out a report stating fewer teens are engaging in sexual activity than in the past, and those that do are more likely to use contraceptives.
The National Center for Health Statistics said that for girls aged 15 to 17 the percentage who had ever had intercourse declined from 38 percent in 1995 to 30 percent in 2002. For boys, the agency said, the decline was 43 percent to 31 percent.
In addition, the agency said that when teens do have intercourse, 79 percent reported using contraception in 1991-2002 compared with 61 percent in the 1980's. The agency said the increase in contraception is consistent with a decline in teen pregnancy.
This kind of blow the whole argument about how the level of sex on TV is so dangerous and society's disintegrating now doesnt it? It also implies that teenagers can be both abstaining from sex more and using protection more often? Obviously, contrary to the beliefs of the Bush admin, teaching them to use contraception in schools has not encouraged more sexual activitity. But it has, in fact, encouraged them more to use contraceptives when they do have sex.
Silly cons.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Adam, I think your conclusion is a nonsequitur. First of all, the conservatives are concerned with the increase in teen sexuality over a much longer time period than the last seven years; and it has increased over time (like the last 50 years), I don't think you would dispute that. Second, if your only variables are sexual statistics of males and females between 15-17 years old over the last seven years, school teaching about contraceptives, and TV sex, then you are leaving out important data that can better explain the results. What about increased awareness of STD's (or STI's as they are now termed)? What about activism against sexual promiscuity and teen pregnancy? These things have to be considered to determine the actual cause behind any decline in teen sexuality.
And as for your "typical conservative argument", it is not simply instruction on contraceptives that concerns conservatives, but the underlying assumption that a person can have casual sex without any consequences. And sexuality in the media and advertisements, whether on TV or any other medium, does absolutely influence behavior among the populace and their reaction to what is and is not acceptable.
Besides all of this, it is the morality of teen sexuality that concerns many conservatives, not just diseases. And this is the larger issue for many, including myself.
I don't think you have demonstrated that anything conservatives state about teen sexuality is wrong; your statistics do not support that.
"First of all, the conservatives are concerned with the increase in teen sexuality over a much longer time period than the last seven years; and it has increased over time (like the last 50 years), I don't think you would dispute that."
Of course, when did the sexuality of teens start being recorded?
"Second, if your only variables are sexual statistics of males and females between 15-17 years old over the last seven years, school teaching about contraceptives, and TV sex, then you are leaving out important data that can better explain the results. What about increased awareness of STD's (or STI's as they are now termed)? What about activism against sexual promiscuity and teen pregnancy? These things have to be considered to determine the actual cause behind any decline in teen sexuality."
Well, the sex education includes STD education. On the other, I would look at states, like here in Texas where you have such conservative movements and policies, and you'll see we have the highest teen pregnancy rate.
"And as for your 'typical conservative argument,' it is not simply instruction on contraceptives that concerns conservatives, but the underlying assumption that a person can have casual sex without any consequences. And sexuality in the media and advertisements, whether on TV or any other medium, does absolutely influence behavior among the populace and their reaction to what is and is not acceptable."
See, that's a bad argument and you know it. That assumes teenagers weren't/aren't having sex or have sex less when they are less educated about it. That's not true at all. What happens is they have sex, but with no education, they are more likely to get pregant and/or an STD.
John, I think it's wrong to assume people are having more promiscious sex now than they were before. Ask our parents or grandparents. The truth is, TV programs and movies weren't accurately reflecting people's sexuality back then, and while there are some extremes now, it more accurately does in the present time. In other words, the "O.C" really is how those rich, Republican kids in Orange County act!
"Besides all of this, it is the morality of teen sexuality that concerns many conservatives, not just diseases. And this is the larger issue for many, including myself."
Of course. But while most people would rather their kids wait, they'd also rather their kids have safe sex if they chose not to, and you know this.
"I don't think you have demonstrated that anything conservatives state about teen sexuality is wrong; your statistics do not support that."
Well, you haven't demonstrated it is right. The burden of proof here isn't on me to prove that conservative beliefs are not right anyway, it has to be up to you to prove that they are.
But see, Adam, the burden is on you since you decided to debunk a "Republican Myth." And in your response to my comment:
"See, that's a bad argument and you know it. That assumes teenagers weren't/aren't having sex or have sex less when they are less educated about it. That's not true at all. What happens is they have sex, but with no education, they are more likely to get pregant and/or an STD.
John, I think it's wrong to assume people are having more promiscious sex now than they were before. Ask our parents or grandparents. The truth is, TV programs and movies weren't accurately reflecting people's sexuality back then, and while there are some extremes now, it more accurately does in the present time. In other words, the "O.C" really is how those rich, Republican kids in Orange County act!"
What are you basing this on? I think that promiscuity has gone up over time, and I have spoken with my parents and grandparents. How do you know that the media wasn't accurately representing sexuality in the past? How do you know that "O.C." represents anything factual about "rich Republican kids"? I can guarantee you that I will be more likely to have promiscuous sex if I have a way to do it with a contraceptive to avoid all the issues of STD's and pregnancy than if I do not. But, again, the real issue is a moral one. I think the real danger of promiscuity is one of sin and moral depravity: sex should be reserved for monogamous marriage. Abstinence is the best, and morally right, policy. I can back my moral statements up with New Testament passages if you wish. (Assuming you take the New Testament to be any valid standard of morality).
Well, since I don't think a free, democratic republic should have its policies based on religious beliefs, it's kinda irrelevant.
Well, promiscuity levels are debatable, but it's not debatable that the media didn't accurately reflect people's sex lives when sex wasn't even mentioned on TV obviously. That's why it is kind of silly to say "There's more sex on TV, therefore there's more sex!" No, it's just now people are comfortable showing it and watching it. And that's the other thing, it's not like the media would have it if people didn't like it.
I never made the statement that you caricatured in your last comment.
As for religion and politics, this is a different subject. I'll make a post on the Horadrim about it.
I was simply adding on.
Well John, while I might accept the New Testament as a personal moral guide, despite what you might see as a self-contradictory point of view, I must again state that the Bible and any of it's moral arguments must have no place in the governance of the land. That argument belongs in a different place though, so let's put it there. Just accept for a minute that although Adam and myself may or may not be Christians, we do not accept Christian moral arguments simply because they're right to Christians.
Although of course one study proves nothing, it seems quite logical to believe that giving kids a decent sexual education enables them to make informed choices about whether to have sex or use protection. Therefore, in this case even without further proof it seems quite logical to believe that the idea that sex on tv and movies is harmful to kids in some way is just a myth, which is the basic argument here. And we must admit John, that it is a predominantly Republican espoused veiwpoint.
Post a Comment