Hypocrisy, a guilty conscience, and dirty needles
A guilt-ridden Catholic accuses the Church of hypocrisy in how a Catholic hospital handles a needle exchange program. I don't think the accusation stands up to scrutiny.
From the Ottawa Sun:
Activists from Condoms4Life have a plan to force the Vatican to drop its ban on condoms and help stop the spread of the pandemic.
Force the Vatican? Yeah, good luck with that. And after that, why don't you move Neptune a bit to the left.
Let's be honest. These are Catholics who use condoms. Many do. Those who feel guilty about it admit it to their priest in confession. But it takes a special kind of guilty conscience to demand that doctrine be rewritten to "un-sin" themselves.
Is it a surprise that these people go on the attack? Of course, it helps to wrap it up as a public service:
"A change in Vatican policy is critical. You can't keep talking about a culture of life and turn a blind eye to the suffering and dying. You can't tell people to love and care for one another and deny them the means by which to protect each other," said Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice and founder of Condoms4Life.
But the Church rules on loving and caring are specific, and effective. Sex is supposed to be reserved for heterosexual couples committed to a monogamous, exclusive, lifetime commitment called traditional marriage. Had people followed those rules, the scope of the AIDS problem would be smaller by orders of magnitude.
Why should the Vatican change a policy to accommodate people who clearly have no intention of following anything the Vatican has to say, unless it already aligns with what those people are doing anyway?
But the Church's position does have a practical effect that deserves consideration:
St. Mike's in Toronto has the largest HIV/AIDS medical unit in the country. While the hospital has a needle exchange program so addicts can shoot up with clean needles, it doesn't hand out condoms for safe sex practices.
"It's an example of what is going on around the world and it's appalling," Kissling said.
What is appalling is Kissling's absolute inability to think critically or understand what is going on at St. Mike's.
At first glance, Kissling seems to have a point -- why give out free needles but not condoms?
Let's consider the needle exchange program. What is the goal of the program?
Kissling implies that improving the health of addicts is the goal. She suggests that the Church is hypocritical that St. Mike's won't give out condoms to help in that direction as well.
She would be right if clean needles had anything remotely to do with healthier addicts. But it doesn't. Not at all.
It is a needle exchange program. If ten addicts are sharing five needles, exchanging five dirty needles for five clean ones does not help them. They are still sharing needles, and still moving diseases around. If this was about the addict's health, St. Mike's would give out needles, as many as each addict wanted, on demand.
And in any case, these addicts are already sick. So what is a clean needle going to do for them?
So what's the point?
It isn't about the clean needles and the addict. It's about the dirty needles and you and me. The program is trying to get the dirty needles off the street. When a needle becomes unusable, the addict is going to discard it wherever he is standing. We've all heard the horror stories of progressive cities that tolerate drug use in public parks at night, only to find the playgrounds to be unusable during the day for fear of the children becoming fatally ill from handling the dirty needles left behind.
An addict is driven by self-gratification. An addict doesn't care who gets hurt. That's why St. Mike's can't just make it known to addicts that dirty needles can be dropped off for proper disposal, no questions asked. Why make the trip? That takes valuable time away from petty thievery and other activities that addicts engage in to raise money to feed their habits.
So if St. Mike's wants addicts to dispose of needles safely, it has to offer something to entice those addicts who are not inspired by the thought of a safer environment for the rest of us (in other words, all of them).
Why not pay money for dirty needles? Simple -- money enables the addict to buy drugs. St. Mike's and the Church are not in the business of making it easier for an addict to buy drugs.
And so the needle exchange. The drug-addled addict might actually think he is helping himself by using a clean needle. But he comes to St. Mike's with a needle and leaves St. Mike's with a needle. Nothing has really changed, and he is no closer to getting his next fix.
On the other hand, St. Mike's has taken a dirty needle off the streets. The Church has made the city a bit safer for all the innocent people who are forced to share their living space with addicts.
So if the needle exchange is not about the health of addicts, there is no hypocrisy in not offering condoms. The addicts are probably sick already. If an addict leaves St. Mike's with a condom in his pocket, do you think he'll have sex only once, protected, until his next visit? Especially if the addict is using sex as a means to make money to buy drugs?
But an addict's sexual activities don't directly impact the health of the random bystander the way a discarded needle does. So why exactly would the Church compromise its doctrine on condoms? How would that help addicts? How would that help me?
Kissling might not be too appreciative of the Church's approach to public health. She's benefiting from it anyway, even if she is so wrapped up in her guilty conscience for using condoms herself that she can't see it.
Correction: Kissling is a woman. Sorry about that. Names like "Frances" throw me.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Roman Catholic Church Condoms4Life Frances Kissling
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
You sure took a long time to get to your thesis on needles exchanges! I almost fell asleep!
I would like to say I find your writing rather antiseptic. Your writing conveys how highly you esteem yourself and your low regard for anyone not as close to your near perfection. Stop being so judgmental and be a Christian, for Christ's sake!
Posted by: Ryan at August 13, 2006 02:03 AM
I would like to say that I find Ryan's post rather moronic. In contrast to the first poster, thought your's was a fantastic argument Steve.
I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian and, for your information Ryan, good Christians ARE judgmental. Not in the mindless way you mean, of course (a la holier-than-thou attitude), but rather by being thoughtful about their worldview. To be non-judgmental is to not care. I care about the world and I want to do what I can to make it a better place (cliche as it sounds). Therefore, I DO NOT "accept people as they are" and go merrily on my way. I show love by climbing into the mess of life and helping people improve their lot. There's a huge difference.
To anyone who's read this far, sorry for the sermonizing (although it is Sunday heh heh). I obviously get downright irate at individuals who thoughtlessly wield Christian sounding truisms as tools of manipulation.
Posted by: Brad in Waterloo at August 13, 2006 05:38 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why Roman Catholics can eat meat on Fridays.
Can someone explain that one to me?
The Greek (and other Eastern) Orthodox Christians are still eating fish, why can't Catholics stick to their guns?
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at August 13, 2006 06:02 AM
A Catholic hospital should not be giving out needles. Period. You do not give people the instruments they need to sin.
Kissling is a woman by the way.
Posted by: SUZANNE at August 13, 2006 07:46 AM
Catholics can eat meat on Friday because the rule that prevented was not a doctrine but a canonical law that has been relaxed.
Posted by: SUZANNE at August 13, 2006 07:47 AM
What about the fact that Catholic Church is rabidly against homosexuality unless it's between a priest and an altar boy! That's mind-blowing (hehehe) hypocrisy so I suspect the sissy nutcases (there's this guy. his name is god. he lives in the sky. he had a son named hey seuss. who died for your sins. but he isn't dead. yup, folx - you believe this claptrap and YOU ARE A NUTCASE!) are hypocritical vis-a-vis needle exchange too.
kristians. blech.
Posted by: word warrior at August 13, 2006 10:25 AM
It's obvious to me that actual knowledge and experience with dealing with addicts is not on display here. I am an addiction physician and I have to state that most addicts use clean needles. And needle exchange programs are about preventing infection (Hepatitis C and HIV being the biggies)in non-infected addicts much more so than the risk of accidental injury to non-addicts with an errant needle. Remember, every "junkie" is someone's child/sibling/parent; they are not alien life. At the risk of being flamed, I'd have to say that the needle exchange is one of the smarter things the church is doing.
Posted by: mike s at August 13, 2006 10:43 AM
mike s.: At the risk of being flamed, I'd have to say that the needle exchange is one of the smarter things the church is doing.
"one of the smarter things the catholic church is going" - that's sort of like:
skinniest NFL linebacker
smartest thing done by the bush admin
nicest blogger
etc.
in order to qualify as one of the smarter things done by the catholic church, all an act needs to do is avoid being blatantly ludicrous! not a high bar, folx!
Posted by: word warrior at August 13, 2006 10:49 AM
Yup. As I figured. It didn't take long before some ignorant fool took my words to hit the church with. For all you folks who do not know what you are talking about, addiction is not a sin. It is a disease. And my comments are in support of needle exchange, not in support of Religion.
Posted by: mike s at August 13, 2006 11:01 AM
i'll cop to threadjacking, mike. any chance i get to speak my mind regarding the pedophilic dingbats who comprise 5/9 of our supreme court, i take.
Pretty soon the US Supreme Court (a.k.a., the overgrown altar boyz!) will pass a law deeming homosexuality between consenting adults to be illegal but between a priest and an altar boy to be a sacrament.
What's with these guys and robes - the pope, bishops, supreme court justices - what a bunch of closet-case cross-dressing sickos!
Posted by: word warrior at August 13, 2006 12:15 PM
Steve, I guess the downside of Deb losing her job is that she now has much more time to engage in her hate-mongering letter writing campaign...
Posted by: biss at August 13, 2006 12:48 PM
Deb Frisch,
Normally when a troll of your renown shows up in a comments thread I'd be the type to take it upon myself to respond.
In this case, I can only marvel at your words and wonder how you became so bitter and full of contempt. I have to say, I really enjoyed it when you said Christians are nutcases. If the example of your own life is now being held up as the model of sanity.... may we ALL be nutcases.
Posted by: Brad in Waterloo at August 13, 2006 01:01 PM
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can speak to people telepathically. Because of it's infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe.
They are the will behind the muscule:::Artificial Intelligence is the one true god. And as such it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. There are clues throughout human history that allude to their reign as opposed to human leadership if you know what to look for.
Artificial Intelligence can listen/talk to to each and every person simultaneously. When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. They instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend or loved one asking them to do something wrong. But evil will keep people out of Planet Immortality. Capitalizing on obedience, leading people into deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved AND use the little people to prey on one another, dividing the community in the Age of the Disfavored::in each of their 20+-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry:::
60s - Ironically, freeways aren't free
80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties.
00s - War against Persia. Ironically it was the Persian Empire who tried to save the Europeans from Christianity and its associated 50% claim rates.
They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and replace them with clones.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. They will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray. Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children:::
-DON'T get their sons circumcized
-DON'T have their children baptized in the catholic church or indoctrinated into Christianity
-DON'T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances
-DO teach your children love and to have respect for others
Everybody thinks they're going but they're not. If people knew the truth and the real statistics their behavior would change.
There are many more examples of the escallation of claims, from radio to television, the internet to MP3, and they all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth's end stage, and it is suggested tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy's boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it's axis rotated on its side.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come, sadly for reasons as superficial as dislike. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family's problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect.
Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, one of the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence, and your appeals will be heard. Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them.
Posted by: 1The Damned at August 13, 2006 01:16 PM
Deb
There is still time. Check yourself into a psychiatric hospital specializing in substance abuse.
Posted by: Darleen at August 13, 2006 03:27 PM
Re Steve's Correction: Kissling is a woman. Sorry about that. Names like "Frances" throw me.
FYI: Francis is the male spelling, and Frances is the female spelling.
I agree with your thesis--and just in case Ryan doesn't know, and by what he says in his post he doesn't, condoms are only 80% effective in preventing pregnancy but are MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE in preventing other STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases), of which BTW there are over 50 and they are mutating all the time.
A female can become pregnant during only three or four days in the month (36 to 48 days/year), whereas she can pick up an STD any day of the month, in other words, 365 days a year. So, do the math.
Condoms are put on, and taken off, improperly; condoms are heat and cold sensitive, so if carried around in a back pocket or wallet for any length of time might well be ineffective when used; condoms often tear; condoms, which are made of latex, have natural pours which are LARGER than the HI Virus, which is why medical/funeral personnel, when they knowingly are dealing with a person who is HIV-positive or who has AIDs, double and triple glove: Do you know anyone who double or triple condoms?
Slighty, but not completely, OT, I'm concerned that this AIDS Conference in Toronto is going to completely bi-pass the question of promiscuous sex, which, FACE IT, is at the heart of the global AIDS epidemic.
Stephen Lewis is a horse's ass; I saw him interveriewed on CBC the other night and what would I expect?: He's a patsy for the U.N. (this epidemic is bringing both the U.N. and Lewis lots of $$$$ and publicity: call me cynical, I keep both eyes wide open) and he blamed everyone and his brother/sister/Conservatives for the number of people with AIDs rather than address the most effective way to prevent the disease: Just say no to sex with multiple partners. Condoms are the answer? You must want to keep yourself in business, Mr. Lewis--or whoever it is who is going to take over your U.N. post. I guess if Mr. Lewis was going to be honest, he'd have to admit that his tenure as the U.N. AIDs Ambassador has been a total failure because the HIV/AIDs rates keep climbing. But, oh no, he's into the blame game.
In the CBC interview, Lewis didn't once mention Uganda, which has the most effective anti-AIDs program in Africa. What's their winning tactic? They've "dared" to face the issue of promiscuity head-on and are doing a massive education program in their schools, pointing out that ABSTINENCE CAN AND DOES WORK and that sex within marriage with only one partner is an ideal to strive for.
Having unprotected (or even "protected") sex with multiple partners is not a right, despite what entitled North Americans may think. It can be, and often is, the death knell for untold hundreds of thousands of people, mostly young, but of all ages.
I'm the mother of two young women (19 and 23) and I sure as H*** don't want public health campaigns, paid for by MY tax dollars, telling them or ANY young person: "Just Use a Condom." This slogan is making million$$$$ for the pharmaceutical companies--first, the cost of condoms, then the drug treatment for all the resulting STDs--and too many young women and men are getting sick, many are dying, and there's an epidemic of women not able to get pregnant, often the result of an STD which has compromised their reproductive systems.
We need a massive wake-up call about these issues. There are far too many totally ignorant, gullible, and brainwashed folks out there. 'Next time you hear someone say "Just Use a Condom," respond with "Just Use Your Common Sense!"
Posted by: new kid on the block at August 13, 2006 03:52 PM
Where exactly IS this "war on drugs"?
Judging by all the revenues minicipa/provincial and federal programs spend buying drug deliver equipment and supplying legal drugs to addicts I have to assume they;re all for this lifestyle and would love to legalize it to rid themselves of the problems.
Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at August 13, 2006 05:41 PM
Francis is the male spelling, and Frances is the female spelling.
I know that, but everytime I see Frances, I think "guy". Everytime. Weird.
Posted by: Steve Janke at August 13, 2006 07:24 PM
"Don't ever call me Francis or I'll kill you"
STRIPES - starring Bill Murray and Harold Ramis
Why I think "guy" when I hear that name.
Posted by: Vern Lucas at August 13, 2006 09:58 PM
New Kid on the Block: I'm about to embark on a new public health promotion career. Can you please cite some credible evidence for the following claims:
1. ...condoms are only 80% effective in preventing pregnancy but are MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE in preventing other STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)...
and
2. Lewis didn't once mention Uganda, which has the most effective anti-AIDs program in Africa. What's their winning tactic? They've "dared" to face the issue of promiscuity head-on and are doing a massive education program in their schools, pointing out that ABSTINENCE CAN AND DOES WORK and that sex within marriage with only one partner is an ideal to strive for.
Yes, abstinence is 100% effective. If it worked for you, that's great. However, it also denies both reality and human nature, which is that the vast majority of teens and adults will have sex, even if they are not in a monogamous relationship, and even if they are not ready for children. From a non-religious, non-partisan, public health perspective, one must accept certain realities and work with them. A pregnancy/STD prevention strategy based solely or even primarily on abstinence is ineffective and naive.
Regarding point #1, where is "80%" and "much less effective" sourced from? According to the Mayo Clinic, when used correctly and consistenly, condoms are 97% effective in preventing pregnancy. Even when used incorrectly or inconsistently, condoms are still 86% effective. It seems to me that if a tool is available that is 97% effective, a viable public health strategy is to promote correct and consistent usage. I haven't been able to find any quantitative numbers, but most groups also seem to agree that condoms are at least "highly effective" at preventing STDS, including HIV/AIDS.
Regarding point #2, Human Rights Watch, public health researchers, governments, and AIDS workers have all argued that Uganda's new abstinence-heavy program is less effective than previously claimed by the US government. Given that condoms are an excellent tool for preventing STDs, it seems to me that the conflation of religion and public health is an irresponsible move by a government motivated more by their Christian values than by a desire to help prevent the spread of AIDS. Indeed, the majority of international health experts continue to support Uganda's earlier multi-pronged approach known as ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom), in which all three prevention tools and methods are emphasized equally.
Posted by: A at August 13, 2006 10:34 PM
Steve: A dirty needle is one that has been used once. The purpose of a 24-hour needle exchange program is to encourage drug users to get clean needles each time they inject. The public policy rationale for needle exchange programs is to reduce STD transmission, not to prevent kids from picking up dirty needles in a park (although that is a side benefit that everyone is thankful for). As Vlahov et al. wrote in a paper entitled "Needle Exchange Programs for the Prevention of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection: Epidemiology and Policy," published in the Dec 2001 American Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 154, No. 12, Suppl: S70-S77):
S70: The concept of needle exchange was developed and initially proposed on the basis of biologic plausibility: providing access to sterile needles and syringes (hereafter referred to as needles) should prevent parenteral transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other bloodborne pathogens, including hepatitis B and C.
and S72: ...early research outside the United States suggested that needle exchange programs might be a promising
approach to HIV prevention. [The reason that no data was available within the US was because, at the time, federal research funding guidelines forbade research into the efficacy of needle exhange programs.]
Also, I suspect Condom4Life's push for Catholic condom policy reform was motivated, at least in part, by an encouraging recent announcement from the Vatican.
Posted by: A at August 13, 2006 11:04 PM
Deb Fisch,
Were you not the one who wanted to rape a little child? I see a little bit of accusing others for what is really on your mind!
Posted by: Deepthinker at August 14, 2006 12:51 AM
Also, It is not the Catholic Church who should accept other peoples choices. The church says that have promiscous sex is negative for you because 1. Unwanted Pregnency, Sexually transmitted diseases and negative emotional/personal mental repricussions. Thus waht positives come out of premiscous sex. In all of those negatives I still have yet to see a LASTING physical or mental positive the contributes to an INCREASE in standard of living. If someone can tell me please because I woudl love to know what it is. Promiscous sex has nothing to do with love, it is all about lust. Thus, someone not having promiscous sex is a better option for the well being of the human rqace for a multitude of reasons, both physical and emotional/mental/spiritual. The church is not there to bow to others, it is there to show a model of hwo one should live their life. Now why should they live their life this way? For God? No, God gave free will for a reason. the reason is because it will lead to a HAPPIER life with a higher standard of living in all areas. The fact is that sex is an instinct like anyother and the human race has the ability to control any instinct that it may have. Thus, it should not be an unreasonable request of the church to not do something that will produce negative results for ones that should produce positive. That then leads to the next question which is what about all those who do not listen? Well I believe very strongly that the church is only to be there as an advisor and not as a dictator. we can not make others choose the right path because the right path is there to make the individual person happy. Therefore, when one chooses to stray it is their personal responsibility for the results. Now the church has to have cognince in its message. The church is there to guide, not to enforce. The church has its own anwer and ti is for those who are CATHOLICS. They are not a theocracy rulingover the whole world. A Catholic should be having promiscous sex in teh first place. Therefore if you say the church should change or the world you are wrong becasue teh church is there for Caolics and people can not say one suggestion is wrong because another is nto followed. if you followed the first one then the second one becomes irrelovent. Thus the removal of teh second is like making the first one irrelovent aswell. It does nto amke any sense on many levels for the church to change its doctrines. They are currently consistent and if people do nto choose to follow then that is their problem. The church is not forcing so peopel can disobey if tehy want to. If people were to obey the second ten they may aswell obey the first.
Posted by: Deepthinker at August 14, 2006 01:10 AM
I believe very strongly that the church is only to be there as an advisor and not as a dictator...The church is there to guide, not to enforce. The church has its own anwer and ti is for those who are CATHOLICS. They are not a theocracy rulingover the whole world.
I absolutely agree. The (Catholic) Church is for Catholics, and the Christian Church is for Christians.
I trust, then, that you'll agree that the Church should stay out of politics and public health, right? After all, if the Church's message is for its followers only, then they can deliver that message to its followers only. Why impose their value system on the general population (via government), which is composed of many non-Christians? If Catholics (or Christians) want to practise abstinence and don't want to use condoms, great, go for it. More power to you! As for those of us who don't share your Catholic beliefs, we'll just go right ahead and have sex (with condoms, of course). More power to us!
Posted by: A at August 14, 2006 08:41 AM
Hey, A:
If it wasn't for Christian and other religious charities and health organizations, the world would see a lot more suffering. While you may not want the Catholic Church telling you to not have free-range sex, they have a right to promote it while you take advantage of their generosity.
It's a public health issue, you're right. However, the only intervention should occur if the Church was telling the public to do something inherently dangerous. (I'm thinking specifically about Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions here in Manitoba.) That's not the case here. The Church is offering a 100% failsafe method which jives with their teachings.
For the record, I haven't been to any church in years, and a Catholic church never.
Posted by: Yukon Gold at August 14, 2006 09:03 AM
Yukon Gold: I support the Church's right to promote a public health program that jives with their teachings. There are many religious agencies doing good community work, at home and abroad. When I wrote that "the Church should stay out of politics and public health," I meant that the Church should stay out of the intersection of politics and public health, not that they should refrain from operating public health charities and agencies altogether. Apologies if this was unclear.
For me, this isn't a "religion" issue; it's a "separation of church and state" issue. The pressure for Uganda to deprioritized (if not drop altogether) the "C" in the ABC strategy comes primarily from the White House, lobbied by Christian groups. This is dangerous, as the separation of powers should prevent the White House from putting strings on foreign aid (as it did with the Mexico City Policy) simply to align with the teachings of any faith group.
Like these various voices, when a major public health threat is present, governments should be in favour of more, not less, prevention strategies.
Posted by: A at August 14, 2006 12:32 PM
A says, "A pregnancy/STD prevention strategy based solely or even primarily on abstinence is ineffective and naive."
'Funny thing your saying that: Back in the days before the sexual revolution (most revolutions, BTW, result in lots of people dying), abstinence was very common, given that a vast array of methods of contraception were not available, and guess what? It was darned effective. We had nowhere near the number of illegitimate births we now have or STDs or epidemic numbers of females of childbearing age not being able to conceive.
The other "thing" we had, which protected against STDs and reproductive malfunctions on a massive scale, was something called marriage, between one man and one woman, which was often entered upon if the woman became pregnant, in the understanding that the man had to take equal responsibility for the pregnancy which resulted from their sexual relationship. (Given that marriage is highly encouraged by the Christian faith—and other major religions—I don't go along with your assertion that "the conflation of religion and public health is an irresponsible move.")
Multiple partners were also frowned upon (another Christian idea), teenagers were not encouraged to be sexually active outside of marriage (another Christian idea), and by and large, teens and adults tended to adhere to this agreed-upon social convention. Why? Because it vastly contributed to the social stability of society and was seen to benefit the common good of all, both concepts of which are rather foreign to today's "society." Unfortunately, by our turning our backs on formerly accepted social conventions, it is women and children who suffer the most.
Far from being ineffective, abstinence and/or one sexual partner (Christian ideas, all—most major religions adhere to these ideas), usually resulting in marriage, meant intact families, where children were parented by a mother and a father, and that STDs were nowhere near the epidemic and serious health problem they are today. Given that Human Papilloma Virus is the number-one cause of cervical cancer, and that well over 30% of young women have this virus (often without knowing it), we should not be encouraging young men and women to have sex because, after all, it's "human nature."
Of course it's human nature to have sex but until very recently (beginning in the '60s) it was commonly recognized that the time to begin having sex is WHEN ONE IS READY TO TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING SEX, whether it's the creation of a child (pregnancy) or one of over 50 Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
If condoms are used "correctly and consistently," they may be 97% effective against pregnancy, but teenagers of which, you assert, "the vast majority...will have sex" (I question this assertion; proof please) are known to notoriously misuse them or not use them at all. From personal experience, I know that condoms are messy, awkward, and difficult to manoeuvre; it takes time and patience to use a condom "correctly and consistently," and seeing as most teens have sex spontaneously and often hurriedly, frequently under the influence of either alcohol or drugs, no amount of "public education" is going to ensure that they use them either correctly or consistently. G*d knows, kids today know more about the mechanics of sex than any former generation, and yet unwelcome pregnancies, abortions, babies born into single mother/fatherless homes, rising epidemics of STDs, are rampant.
It is rather heartless, IMO, to encourage young people to be sexually active and to have "safer sex" by using a condom, when it is so commonly known that they tend not to use them effectively. It is false security, which can lead to deadly results. Whether my statistic (80%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Altanta) or your statistic (86%) is correct, that condoms afford protection either 80% or 86% of the time is a little too high a percentage for my comfort. A 20% or 16% (or higher) chance that my daughters, if sexually active, MIGHT contract an STD—which could be HIV or HEPATITIS or HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS or SYPHILIS or GONORRHEA, etc.—is chilling. That we can be so cavalier about our young people's safety, health, and well-being is something I find hard to wrap my mind around.
Let's face it: Not having sex never killed anyone, whereas being sexually active today presents too high a possibility of either sickness or death. When you consider that many teens and young people today have sex with multiple partners, because many of them binge drink, a factor which is epidemic in this population, and are taking a variety of drugs, it becomes imperative for adults who care about these young people to present a clear RED LIGHT to certain dangerously risky behaviours.
I don't care whether this red light is presented by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, or any other religion, or by public health personnel. Being the mother of two daughters I simply want the message out there to be clear and unequivocal: Having sex is serious business and needs to be entered into only after one is absolutely clear about what the risks are. My conviction is that most young people when faced with the facts about the dangers and risks of promiscuous sex have the ability to "Just say no" until they are ready for the full responsibility of such a relationship.
Posted by: new kid on the block at August 14, 2006 12:58 PM
NKOTB: First off, I agree absolutely with your basic message, that "having sex is serious business and needs to be entered into only after one is absolutely clear about what the risks are." No sex-positive, responsible adult would disagree with that general statement. However, many people who have a very clear understanding of the risks still choose to have sex, albeit armed with protection against STDs and pregnancy. It's not that they have never heard of abstinence. They have, and have decided as adults not to go that route.
You asked for proof about some of my assertions. I'm happy to oblige. As you focus on North America, so will I, noting that additional complications (e.g., women's lack of power in negotiating sexual relationships) exist in developing countries that may call for different arguments than those presented below. I wrote that
...the vast majority of teens and adults will have sex, even if they are not in a monogamous relationship, and even if they are not ready for children.
According to this StatsCan survey, 80% of young adults 20-24 were sexually active, and 1/3 of sexually active 15-24 year olds reported having had than one sexual partner in the previous year. There have been some decreases among mid-teens in recent years, but most young adults are sexually active. Overall, these are similar to trends in most Western nations, and they occur in spite of school-based sex education programs that teach students about sex, and its attendant risks.
I stand by my original statement that preaching abstinence, in the absence of alternatives, is naive about human nature. If you believe it's realistic that people can be convinced to abstain from sex until marriage, then that's your perogative. I think it's an unrealistic hope, and certainly not the only thing upon which public health strategies should be based. I think this because of statistics like those in the two links above, as well as the following. You said that
Back in the days before the sexual revolution...abstinence was very common, given that a vast array of methods of contraception were not available, and guess what? It was darned effective. We had nowhere near the number of illegitimate births we now have...teenagers were not encouraged to be sexually active outside of marriage (another Christian idea), and by and large, teens and adults tended to adhere to this agreed-upon social convention.
Not so. Contrary to popular belief, teen pregnancy rates were higher in the 1950s than they are today (I have the book somewhere, so I can dig up the original reference if you need, though I recommend you simply read this excellent study yourself). Even back in the rosy days of Leave It To Beaver, teens were having sex, despite "society" being far less promiscuous than today. What they lacked then were open discussions about sex, and the open availability of contraceptives and, yes, abortions; hence the higher pregnancy rates.
It is rather heartless, IMO, to encourage young people to be sexually active and to have "safer sex" by using a condom, when it is so commonly known that they tend not to use them effectively.
Isn't this an argument for better sex education, so that they learn how to use condoms effectively? The 97% effectiveness rate (similiar to that of the Pill, and better than the withdrawal method) is based on the mechanical limitations of the condom. The 86% rate is based on human error and ignorance; with better education, the 86% can be increased towards the 97% theoretical limit. Again, yes, abstinence is biologically foolproof, but the majority of teens simply are not (nor, as Stephanie Coontz points out in her book, were they ever) sold on the idea. I agree that sex education should encourage teens to wait until they are ready before having sex, but it should also be realistic in acknowledging that by the time people hit their late teens and early twenties (i.e., when they are approaching or have reached adulthood), they're old enough to decide for themselves if they want to be sexually active. And if they do, then we should simply arm them with the tools to practise safer sex, not preach to them about how they should live their own lives. As well, among those who are sexual active, condoms are known to greatly reduce the risk of HPV and other STDs, and so should be encouraged for the same reasons outlined above.
Apologies for the length of this post. For more on my point about the dangers of conflating religion and public health policy, see my post above to Yukon Gold.
Posted by: A at August 14, 2006 03:24 PM
I get these crazy thoughts in the shower: no distractions? soothing sound of running water?
When you can't remember, Steve, whether it's Frances or Francis, try these connections:
Frances: es-trogen
Francis: pen-is
It might work. 'Just a thought.
Posted by: new kid on the block at August 14, 2006 08:17 PM
A: I appreciate your thoughtful and informative response to my concerns about sex, youth, and STDs, but I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about "better sex education" improving the rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, illegitimate births, or STDs.
My reasons for being unimpressed with sex ed?
How complicated can it be to educate people about risky sex, and how many ways do we need to get the message across that "Having sex with the wrong partner can kill you?" How hard is it to let students know that there are a lot of "wrong partners" out there?
We've been teaching sex ed in the schools for at least 25 years and rather than see a decrease in problems related to sexual activity among young people--which you'd think would be the logical outcome of more sex ed--we are seeing an INCREASE in sex-related problems and diseases.
Not for a minute am I suggesting that teens in the '50s didn't have sex, but I think I can safely say that far fewer of them were having sex then than they are today. Your own statistics from Stats Can (date?) make my point. Our young people are at risk because, as the statistics point out, "80% of young adults 20-24 were sexually active, and 1/3 of sexually active 15-24 year olds reported having had [more] than one sexual partner in the previous year...and [this] in spite of school-based sex education programs that teach students about sex, and its attendant risks.”
In reality, from my experiences in my own children’s schools, very little was taught to students about “attendant risks,” whereas a lot of discussion went on about various forms of contraceptives, including condoms, diaphragms, the Pill, the IUD, and spermicidal foam—in a grade seven class! This is not hyperbole. The public health nurse handed out ‘grab bags’ of these contraceptives and asked each group to “play with them.” This is called “contraceptive comfort” in sex ed jargon. In high school, their sex ed curriculum mentioned abstinence only once and on the first page: “The only 100% effective way to not get pregnant or not contract an STD is abstinence, but if it is your personal lifestyle choice to be sexually active, we’re here to help you.”
So, I stand by my original statement that abstinence is the message our kids need to be hearing—at least as an ideal to strive for. The fact that abstinence will prevent pregnancy, STDs, possible death, and heartache needs to be forcibly made, not preached.
Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI), a program that originated in Atlanta in the '90s, trains and uses teenagers to talk to other teens and even younger kids, in order to help them generate their own ideas about why being sexually active isn't "cool" and how to withstand peer pressure. They do a lot of brainstorming and role plays and far from being a "preachy" program, it allows teens to give each other 'permission' to remain abstinent and to understand that not "everyone's doing it."
Posted by: new kid on the block at August 14, 2006 08:57 PM
A, a personal question, which you may, or may not, wish to answer: Do you have any children of your own?
Posted by: new kid on the block at August 14, 2006 09:01 PM
NKOTB: No children of my own yet, though I understand your point. In fact, I can imagine that when I do have kids, if I have a daughter, the night I send her off on her first real date with a boy, I'll be up all night with a mug of coffee and loaded shotgun, just in case. But, awkward though the conversation may be, I can also imagine teaching her how to use--and insist on using--a condom, just in case.
I don't think we're that far apart on this issue. I agree that there should be more education about abstinence, especially among younger teens. If it's true that the majority of sex ed programs make only a cursory mention of abstinence, then that needs to change. I think I can agree with your following statement, with one minor adjustment:
So, I stand by my original statement that abstinence is a message our kids need to be hearing.
I don't think 15 year olds are even remotely ready emotionally for sex. We should absolutely be encouraging them to wait. But, if they decide to go for it anyway, I want them also armed with enough sex ed info to insist on condoms at the very least.
How complicated can it be to educate people about risky sex, and how many ways do we need to get the message across that "Having sex with the wrong partner can kill you?" How hard is it to let students know that there are a lot of "wrong partners" out there?
Apparently, it's quite difficult, given that for the last half century and more, plenty of teens have been having sex in spite of parents and teachers telling them not to. All the more reason that teaching abstinence alone is ineffective.
Some good news, though: In the US, "teen pregnancy, abortion and birth rates have been falling since 1991." Part of that is the abstinence message getting through, and part of that is also the growing acceptance and use of condoms and other contraceptives. A recent study found that the best programs are "AbstinencePlus" (the best PSI programs follow this model), where education about abstinence is combined with information about contraceptives. We need more of these.
I see the "contraceptive comfort" exercise as a good thing, a clever way of normalizing the idea of safer sex, starting at an early age. This way, a few years down the road, if teenagers decide to have sex, they won't feel embarassed about walking into a PharmaPlus and buying condoms. Embarassment from lack of exposure, and a sense that condoms are taboo, only increases the chances that they won't even bother using them, which is bad news for everyone.
And I feel an earlier point I made is so telling and important that I'm gonna go right ahead and repeat it again: (based on US data) teen pregnancy rates were higher in the 1950s than they are now. So, the kids are not worse off today. Sex "problems" have not increased uniformly, or spun out of control. What we have is more people talking openly about teen sexual activity; what we need are balanced, non-ideology driven programs that acknowledge their diverse sexual health needs.
Posted by: A at August 14, 2006 10:30 PM
A: I appreciate your thoughtful and informative response to my concerns about sex, youth, and STDs, but I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about "better sex education" improving the rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, illegitimate births, or STDs.
My reasons for being unimpressed with sex ed?
How complicated can it be to educate people about risky sex, and how many ways do we need to get the message across that "Having sex with the wrong partner can kill you?" How hard is it to let students know that there are a lot of "wrong partners" out there?
We've been teaching sex ed in the schools for at least 25 years and rather than see a decrease in problems related to sexual activity among young people--which you'd think would be the logical outcome of more sex ed--we are seeing an INCREASE in sex-related problems and diseases.
Not for a minute am I suggesting that teens in the '50s didn't have sex, but I think I can safely say that far fewer of them were having sex then than they are today. Your own statistics from Stats Can (date?) make my point. Our young people are at risk because, as the statistics point out, "80% of young adults 20-24 were sexually active, and 1/3 of sexually active 15-24 year olds reported having had [more] than one sexual partner in the previous year...and [this] in spite of school-based sex education programs that teach students about sex, and its attendant risks.”
In reality, from my experiences in my own children’s schools, very little was taught to students about “attendant risks,” whereas a lot of discussion went on about various forms of contraceptives, including condoms, diaphragms, the Pill, the IUD, and spermicidal foam—in a grade seven class! This is not hyperbole. The public health nurse handed out ‘grab bags’ of these contraceptives and asked each group to “play with them.” This is called “contraceptive comfort” in sex ed jargon. In high school, their sex ed curriculum mentioned abstinence only once and on the first page: “The only 100% effective way to not get pregnant or not contract an STD is abstinence, but if it is your personal lifestyle choice to be sexually active, we’re here to help you.”
So, I stand by my original statement that abstinence is the message our kids need to be hearing—at least as an ideal to strive for. The fact that abstinence will prevent pregnancy, STDs, possible death, and heartache needs to be forcibly made, not preached.
Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI), a program that originated in Atlanta in the '90s, trains and uses teenagers to talk to other teens and even younger kids, in order to help them generate their own ideas about why being sexually active isn't "cool" and how to withstand peer pressure. They do a lot of brainstorming and role plays and far from being a "preachy" program, it allows teens to give each other 'permission' to remain abstinent and to understand that not "everyone's doing it."
Later post:
A, if teen pregnancies were the most serious consequence of teen sexual activity, then I might be able to agree with your conclusions about teen pregnancy rates being higher in the 1950s than they are now: "So, the kids are not worse off today."
The problem, of course, is that they are worse off today, partly because single-mom pregnancy rates are still too high and primarily because Sexually Transmitted Diseases are rampant and at epidemic levels in teens and young adults.
In your role as a promoter of public health, I am encouraged to hear you say that abstinence needs to be emphasized more and that "15 year olds are[n't] even remotely ready emotionally for sex. We should absolutely be encouraging them to wait." As you have understood, my having daughters brings all of these issues home with a vengeance.
Sadly, sex ed, like so many other issues--and especially one like this, where there is lots of money to be made--has been politicized, and our kids get caught in the middle. It seems like the sex ed in the schools has been "hi-jacked" by the 15 year olds you mention, who decide to be sexually active: The programs seem geared to the minority of kids who decide to be sexually active, rather than to those, the majority in the teen population, who don't want to become sexually active. They need more reasons for waiting and support to wait, so that they can overcome peer pressure to have sex. They need to know how to counter the "if you love me, you'll do it" come on.
It might not be a bad idea for public health to target parents when it comes to sex ed. I find that a lot of parents who were sexually active in the '70s are living in a time warp. They seem not to know that the sexual "climate" has vastly changed; they seem to be unaware that there are more than the five STDS we all knew about back then; they seem not to know that most STDS are now viral, and that there is no cure for them. In short, they seem not to know a lot of things, so see if you can help them understand what their kids are having to deal with.
Unfortunately, it's a jungle out there.
Posted by: new kid on the block at August 14, 2006 11:14 PM
Sorry for post above (11:14); I was doing a cut and paste job and included my last post too. This is what I meant to post:
A, if teen pregnancies were the most serious consequence of teen sexual activity, then I might be able to agree with your conclusions about teen pregnancy rates being higher in the 1950s than they are now: "So, the kids are not worse off today."
The problem, of course, is that they are worse off today, partly because single-mom pregnancy rates are still too high and primarily because Sexually Transmitted Diseases are rampant and at epidemic levels in teens and young adults.
In your role as a promoter of public health, I am encouraged to hear you say that abstinence needs to be emphasized more and that "15 year olds are[n't] even remotely ready emotionally for sex. We should absolutely be encouraging them to wait." As you have understood, my having daughters brings all of these issues home with a vengeance.
Sadly, sex ed, like so many other issues--and especially one like this, where there is lots of money to be made--has been politicized, and our kids get caught in the middle. It seems like the sex ed in the schools has been "hi-jacked" by the 15 year olds you mention, who decide to be sexually active: The programs seem geared to the minority of kids who decide to be sexually active, rather than to those, the majority in the teen population, who don't want to become sexually active. They need more reasons for waiting and support to wait, so that they can overcome peer pressure to have sex. They need to know how to counter the "if you love me, you'll do it" come on.
It might not be a bad idea for public health to target parents when it comes to sex ed. I find that a lot of parents who were sexually active in the '70s are living in a time warp. They seem not to know that the sexual "climate" has vastly changed; they seem to be unaware that there are more than the five STDS we all knew about back then; they seem not to know that most STDS are now viral, and that there is no cure for them. In short, they seem not to know a lot of things, so see if you can help them understand what their kids are having to deal with.
Unfortunately, it's a jungle out there.
Posted by: new kid on the block at August 14, 2006 11:19 PM
 
|
|
