Faith vs. Science: The Consequences of What We Teach Our Children

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:



Faith vs. Science: The Consequences of What We Teach Our Children

Posted by Daniel DiRito, The All Spin Zone at 4:59 AM on June 5, 2008.

Is America beginning to reap what it's sewn with faith-based education?



Religious believers do so as a matter of faith. At the same time, many of these same people expect science to provide evidence that far exceeds the standards upon which they accept the words found in the Bible. This contradiction is troubling and merits discussion.


Commentary By: Daniel DiRito

Have you ever asked yourself what America and the world would look like if the abstinence-only advocating…intelligent design demanding…religious right had the power to enact the legislation they preferred? I don’t know about you, but the thought of this group at the helm of humanity is not only frightening; it could well spell the initiation of a period of irrational repression not seen since the Dark Ages. Even worse, I’m not sure they would possess the restraint to resist the application of Biblically mandated punishments.

Two articles in today’s news led me to ponder the possibilities. I think it’s obvious that there is a boundless commitment on the part of the religious right to impose their beliefs on others. That persistence makes them a formidable foe and it requires the rest of us to be vigilant in refuting and rejecting the tortured arguments they construct. Even worse, each time one of their efforts are rebuffed, they immediately move to craft a more refined replacement.

Pardon the ugly analogy, but this steadfast assault has all the makings of an inexpugnable infection…one that requires timely treatment lest it render the unsuspecting host into a state of perpetual decline. As such, one can never assume that a period of remission will be sustained. Like it or not, these inviolable interlopers are constantly searching for a vulnerability that can be exploited.

This analogy provides a seamless segue into the first article. According to a report in The Washington Post, there is concern that the insistence on abstinence-only education…education that frequently attempts to undermine the merits of condoms…is pushing us towards an expansion of teen sex, STD transmissions, and teen pregnancies.

From The Washington Post:

The nation’s campaign to get more teenagers to delay sex and use condoms is faltering, threatening to undermine the highly successful effort to reduce teen pregnancy and protect young people from sexually transmitted diseases, federal officials reported today.

New data from a large government survey shows that by every measure, the decade-long decline in sexual activity among high school students leveled off between 2001 and 2007 and the increase in condom use by teens flattened out in 2003.

Moreover, the survey found disturbing hints that teen sexual activity may actually have begun creeping up and that condom use among high school students might be edging downward, though those trend lines have not yet reached a point where statisticians can be sure, officials said.

“The bottom line is in all these areas we don’t seem to be making the progress we were making before,” said Howell Wechsler, director of the division of adolescent and school health at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which conducts the survey. “It’s very troubling.”

“Since we’ve started pushing abstinence, we have seen no change in the numbers on sexual activity,” said John Santelli, chairman of the Department of Population and Family Health at Columbia University. “The other piece of it is abstinence education spends a good amount of time bashing condoms. So it’s not surprising, if that’s the message young people are getting, that we’re seeing condom use start to decrease.”

“We may be witnessing the beginning of a trend where we’re reaping the harvest of medically inaccurate and ineffective sex education, which is abstinence-until-marriage sex education,” said Michael D. Resnick, who studies teen sexual behavior at the University of Minnesota. “With a growing proportion of young people exposed to those curricula, I think we can begin to understand why we’re beginning to see a reversal of the positive trends that had been happening.”

The new data comes from the 2007 survey, which involved 14,103 students in grades 9 through 12 at 157 high schools nationwide. The survey found that the proportion of those who reported they had ever had sex, had begun having sex before age 13, had engaged in sex within the last three months and had sex with at least four partners all increased slightly between 2005 and 2007.

None of the increases were sufficient to convince statisticians that there is a real upward trend. But when the agency analyzed the numbers for The Post, statisticians found that every measure of sexual activity passed the statistical test for having leveled off between 2001 and 2007 and the condom use numbers passed the test for leveling off beginning in 2003.

“The longer any trend exists, the more confident we can be in it,” said Laura K. Kann, who heads the project at the CDC.

While the data indicates we’re on the precipice of an alarming trend, it would be inappropriate to call it conclusive. Then again, that is the exact type of opening that abstinence-only proponents are seeking. Those opposed to comprehensive sex education and contraception remain rigidly attached to their religious ideology and every effort is made to interpret the data such that it supports their preferred methods of sex education.

In other words, all data is open to manipulation because they aren’t working towards the verification or nullification of a reasoned hypothesis. On the contrary, they conclude that the science is simply a tool to be massaged so that it matches their unwavering moral imperative. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/87109/

[SidDithers]

1. K&R, thanks for posting....nt

Sid

[patrice]

2. Similar to their arguments about Environmental Science. These people are Anti-Science.

They think that, since Science is not absolute, ANY "Science" is a good as any other Science.

It's soooooooo odd that these "Values" people end up being Value-less, because, blasphemers that they are, they claim to speak and act for a "God" who must, by definition, be completely beyond our ken, and yet they throw away ALL empirical values that controvert their blaspheming and then work backward from their "conclusions" to "proove" things only on a shallow basis in the phenomenal world (because this world is not THE Reality to them).

Simply put, they throw the baby AND the bath-tub out with the bath water and then construct a "golden calf" with no eyes, ears, nor brain and then try to feed America's youth to it, all the while praising the martyrdom of women who became mothers too early and the martyrdom of their children who become cannon fodder or some other type of slave to their idolatary.

Anti-Science is a word we should use as often as possible when referring to them.

[electropop]

4. Anti-awareness

They want to keep the masses in a fog of delusion and confusion, so they can impose their will on everybody else. Science represents the pinnacle of disciplined critical thinking, and is therefore the biggest threat to the fundy overlords.

[KSCFAN]

10. There are environmental fundies as well

We have our share of earth worshipers as well. The luddites that think all human development is bad. They are almost as bad as the religious fundies. Both look to faith and emotion instead of reason. Think of all the moon hoaxers and 9/11 truthers. They have no formal education in engineering or science and then claim the impossible. In the time since 9/11 they could of went to school and earned a PhD in Civil Engineering. Just like the intelligent design crowd. Instead of fighting it and reading hit pieces go to school and learn the science. Things you can actually prove right in front of your own eyes. Relying on experts is a form of faith. When you follow experts they become your masters.

[electropop]

15. Welcome to DU.

You're talking to an environmental fundie. Your description of this belief system (which is now mainstream, outside of the Fox "News" crowd) is a bit off, but most people are very worried about what we are doing to the last shreds of our environment. I don't have the resources to go out and count frogs or measure Antarctic CO2, but I do read the science (yes, written by "experts") and it is scary.

Have a nice stay.

[KSCFAN]

18. My default position is freedom.

Whenever anyone says there is a problem and the solution is that I have to sacrifice I am a skeptic. There are way to many people of all political positions that claim that. So I am a skeptic on man made global warming. Real polution I'm on board with. Smoke in the air, poisons in the water, dumping garbage at sea, landfill leakage, ect you can count me in. You can easily prove it to me. And even with my skeptism on Global warming I drive an old Honda Civic that gets 34 mpg. I live in Florida and keep my AC at 80 and have a solar hot water heater. I try to be personally responsible. But soon as a politician wants to force me to keep my AC at 80 I get very very wary.

[electropop]

24. If we don't solve serious environmental problems, we will all sacrifice.

The best solutions are win-win, like some of the ones you have implemented. Your solar hot water provides the hot water you want, and saves money. Incidentally, it helps the planet too. What sacrifice?

If you don't believe in the reality of anything you can't see, do you believe in radio waves?

[Iris]

31. good advice. Maybe you should try it in regard to your information about condoms.

[The2ndWheel]

3. Anything at the helm of humanity is frightening

Why? Because you don't get to the helm of humanity without persistently imposing your beielfs on others, and crafting a more refined replacement each time your efforts to impose those beliefs are rebuffed. That goes for any ideology, any form or organization, any mass concept. That goes for religion, that goes for science. Both are forms of human organization that are structured to unify and simplify reality. Whether it's the Theory of Everything, or God, it works to do the same thing.

How about nobody attempt to reach the helm of humanity? The funny thing about that would be that if you say nobody should try to attempt to reach the helm of humanity, that's imposing your beliefs on someone.

So...round and round we go I guess...

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I'm sorry, but I don't think science is a human organization structured to unify and

simplify reality. Science is reality. Science is knowledge. Science is truth.

[The2ndWheel]

14. You just unified and simplified reality, knowledge and truth

We all do it. I did by saying that science and religion are structures that unify and simplify reality. How the hell do I know?

I'm not sure that we can escape doing it. We're all individuals living in a collective society. We're all being pulled in a thousand different directions, sometimes by the same form of organization. If we didn't attempt to unify and simplify reality, we'd all be crazier than we already are.

[NuttyFluffers]

49. and in an amusingly succinct way, too.

i wonder if the creation of that personal myth was observed by anyone else, let alone him/her...

it's amusing the mental pitfalls we fall into when we do not self-observe. but then, we could already be in the largest of pitfalls and what does it matter any "attempts" to escape, real or imaginary? truly, is it possible to stop thinking like a social human?

reminds me of that saying from an insane asylum "i told the world that they are crazy, and the world told me i was crazy. and dammit, i was outvoted."

:rofl:

[Cerridwen]

16. I disagree. I'll attempt to explain why I disagree.

I'll also note in passing that given your sig-line, your assertions set off my irony meter.

The field of science, as it exists today, is a field in which the goal is to examine the way things work, explain them, duplicate the results, then use those results as an attempt to qualify and quantify "reality". That which is studied may or may not be human, but those who study what is (reality), are most definitely human. That most definitely looks (to me, at least) as a "human organization structured to unify and simplify reality."

I would also remind you that the "objective" field of science has been used throughout its history to justify some very unscientific and social/political views, including, but not limited to:

-"White" brains "wired" better than non-"white" brains thereby justifying the view that "whites" are superior to non-"whites".

-The same for male versus female brains.

-A Harvard medical doctor used his "research" to "scientifically" explain how a young woman's uterus would atrophy should she dare pursue higher education and learning.

-Another MD, (name escapes me now), used medical "science" to describe a "disease" in which slaves developed such heinous symptoms of trying to escape slavery and of being unhappy with their "natural" lot in life. He advocated additional beatings in order to "treat" the symptoms.

-Read Einstein on what he thought of the military use of his science.

The point is, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. While "science" may be "objective", its proponents can not always be counted on to be so. To unquestioningly give science that kind of authority has led us to some very dark places in our history and will continue to do so if we continue to give science "god-like" authority.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. I guess you and I define 'science' as two different things. You sight 'studies' and yes, those can

be rigged to support someone's biases (see climate change 'disagreements' or 'intelligent design'). I believe that there are universal truths and knowledge that makeup reality. I agree with the definition in Webster's:

sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5capitalized : christian science

[Cerridwen]

23. I don't think we're on such disparate pages as you might think...

though even the definition you posted doesn't define science as having "absolute" truths; it speaks of *general* truths and *general* laws.

I'm not quite sure I can present this in a way that will show my intent is simply to ask you to think beyond "absolute" truths and not as an argument in which I'm trying to make me "right" and you "wrong". *sigh* Hell, I'm not even arguing against science or scientific methods or scientists. I'm just trying to point out that knowledge is not static (absolute) and we are continually learning about the reality that is our world.

We have a history of many "absolute" truths having been proved wrong; which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the goals of scientific research and discovery and of the many good scientists who labor to define "absolute". That which we know to be "true" today, becomes the "primitive" myth of yesterday. I may have my histories confused but, wasn't the discovery of Uranium "impossible" as all the "naturally occurring" elements that make up our existence already discovered? Then there's the old stand-by example of the "flat earth"; and one of the funniest quotes I've read about computers never being smaller than...whatever the hell it was.

The point is, the field of science and good scientists constantly strive to take the knowledge they have and expand or disprove it in the search for an "absolute" and then when they find an "absolute", they disprove it until the next time.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. OK, I think we agree that there exists absolute truths and knowledge. Science is the attempt via

accepted methods to define those truths. I want science to succeed. I want science to prove beyond a doubt how things in the universe work.

[Smith_3]

48. Oh, please. Not that "Science and Religion are both beliefs" stuff again.

It simply shows that you have had no dealings with science. What science is, is a method for obtaining facts and setting them into a larger perspective. It does not "impose" anything on anyone.

You are free not to believe the results of science. That dosen't make them less true. You not believing it it, is not going to keep a hydrogen bomb from exploding.

You are also free to participate in science, to criticize, and then, provided all parties involved made no mistakes in the method, you will inevitably find the same facts as everyone else.

The only time people "impose" the results of science, is when it would be recklessly dumb to ignore them. ("Don't touch that high voltage cable, son, its gonna fry your ass")

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. Abstinence-only education is essentially what we used to have in this country

along with severe shaming of girls and women who became pregnant out of wedlock.

People still had sex before marriage, and an awful lot of the women became pregnant, the result being either a forced marriage (and lots of gossip from the neighbors counting the months between the wedding and the baby) or a secretive stay at a "home for unwed mothers," followed by relinquishment of the baby, an absolutely heartbreaking thing, according to my mom, who worked for a social service agency in the 1940s.

But the point is: none of this stopped people from having sex. I was in a high school with 600 students in the 1960s (before the Pill was easily available to unmarried girls), and I knew of about a dozen girls who became pregnant and either "had to" get married or disappeared for several months, as well as several others who had pregnancy scares.

[ThomWV]

11. There was no "pill" when I was a teenager

Obviously I am not a woman but I do have a memory. Birth control consisted of either abstinence or 'the rhythm method' and that was about it, the pill did not become available until the mid 60's as I recall and I seem to remember that they were also perscription items which meant that they were out of reach of most teenage girls in those years.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. They're still prescription items, but in those days,

most doctors wouldn't prescribe the Pill to an unmarried woman. College clinics led the way in this.

[ThomWV]

6. You have nothing to fear from religious fools

Look to europe for an example if you like but no matter where you look you find one thing, as literacy increases dependence on religious belief decreases. Europe's churches are empty, they act more as museums than 'places of worship'.

I have more faith in the intelligence of man than I do in our stupidity.

[matt007]

44. Amen brother........pun intended ;)

we just need to get the right education here in this country so we can have a greater literate society


most new churches are extremely tacky gaudy looking buildings. Europes churches are beautiful monuments to the past.

[awoke_in_2003]

56. "literacy increases dependence on religious belief decreases"

Well, have you looked at the state of our educational system in this country (or at least in the Bible belt?) Our educational system is being left to rot- an educated work force demands higher pay (and tend to question what they are told).

[Ian David]

8. Eve was weak! Say it! EVE WAS WEAK!

[KSCFAN]

9. I have to agree with the Condom Bashing though.

Condoms are terrible. They break, fall off, reduce sensation, and just not very effective. Now if you engage in risky behavioy you really should stop the behavior not try to feel safe using condoms. 90% effective isn't that great. Would you take a shot in the chest wearing a bullet proof vest that was only 90% effective? Heck the space shuttle is about 98% effetive and people think it's risky.

If is just preventing pregnancy use one of the drugs that are vastly better.

[wuushew]

12. Drugs are not "vastly" better (Especially for the women)

If you feel condoms are not adequate perhaps you should raise your concerns at the next Trojan shareholders meeting.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. And a pill will provent the transmission of the HIV virus (or other common STD) how?

Condoms should always be used even if the lady is providing birth control to prevent the spread of STDs.

[KSCFAN]

19. Avoid risky behavoir.

I guess I am saying that risky behavior like one night stands are very risky and using a 90% effective condom won't help. How about having sex with someone you trust?

[sinkingfeeling]

21. Want to ask some of the HIV-infected married women that? Many trusted their partner.

[KSCFAN]

22. Condoms wouldn't help.

I understand what you are saying. I guess trusted was the wrong word.

If you have sex with an HIV infected person over and over with condoms you are pretty likely to get infected. Again 90% effective. Not good.

[Iris]

29. Where do you get your information?

Because this is the kind of mis-information that the Christian right likes to give out in an attempt to get people to stop having sex.

[Iris]

28. 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. Even more effective preventing disease

Again from the Mayo Clinic:

Do condoms reduce the risk of STDs?

Yes. By blocking the exchange of body fluids that might contain infectious agents, latex condoms provide the best protection available against STDs. Used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS, and at reducing the risk of infection from other STDs, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia.

In fact, with the spread of AIDS and other STDs, latex condoms may have a greater role in disease prevention than in contraception. Condoms are almost synonymous with safe sex. In any nonexclusive sexual relationship — or in any relationship in which one partner's HIV status is unknown — you should automatically be using a condom, even if your partner is on the pill or using another form of contraception. Condoms greatly reduce the risk that either partner will pass a sexually transmitted virus or bacterium to the other.


Of course, no one, especially here at DU, is forcing you to engage in what you consider to be risky behavior.

[Reverend_Smitty]

32. Nobody is forcing anybody to have sex but...

essentially every time you have sex with someone, you have sex with every other partner they had so it may be possible that your partner has a disease that he/she doesn't even know about. You could trust this person with your life but he/she can still give you something. Now you can call sex risky behavior but if I use a condom (which is 98% effective if used properly btw) combined with another form of birth control (the pill for example), the riskiness of this behavior gets substantially smaller.

Abstinence will always be the way to prevent pregnancy and disease 100% and locking myself in my basement for the rest of my life will prevent me 100% from getting hit by a bus on the way to work. We don't advocate locking kids in their basement to protect them from road hazards, we advocate looking both ways before crossing the street. Even that won't protect them 100% of the time and accidents do happen. People assume risks in every area of their lives, they just need to be taught how to minimize them.

Nobody is saying that condoms are perfect but anybody who isn't damn sure that their partner is clean (and I mean we just came home from the clinic with negative tests kind of clean) or is in a committed relationship and believes that their partner is clean (that whole trust vs risk thing) should be using condoms...and I don't believe that you can find any reputable sources to say otherwise.

[KSCFAN]

34. I'm just talking about being smart..

I just think that condoms don't work. Maybe I just have more passionate sex then others but I've had them break many times during my life. So yeah if they stay in tact and don't break I'm sure they are 98% effective. But think about it, that is 2% or 1 out of 50 times not effective. I hope you are having sex more then once a week. If it is with someone who has an STD you have a pretty good chance of being exposed. Now if you catch it or not depends on some other factors.

Now if you have a chance encounter with Pam Anderson and you don't want hep C you might want to take that 2% chance. But if you are in a long term relationship that 2% will catch up to you. That's all I'm saying. Sex is great I wouldn't want people abstaining. Just find a clean partner if you don't have something or find someone with your STD. That gives me a good idea. How about Match.com where you can find someone with your STD?

[Iris]

52. well, if you break so many condoms, it probalby is best for you to abstain

unless you are 100% sure you will not get a disease.

For most people, that's not realistic, which is why the CDC and other health officials not bound by the Bush abstinence clause stress the importance of using condoms to prevent disease.

But as someone mentioned below, you might do well to buy a better condom. I'd avoid buying them at places like Costco or Sam's Warehouse.

[mainegreen]

25. 90% effective is a myth.

It's above 99% with proper use.

[Reverend_Smitty]

26. Thank you for saying that!

As someone who is working on a Master's degree in Health Education it absolutely infuriates me when people pass off blatantly false information about condoms. If used correctly, condoms almost never fail. The problem we run into is human error, if someone has never handled a condom before "the big day" then the chances of failure increase...so what logical conclusion should we make here? Expose teenagers to condoms in sex-ed classes and tell them how to properly use them!

I remember when I was in high school not too long ago, we talked about condoms but that was about it. It wasn't until I was in college in a health class where the professor passed out condoms and a banana and had us practice our "skills"...and most of the class was terrible at it. Which since most people in that class were already sexually active, this demonstration was not only scary but occurred way too late

[Iris]

30. please respond to post #22

[Iris]

27. The effective rate of condoms when used correctly is 98%.

The rate of breakage is 2 out of 100, so that's 98% chance of NOT having a condom break. Even if a condom breaks, there's still a chance a pregnancy will NOT occur if it happens when a woman is not ovulating or near ovulating.

Would I take a bullet under those odds? Yeah. I have - my husband I used condoms for a few years with no incident.

The 90% rate sounds like some kind of right-wing propaganda to me. They tried to minimize the the rate at which condoms could protect people from AIDS as well. I guess they thought this would encourage people to abstain.

Anyway, I got my info from the Mayo Clinic. Notice, the failure rate increases to 15% when the condoms are not used consistently or correctly. Again, education is key here, but in the past few years, this country has seemed to prefer (or at least accept) a lot of mis-education.

From the Mayo Clinc website:

How effective are condoms at preventing pregnancy?

The breakage rate for condoms is two out of 100. Of every 100 couples who use condoms incorrectly and inconsistently, 15 will experience a pregnancy during the first year of use. Of every 100 couples who use condoms correctly and consistently, only two will experience a pregnancy.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/condoms/HQ00463

[KSCFAN]

35. Correctly is a matter of opinion

It must be right wingers with the 2% breakage. You know the ones who do it without passion and only in the missionary position. I've broken plenty of condoms in the heat of the moment. I didn't keep stats but I was guessing about 1 in a pack of 12 would break. That is where I got about 90%. OK so it's more like 92%. That's why I gave up on them. Birth Control pill never let us down.

I'm not trying to promote abstinance. I just think it's dumb to bet your life on that thin little piece of latex. Both get checked out and then have some fun.

[anigbrowl]

40. Buy better condoms then

I've only ever had a couple break in 20 years and it's not from lack of enthusiasm.

[Iris]

50. I think it's dumb to live your life based on fear and bad condoms.

[awoke_in_2003]

57. "dumb to bet your life on that thin little piece of latex"

That's it, I am gonna stop wearing a helmet while on my motorcycle as plenty of people die every year with their helmet on :sarcasm:

[Alcibiades]

41. My wife and I have used withdrawal for years

Five, actually, because the pill gave her headaches. When we wanted a baby or two, I just altered my behavior ever so slightly. Even the most notoriously bad method of birth control isn't all that bad if used consistently. Maybe I couldn't have done it when I was younger, but, for an adult man who knows the drill, it shouldn't be a problem.

As for condoms, the brand is important. I have always used condoms correctly, back when I used them. They had directions back in the day, not rocket science. Nonetheless, they gave us these crummy lifestyles condoms at the college health clinic that were just shitty. Maybe they are better now, but I swear those things had a fail rate of one in ten. I always liked the thick latex trojans. Smelled nasty, but I've never, ever had one break on me.

[matt007]

43. We had a few breaks

Now we just use withdrawal.......been working great for a few years now....just requires self control ;)

[Iris]

51. I wish someone would do a study on this method b/c we've used it for years as well!

Not exclusively, but sometimes barrier methods are inconvenient!

[matt007]

58. what you say is an inconvenient truth lol

I agree 100%

[wuushew]

36. kick

:kick:

[opihimoimoi]

37. Smart voting=Smart leaders= Smart Decisions= Great Success= Better Lives

[matt007]

42. lol you put my thought process in equation form lol

[opihimoimoi]

46. My Logic Professor told me years ago.....If it passes a lotta tests...it has good odds

[uberllama42]

38. Science FTW (eom)

[Firespirit]

39. Someone help me out here

Don't get me wrong; I am about as far from a fundie as one could be without being an atheist, and I definitely support comprehensive sex ed.

However, there's one thing I don't understand and never have understood. I'm almost 25, and I've "saved myself." It hasn't even been a great struggle.

Why on earth are there so many people who apparently can't control themselves, who become sexually active at 16 or earlier and never look back, and who feel the need to have sex with every significant other that they have?

What's the deal? Can someone explain this phenomenon, because I honestly don't get it.

[Evoman]

45. Different levels of hormones I suspect.

Your case is not necessarily the same as some of us. I've been a horny bastard since I was fifteen. I managed to save myself until I was almost 19, and that was just because I hadn't seen a woman naked.

The naked woman clinched it. I have never not used condoms, though.

Edit: I didn't mean I've never seen a woman naked, I meant a woman naked in the same room as I was who wanted to do the nasty.

[Iris]

54. In the words of my mother, "Some people think it feels good."

This was her reply after I found out about "the act" and asked her why anyone would ever do that!

At any rate, I waited until I was 21 and met my now husband. I can honestly say that at that time if we had broken up, I would have still wanted sex and would have continued having sex with other people. But, we dated and had pre-marital sex for 6 years and now we've been married for over 10 years so it's all worked out ok.

And my mom was right.

[MiniMe]

47. There was never a movement to use condoms

In fact, it was discouraged. Kids kept being told that condoms don't work.

[Iris]

53. Yes there was. When I was in college and throughout my 20s, it was all about wrapping it up.

The discouragement came with the Bush Admin. At the CDC, they are now required to include an abstinence clause in EVERY piece of literature about sex they distribute. The article in the OP is basically all about how this has come to roost on this generation of young people.

[MiniMe]

55. Agreed. Sorry, I wasn't clear about that

Since they mentioned the abstinence only, I was basing my comment on the last 7 years. Part of the abstinence program is telling kids that condoms don't work.

[Iris]

59. Yes, part of the abstinence program is lying about the effectiveness of condoms.

makes me furious.

And it reminds me of a song that came out in the early 90s - "People Are Still Having Sex"