Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
No Sex on the Brain
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 12, 2008 03:56PM
Senator Cuccinelli had his chance to offer amendments to SB 29 and SB 30 which are the budget documents that finalize Virginia's budget for fiscal year 2008.
He dissected budgets totaling over $78 billion and offered only one amendment to each bill - to restore just over $200,000 in abstinence-only education.
While discussions and debate carried on the floor of the Senate for over 4 hours, Senator Cuccinelli offered amendments to each of the two budgets voted on during the day only once - to spend money out of the budget for abstinence-only education.
Apparently Senator Cuccinelli wasn't concerned about the millions of dollars in his district for public schools, health care, public safety and transportation.
In April 2007 a scientific study authorized by Congress to research the effects, or lack-there-of, of abstinence only education proved that investing funds in abstinence only education does not work.
The Washington Post reported about the study:
"A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom." - Washington Post, April 14, 2007
Senator Cuccinelli may not have read that report.
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13084
He dissected budgets totaling over $78 billion and offered only one amendment to each bill - to restore just over $200,000 in abstinence-only education.
While discussions and debate carried on the floor of the Senate for over 4 hours, Senator Cuccinelli offered amendments to each of the two budgets voted on during the day only once - to spend money out of the budget for abstinence-only education.
Apparently Senator Cuccinelli wasn't concerned about the millions of dollars in his district for public schools, health care, public safety and transportation.
In April 2007 a scientific study authorized by Congress to research the effects, or lack-there-of, of abstinence only education proved that investing funds in abstinence only education does not work.
The Washington Post reported about the study:
"A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom." - Washington Post, April 14, 2007
Senator Cuccinelli may not have read that report.
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=13084
Re: No Sex on the Brain
Posted by:
Vince(2)
()
Date: March 12, 2008 05:03PM
Vince(1):
There you go again. How about getting the facts correct? Oh, wait, I forgot, facts aren't important to liberals are they? Twisting the results of a study to support your ideology is better than the truth.
The results from Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which conducted the study, found that students who went through abstinence-only programs were no less likely to be sexually active in the four to six years after participating in the study, and in fact, had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same age.
At the same time, according to the study, students participating in the safe-sex classes, which typically weigh heavily on teaching condom use, were as likely to engage in unprotected sex as students in abstinence-only courses.
Vince(1), here's another study:
A 2005 study in the District of Columbia that found that middle school girls participating in the Best Friends abstinence-only program were less likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior than their peers who did not participate in the program.
(now, I'm going to be honest here, and note that I do not know how they define high-risk)
Vince(1), here's a 2007 poll:
A poll of parents by Zogby International found that 59 percent want more money to go to abstinence education, while 22 percent want more funding for comprehensive sex education.
I threw in this poll because I think it is important to look at all facets of a subject, not just the parts that I like.
There you go again. How about getting the facts correct? Oh, wait, I forgot, facts aren't important to liberals are they? Twisting the results of a study to support your ideology is better than the truth.
The results from Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which conducted the study, found that students who went through abstinence-only programs were no less likely to be sexually active in the four to six years after participating in the study, and in fact, had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same age.
At the same time, according to the study, students participating in the safe-sex classes, which typically weigh heavily on teaching condom use, were as likely to engage in unprotected sex as students in abstinence-only courses.
Vince(1), here's another study:
A 2005 study in the District of Columbia that found that middle school girls participating in the Best Friends abstinence-only program were less likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior than their peers who did not participate in the program.
(now, I'm going to be honest here, and note that I do not know how they define high-risk)
Vince(1), here's a 2007 poll:
A poll of parents by Zogby International found that 59 percent want more money to go to abstinence education, while 22 percent want more funding for comprehensive sex education.
I threw in this poll because I think it is important to look at all facets of a subject, not just the parts that I like.
Re: No Sex on the Brain
Posted by:
KeepOnTruckin
()
Date: March 12, 2008 05:40PM
Study released Tuesday says 25% of teenage girls have an STD
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/03/12/health-buzz-stds-and-teens-and-other-health-headlines.html
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/03/12/health-buzz-stds-and-teens-and-other-health-headlines.html
Re: No Sex on the Brain
Posted by:
??
()
Date: March 12, 2008 11:35PM
What happened to Vince(1)? I guess he's at a meeting with his leaders, working on his talking points.
Re: No Sex on the Brain
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 13, 2008 04:43PM
Vince(2) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1):
>
> There you go again. How about getting the facts
> correct? Oh, wait, I forgot, facts aren't
> important to liberals are they? Twisting the
> results of a study to support your ideology is
> better than the truth.
>
> The results from Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,
> which conducted the study, found that students who
> went through abstinence-only programs were no less
> likely to be sexually active in the four to six
> years after participating in the study, and in
> fact, had similar numbers of sexual partners and
> had initiated sex at the same age.
What is the fact? To me this is saying that kids who went thru the absistence only program had as many sex partners as and initiated sex at the same age as kids who didnt. Do you interpret this the same way? If you do..then the logical conclusion is that absistence only training is a wate of money. True or false?
>
> At the same time, according to the study, students
> participating in the safe-sex classes, which
> typically weigh heavily on teaching condom use,
> were as likely to engage in unprotected sex as
> students in abstinence-only courses.
What is the fact? Kids who were given safe sex technique classes failed to use condoms as much as the kids who did not take the safe sex class. ok..so the point is...no matter what you tell teens...they are going to have sex...safe and unsafe. Do you agree?
So, are you making the case that any sex lessons are a waste of time and money? That conclusion could be supported by the additional info you posted. If not...what is your conclusion?
>
> Vince(1), here's another study:
>
> A 2005 study in the District of Columbia that
> found that middle school girls participating in
> the Best Friends abstinence-only program were less
> likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior than
> their peers who did not participate in the
> program.
>
What is the fact? Ok..so in DC..in 2005....a absistence only buddy system seemed to reduce the instances of high-risk sex. Ok...is that the same conclusion you reached? It isnt reported to have reduced the instances of having sex...but did reduce high risk sex. My conclusion is...obviously those kids knew more about sex then they were taught in their absistence only class. What seems to have worked in this instance is peer group pressure...and probably honest talk between friends. That is not what occurs in absistence only classes...saying dont have sex to a teenager....is not honest talk.
> (now, I'm going to be honest here, and note that I
> do not know how they define high-risk)
>
> Vince(1), here's a 2007 poll:
>
> A poll of parents by Zogby International found
> that 59 percent want more money to go to
> abstinence education, while 22 percent want more
> funding for comprehensive sex education.
>
What is the fact? OMg....parents want their teenage girls taught to be virgins! What a shocker!
> I threw in this poll because I think it is
> important to look at all facets of a subject, not
> just the parts that I like.
Ok Vince(2)..be clear..be precise. Do you think absistence only education is the propoer public policy to keep our teens safe? If you do...that seems contrary to the info you posted.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1):
>
> There you go again. How about getting the facts
> correct? Oh, wait, I forgot, facts aren't
> important to liberals are they? Twisting the
> results of a study to support your ideology is
> better than the truth.
>
> The results from Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,
> which conducted the study, found that students who
> went through abstinence-only programs were no less
> likely to be sexually active in the four to six
> years after participating in the study, and in
> fact, had similar numbers of sexual partners and
> had initiated sex at the same age.
What is the fact? To me this is saying that kids who went thru the absistence only program had as many sex partners as and initiated sex at the same age as kids who didnt. Do you interpret this the same way? If you do..then the logical conclusion is that absistence only training is a wate of money. True or false?
>
> At the same time, according to the study, students
> participating in the safe-sex classes, which
> typically weigh heavily on teaching condom use,
> were as likely to engage in unprotected sex as
> students in abstinence-only courses.
What is the fact? Kids who were given safe sex technique classes failed to use condoms as much as the kids who did not take the safe sex class. ok..so the point is...no matter what you tell teens...they are going to have sex...safe and unsafe. Do you agree?
So, are you making the case that any sex lessons are a waste of time and money? That conclusion could be supported by the additional info you posted. If not...what is your conclusion?
>
> Vince(1), here's another study:
>
> A 2005 study in the District of Columbia that
> found that middle school girls participating in
> the Best Friends abstinence-only program were less
> likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior than
> their peers who did not participate in the
> program.
>
What is the fact? Ok..so in DC..in 2005....a absistence only buddy system seemed to reduce the instances of high-risk sex. Ok...is that the same conclusion you reached? It isnt reported to have reduced the instances of having sex...but did reduce high risk sex. My conclusion is...obviously those kids knew more about sex then they were taught in their absistence only class. What seems to have worked in this instance is peer group pressure...and probably honest talk between friends. That is not what occurs in absistence only classes...saying dont have sex to a teenager....is not honest talk.
> (now, I'm going to be honest here, and note that I
> do not know how they define high-risk)
>
> Vince(1), here's a 2007 poll:
>
> A poll of parents by Zogby International found
> that 59 percent want more money to go to
> abstinence education, while 22 percent want more
> funding for comprehensive sex education.
>
What is the fact? OMg....parents want their teenage girls taught to be virgins! What a shocker!
> I threw in this poll because I think it is
> important to look at all facets of a subject, not
> just the parts that I like.
Ok Vince(2)..be clear..be precise. Do you think absistence only education is the propoer public policy to keep our teens safe? If you do...that seems contrary to the info you posted.
Re: No Sex on the Brain
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: March 13, 2008 04:45PM
?? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What happened to Vince(1)? I guess he's at a
> meeting with his leaders, working on his talking
> points.
My leaders? WTH are you talking about? I just choose not to live on this web site...the stupidity of the 20 something males...honestly upsets me. I have never met (thank god) such a group of such small minded people.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What happened to Vince(1)? I guess he's at a
> meeting with his leaders, working on his talking
> points.
My leaders? WTH are you talking about? I just choose not to live on this web site...the stupidity of the 20 something males...honestly upsets me. I have never met (thank god) such a group of such small minded people.