Difference between revisions of "En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/04/23/0727"
(Created page with '==April 23, 2009 7:27 AM - Mike== {{subpage}}[http://www.blogger.com/profile/11510309563965977831 Mike at The Big Stick] said... <p>*sigh*<br /><br />It looks like you have moved…') |
m (moved En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/2009/04/23/0727 to En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/04/23/0727: we'll have "post" for the individual posts, and "posts" for showing them all on one page) |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 20:29, 28 July 2010
April 23, 2009 7:27 AM - Mike
Mike at The Big Stick said...
*sigh*
It looks like you have moved from simply discrediting abstinence-only education, which I agreed with you on, to now trying to discredit the whole notion of abstinence as hormonally-ignorant.
Condoms are something like 98% effective when used correctly. By your logic if 10 kids are taught to use them and 5 don't then that means the condoms were only 50% effective because they failed to take into account the amount of willpower required to stop mid-foreplay and strap one on.
When effectiveness % are assigned to various contraceptive methods, whether it's the pill, condoms or abstinence then those % are based on the method being used correctly. They don't take into account human nature, hormonal impulses, the minds of a teenager or which direction the wind is blowing. If you want to start holding abstinence to a standard of how often it is actually practiced, then I think we should do that for ALL birth control methods, in which case it starts to feel pointless to even ask teens to use them, because the likelihood of them using them is so low.