Oh, cut me some slack. It was a limp attempt at a joke! Besides, I'm glad it was Canuckistan wasting money on figuring out this foregone conclusion.
One thing I learned about the social sciences is that you never just accept "common knowledge" as a fact.
Start out early building safer habits. Abandon the head-in-the-sand retardation that is "abstinence-only education" and hand out condoms with usage instructions in high school.
Bull. The study pretty clearly states that drinking causes unsafe behaviors. While those points may be valid by themselves, they aren't relevant to the point being made.
Yep...if abstinance doesn't even work with Jesus in your corner, how can the heathen stsand a chance? Anyone care to guess how many preachers are banging the fair (former virgin) young maidens in their congregation? I'm guessing 35gazillion, give or take. :santa_angry:
Dipping into the communion wine too heavily can probably cause unsafe behaviors as well, donchathink?
Bullshit they're not relevant. It's like drinking itself. Take the mindless prohibitionist tack the entire time the kids are being raised, and the moment they get a hold of some booze on their own they're gonna drink to excess and generally act like the clueless beings they are. Introduce the idea of moderation and discretion to them in a controlled environment, and they may just have that training to fall back on reflexively when the time comes. Just like sex education.
Agree - after living in Europe (where kids have much more legal + easy access to booze) I must say they don't have nearly the problems our young people have. Their maturity level is light-years ahead of ours. :santa_grin:
I didn't bring moderation or prohibition into this. I think that was you, as usual. Your answer is to educate. That's fine but the study here shows that drinking, even a little, affects decision-making, even among those who "know" better. And it wasn't just one study. It was a synthesis of 12 studies that all showed the same thing. "Knowing better" meaning having education about the consequences. As well, the study implies they had access to protection. Granted the intent of the study here was to promote AIDS/HIV prevention but the article does conclude with As I said in the title. Isn't it obvious?
Nobody is claiming a little education is going to make them less impaired and uninhibited when they're drunk. But you can mitigate that somewhat by teaching reinforcing safer sexual habits. Or you can wrap yourself in comforting self-delusion and consider the matter closed once you've forbidden them to drink or have sex.
Please. Kids fucking lie. "I didn't know!" is a frequent wail when some girl gets knocked up and it's complete bullshit in this day and age. They knew. Also, I don't know how many times I've heard some scum sucking male say that he would never, ever use a condom....ever. And damaged girls with no self-esteem will ignore sense and education and let him have his way with her so she can feel loved for five minutes. Good education is important and that includes all the methods, including abstinence. Especially the importance of saying NO when there is no condom. Guys who just take a woman's word for being on the pill will get what he deserves....a massive bill for a baby.
There's that, of course, but there are other compelling reasons not to enable the behavior by freely doling out condoms in school. For kids/adolescents, even for some adults, "Disease" and "Pregnancy" are concepts which happen to other people. As effective as condoms are at preventing either of those, when weighed against the consequences of disease and pregnancy for a teen, they're little more than a "hail Mary". Kids don't have the foresight or impulse control to consider what their lives will be should the condom fail. They certainly don't have the economic resources or emotional sophistication to adequately cope. Go ahead them about condoms in school. It's a good idea. Handing them out? Well, I'm all for kids being taught gun safety in school as well, but I'm not in a hurry to put glocks into the hands of any 9th grader who wants one. The consequences of giving a kid either one could easily be equally life changing. For people who advocate handing out condoms in school, I'd say the same thing as I would to those who want to prohibit abortion: If a kid ends up coming into the world, you better be prepared to open up your fucking checkbook.
I like the idea of making them watch video of a live birth in full, gory detail. I would add to that making them all be responsible for a baby for one week before they can graduate. Day and night, in all its eating, shitting, vomiting, shrieking glory.
Meanwhile, the subject, as expected, changes from the predictable results of getting drunk (or wasted) back into a debate over sex ed.
What the fuck were you expecting, exactly? A chorus of "Yeah, that study dumb!" and then the thread dies?
I guess I really shouldn't have expected a chorus of "wow, maybe I shouldn't drink (toke, shootup, snort, whatever) too much because it makes me do dumb things and here's the science that proves it, huh?
No. I was hoping for the secular, ultra-logical action provokes reaction, let's think about what we're doing here angle. But if you're addicted, maybe we should work on the "let's stage an intervention" angle and get in touch with our feelings.
And that goes for the UK as well. For differing reasons Europe is light years ahead in its attitude towards both alcohol and sex
I thought any kind of sex was more likely after drinking? Which is one big reason I never did very well with the ladies. I don't drink and I could never get them drunk enough. :santa_grin:
Besides the obvious fact that drugs lower inhibition, a lot of people like to use alcohol as an excuse to do things they want to do while sober and act like being drunk is an good reason to avoid the consequences.I've met my fair share of those since joining the Navy, and I make haste in cutting my association with that lot.
