Danger of abstinence
Letter writer Steve Cummings (“Abstinence provides very happy results,”June 7) wants evidence showing how a person practicing abstinence can get pregnant or a sexually transmitted disease. That’s easy: A youth cannot decide to succeed at abstinence, only to try.
Given youthful hormones, many who try fail at abstinence; these young people may not have condoms or morning-after pills at hand. So, such would-be abstainers may be more likely to initiate a pregnancy or contract a disease.
Dan Lyons, Fort Collins
so send them all to boulder schools and they will be able to learn how to have recreational sex and drug use and not have any problems ever. why boulder doesnt even have an abortion clinic now as it is not needed.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 06:15 AMThis letter is nonsensical. Someone who is abstinent has NO, repeat, NO chance of an unplanned pregnancy or VD, short of a contaminated blood transfusion or something of that nature. I love this line: "A youth cannot decide to succeed at abstinence, only to try." After all, people shouldn't take responsibility for their choices or actions when they can conveniently blame their biochemicals. I guess you feel that we shouldn't lock up serial killers for their murders, after all, most serial killers have serious imbalances of hormones and neurotransmitters in their brains so they can't succeed at abstaining from murder, only try. Mr. Lyons, I think I should clear up the fact that just because some youths lack the backbone to keep themselves out of potentially dangerous situations, does not mean that all youths lack the will necessary to avoid peer pressures. I know that it is a pretty big fad to think in terms of stereotypes in the US these days, but I hope that you realize that even valid averages don't typically apply to individual units. What ever happened to mind over matter?
Posted by on July 2, 2007 09:03 AMSex is a normal, healthy human function, just like eating and sleeping.
While young people should be discouraged from engaging in sex until they are emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility, everyone knows that sexual feelings are very powerful -- especially in hormonal teens.
I think the biggest problem with those who promote abstinance as "the ultimate" method of birth control and disease prevention is that they are the same Bible-thumping religious zealots who condemn masturbation as a "sin" and a "crime against God and nature."
Sorry folks, but you can't have it both ways. People need to relieve sexual tension one way or another. If they don't, they might become pedophile ministers and priests.
To those who preach abstinence, I challenge you to go one full year without sex or masturbation. If it's so easy, then lead by example, and show the youth of America how righteous you are.
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 2, 2007 09:38 AMTree Hugger? Huh?
Sorry chucky, but I am about as far from religious as anyone can get and it is safe to say that Abstinence works...every time...
Having said that, if a teen wants to have sex, then condom use should be part of it. The two teachings are not mutually exclusive. Explaining the dangers of premature sex and advocating abstinence as well as explaining the tools seems a good idea.
But to discount abstinence because it does not please your "politically correct" dogma seems kind of strange.
so, let us teach the one strategy guaranteed not to fail, and also show the ways to protect yourself .
Posted by Dravur on July 2, 2007 10:11 AMHi tree hugger, this somewhat reminds me of the people who won`t vaccinate kids against diseases because they think God will protect them. Then when that method fails, well they blame themselves for not praying harder. It is all the same mind set in the religious community.
Of course abstinence works, abstinence "programs" don`t. because they fight Gods will that we be fruitful and multiply (joke)
or Evolutions plan that to survive as a specie we must mate early, often and with many partners. This produces the most healthy babies.
This is what the religieos hate. Nature is against them, not those unruly teens who invented sex all on their own (sarcasm)
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 10:33 AMSharon, every time I read one of your posts it makes me wonder what it must be like to live in a mind where the first conclusion that is reached becomes a generalization for every other possible similar situation("people who won`t vaccinate kids against diseases because they think God will protect them."- or they research how to parent and realize that some vaccines are attenuated and can become infectious, possibly making them not worth the risk if the disease is uncommon, but hey, who has the time to research potential risks towards their children). I love how you always leave out the inconvenient part of the arguments you present. "Of course abstinence works, abstinence "programs" don`t. because they fight Gods will that we be fruitful and multiply (joke)
or Evolutions plan that to survive as a specie we must mate early, often and with many partners. This produces the most healthy babies. This is what the religieos hate. Nature is against them, not those unruly teens who invented sex all on their own (sarcasm) " Do you know what the part before reproduction is in evolutionary biology? Survival, by being "red in tooth and claw". Human beings were evolved by nature to be merciless killers, socialization is what prevents killing from being more common in human society. With that said, I guess by your logic, it's okay for me to get in an argument with my neighbor and kill him when I feel threatened, since this is what nature made me to be? I mean, nature's got my back on this one, doesn't she?
10:56 said quoting Hobbes freely ” Do you know what the part before reproduction is in evolutionary biology? Survival, by being "red in tooth and claw". Human beings were evolved by nature to be merciless killers, socialization is what prevents killing from being more common in human society.”
Actually not.
Humans have great difficulty in being “merciless killers” unless they are able to frame the person or thing being killed as not human (or not able to experience pain or suffering), and unless we become fearful.
We can see that in their actions as well as in the neurology at work.
Somebody who normally acts like a “merciless killer” is regarded universally as being abnormal, and “merciless killers” in nature are few and far between, and are always solitary. They also need special mechanisms to suppress that behavior in order to mate. Think mantis and black-widow, rather than human.
Evolution, far from making us “merciless killers” has built us with a mirror-neuron system that is able to produce empathy, and biases us towards kindness and cooperation. Of course when we feel under threat and become afraid we override those circuits by amongst other things, lowering the levels of oxytocin and boosting the levels of cortisol in the blood supply to the brain. The amygdala goes into overdrive and the mirror-neuron system partially shuts down.
This does in fact have the capability of turning us into those “merciless killers” of yours for short periods of time, but also increases stress and concomitant risks of stroke, heart failure, and depression, as well as reducing our ability to fight infection.
It turns out that Rousseau was much closer to the truth than Hobbes.
Far from preventing us from returning to a “state of nature” as Hobbes thought, the State often serves to make us fearful and turn into the “merciless killers” we aren’t by nature.
We know with great certainty that being “merciless” makes us unhappy, depressed, and sick, but that helping others and touching other humans makes us happy, ebullient, and healthy.
Not really what you would expect from a species that nature had supposedly built to be “merciless killers”.
Socialization is what comes about from a species that is naturally gregarious and helpful, not the other way around.
Posted by Bango Skank on July 2, 2007 11:43 AMPost at 10:56, first, sign your wonderful work. Are you proud otf it?
B S, Humans evolved as social animals. Just like chimps and most primates.
I lived in Cortez where the folks from "The Church of the open Door", do not vaccinate for diphtheria and lose a few kids every year or so. Sorry I made a reference without enough qualifiers to satisfy you, Oh well.
Praying instead of vaccinating, in some religious communities, is a long established tradition.
Sex is necessary for the survival of the species, violence toward the ones we want to eat is also natural. We kill to eat.
Fighting your neighbor is your choice, but not a natural part of natures plan for the survival of the species.
We created wealth, grain and food stores, and then started fighting over it. Also, males fight over females, just like a lot of species do, but now that is no longer necessary for our survival.
I don`t make generalizations, I make comparisons.
God, Mother Nature, Evolution, take your pick, one of them gave human females a clitoris so she can enjoy sex, out of mating season and even when she is pregnant.
The same joker gives boys wet dreams so they can have sex even when they are alone.
And to top it all off, boys and girls develop sexually in their pre-teens. Whatever was God thinking?
Mating early, often and with many different partners produces the healthiest gene pool. Ask any farmer who raises livestock. And NO I did not say "humans are just a bunch of animals" So spare me the fake outrage.
It just hit me, I`m providing you with a Biology 101 course for free.
That will be $300.00 please.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 11:54 AMTeaching abstinance is fine.
Teaching absitnance only is stupid tunnel vision.
Posted by RickyLee on July 2, 2007 12:23 PMSharon B ? sign your own name rather than this lame psuedonym so I can send you your $300.00. Or are you not proud of your wonderful work? Also, you said "but not a natural part of natures plan for the survival of the species." If nature has a plan that sounds like intelligent design.
abletohideunderthisstupidnomdeplume
BS, I don't know where you get some of this stuff. I apologize for using the phrase "merciless killers" as it is an over statement, but if you don't think that most humans are hardwired to be aggressive at times, and that aggressiveness is not the result of evolutionary selection, I don't know what evolution book you are reading. When two australopithecus males got into a fight over a female, the aggressive male that drives off the empathetic male or kills him gets to mate, there weren't any bleeding hearts to talk about how misunderstood the empathetic one was.. Also, the mirror-neuron system did not evolve to allow us to have empathy, it evolved to store motor patterns and incorporate new ones that are observed. The fact that this system allows us to experience empathy does mean that is the reason that it evolved, or that it biases us towards kindness and cooperation(I guess I can see where you would get cooperation, but kindness? Have you left your house recently?).Also, averages are not the same thing as absolutes, which is something that statement confuses. If mirror-neurons interest you, check out the original article: Gallese, Vittorio, et. al., "Action Recognition in the Premotor Cortex" Brain. Vol.119.2 593-609 1996. It's nice how many qualifiers you attached to the idea of humans not being killers(covering pretty much any situation where a person might kill another), but when you say "This does in fact have the capability of turning us into those “merciless killers” of yours for short periods of time, but also increases stress and concomitant risks of stroke, heart failure, and depression, as well as reducing our ability to fight infection.", you fail to provide a very key qualifier. The negative ailments you cite are the result of chronic stress, they are very unlikey to occur as the result of an acute stressor. "It turns out that Rousseau was much closer to the truth than Hobbes.
Far from preventing us from returning to a “state of nature” as Hobbes thought, the State often serves to make us fearful and turn into the “merciless killers” we aren’t by nature." So you're saying that humans didn't kill each other prior to society? Why don't we all advocate anarchy then? "We know with great certainty that being “merciless” makes us unhappy, depressed, and sick, but that helping others and touching other humans makes us happy, ebullient, and healthy." Aside from the fact that applying averages to individual is idiotic, your generalization isn't very accurate. You should research ASPD(formerly known as psychopathy) and see if people that suffer from it are "unhappy, depressed, and sick" to a greater degree than the whole population. Those with ASPD are known for their overly high perceptions of themselves, not exactly a hallmark of depression. There are also many people who touch and give to others yet are still miserable, but of course there's no reason to consider individual characteristics when we can just think in stereotypes. "Socialization is what comes about from a species that is naturally gregarious and helpful, not the other way around."
I'll give you that, but aggressiveness was an evolutionary benefit most of the time back when humans weren't the top of the feeding order, it's not like people just decided to be "in your face" a-holes after society developed.
Sharon, clearly you missed the point I was getting at. If we start justifying behaviors on the basis that they are "natural" and we "evolved" that way, where do we stop? Sounds like Pandora's box. "Sex is necessary for the survival of the species, violence toward the ones we want to eat is also natural. We kill to eat. Fighting your neighbor is your choice, but not a natural part of natures plan for the survival of the species." You like having your cake and eating it too, don't you. Are you really going to argue that an organism defending itself from being killed(yes, sometimes that means killing an aggressor) is not an act of survival for that organism, and potentially its bloodline? A neighbor with a baseball bat may look a lot different than a lion, but a perceived physical threat is a perceived physical threat. "We created wealth, grain and food stores, and then started fighting over it. Also, males fight over females, just like a lot of species do, but now that is no longer necessary for our survival." Do you mean that there was no fighting until after civilization? Must have been a utopia back then on the open savanna. "one of them gave human females a clitoris so she can enjoy sex, out of mating season and even when she is pregnant." Sorry, evolution wasn't acting on some sort of helpful "urge" to get you off, rather, orgasm provides a quite strong motivation to perform the act of sexual reproduction. You're anthropomorphizing. "Mating early, often and with many different partners produces the healthiest gene pool." This may be true for a species, but it doesn't consider the individual. Promiscuity is the most effective strategy for genetic dissemination if you are male, it's of questionable effectiveness if you are a female. And since apparently you are afraid to say it, I will, human ARE a bunch of animals, I don't understand why everyone that purports to be a proponent of evolution then feels the need to elevate humans onto some sort of LaMarckian pinnacle. And just so you know, that was a pretty weak lesson, I'm pretty sure an 80$ textbook could do a better job.
RickyLee, right on.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 01:30 PM[It was AF -- the Hall Monitor]
1:30, This is going to be a whole lot easier if you could pick a recognizable pseudonym, and adopt some formatting to also facilitate reading.
Dropping the “merciless killer” part makes a significant difference to the conversation, and we may find we are closer on this than it seemed.
You said ”… if you don't think that most humans are hardwired to be aggressive at times, and that aggressiveness is not the result of evolutionary selection, I don't know what evolution book you are reading.”
I quite agree with you here, and would go further and say that “All” humans are wired for aggression (especially in groups). However, the qualifier of “at times” is the nub. We are all capable of the most startling aggression “at times” but somebody who is normally aggressive and violent in the absence of fear and perception of danger is clearly behaving pathologically.
” When two australopithecus males got into a fight over a female, the aggressive male that drives off the empathetic male or kills him gets to mate, there weren't any bleeding hearts to talk about how misunderstood the empathetic one was”
I don’t feel myself qualified to say what behaviour was typical of Australopithecines, but even in baboons who are probably the most aggressive of the apes, ritualized displays are far more common than actual aggression, and a male that overreaches in displays of aggression will be ousted from the troop by group action. Perhaps we could say that they too regarded such behaviour as pathological, and that the “bleeding heart” baboons will evict an overly violent member of a troop? Btw, a lone overly-aggressive baboon usually winds up leopard food or starves pretty soon – not exactly an evolutionary advantage.
”… Also, the mirror-neuron system did not evolve to allow us to have empathy, it evolved to store motor patterns and incorporate new ones that are observed.”
I would wonder how you came to that conclusion. Do you know of any species or evidence of progenitors in which the mirror-neuron system isn’t wired into the limbic system or correlates of it that govern emotion?
I agree that the system clearly is also wired into the motor systems and allows simulation and memorization of observed motor behaviour, but if that was all it did then how would it trigger emotional correlates to observed states and why would that triggering precede conscious awareness itself? So not only is it driving an emotional response based on auditory and visual clues, but it also does so faster than cognition and even does so simply from cognitive input alone. Reading about something fires up the related emotions via the mirror-neuron system even though there was zero observed motor activity involved.
” The fact that this system allows us to experience empathy does not (?)] mean that is the reason that it evolved,…”
Agreed, I can’t tell if it is why it evolved like that.
”… or that it biases us towards kindness and cooperation(I guess I can see where you would get cooperation, but kindness?”
I certainly can see the bias towards both by examples of where those structures are damaged, and more recently with fMRI, what lights up. Damage to those structures is tightly correlated to loss of ability for empathy. Cooperation is a mechanical description and doesn’t carry any emotional weight like “kindness”. Observation of ape species demonstrates that these systems are active when an individual views another ape experiencing discomfort or anguish, and we can see that it drives behaviour oriented to assistance and giving comfort.
Likewise we can do fMRI on humans and see the emotional sequence involved when the subject is shown a person or animal in distress and correlate that to the selection of options of what they say they would do.
I have no doubt that “kindness” is very much part of the functioning of the mirror-neuron interaction with the limbic system.
” The negative ailments you cite are the result of chronic stress, they are very unlikey to occur as the result of an acute stressor”
I disagree.
A single acute stressor is quite able to trigger lifelong negative ailments as described.
I agree that it is typically chronic stressors that do so, but that in no way dictates that single events do not or are even unlikely to. Being raped once or exposed to attack a single time is likely to have long-term effects health effects as described. A fortiori, just observing a rape or attack can be detrimental to an individual’s health.
We know that this can overstimulate the amygdala and lead to permanent self-stimulation by this system.
” So you're saying that humans didn't kill each other prior to society? Why don't we all advocate anarchy then?”
er..no I am quite sure we have been doing this for millions of years, I am saying that Hobbes turns out to be wrong and Rousseau closer to the truth on this issue.
Hobbes thought that if we didn’t have the state ready with a threat of overwhelming violence, that we would instantly return to a “state of nature” and rip each other apart.
Note that I didn’t say that Rousseau was right, merely closer than Hobbes. If the State vanishes, then violence does go up as scores are settled and new power structures are established but carefull analysis reveals that it isn’t the chaos and free-for-all that was previously thought.
The lesson of Nuremberg and later the Milgram experiments was that people are more obedient than thought, and also that they need to be coerced into being nasty, but that framing the “other” as guilty of something or belonging to some “other group” known to be nasty and a threat was an effective way of getting people to exhibit nastiness.
” Aside from the fact that applying averages to individual is idiotic, your generalization isn't very accurate. You should research ASPD(formerly known as psychopathy) and see if people that suffer from it are "unhappy, depressed, and sick" to a greater degree than the whole population. Those with ASPD are known for their overly high perceptions of themselves, not exactly a hallmark of depression.”
Not sure what you mean by “applying averages to individual is idiotic”, nor why you think it applies to what I am saying.
As for ASPD, the DSM lists it as a pathology so clearly we believe that the behaviour of such individuals is atypical and also malfunctional. Not only are these people behaving significantly differently to what we believe a normally functioning human should be, but we also believe that they do it due to brain abnormalities.
” … aggressiveness was an evolutionary benefit most of the time back when humans weren't the top of the feeding order”
No doubt so, as is our ability to act in concert and establish tightly knit groups very easily. After all, we never had venom, stings, claws, or armour and no matter how aggressive a naked, slow, and non-venomous animal is, survival is not likely unless it is remarkably good at hiding, or it is able to form large mutually-protective groups.
Cooperation and kindness are very much a part of that process. We can observe how a baboon leader will groom underlings and how this directly correlates to the cohesiveness and survival of a troop. I think the same holds for us.
To my biggest fan. Wow, nature has a plan and that makes it=intelligent design.
You picked that one little nit out of all I wrote. Nanana, don`t you feel smug about now?
Sign my name, oh yes and have nut jobs find me.
and to pick a nit from your writing, "nature doesn`t consider the individual at all" that is the answer to your remark about nature and individuals.
Nature doesn`t considered family, genus ,species group etc. Only the need to keep things alive through evolution.
Lamarck has been discredited, You really need to take the evolution course and then come back and argue about it.
And dip into cultural and physical anthro as well.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 04:40 PMHey, Tree Hugger, I mean damn man, I know, you said “People need to relieve sexual tension one way or another.”, but a tree?! I know some have limbs and cavities and all, but come on! What are you advocating here? LOL
Posted by Uno on July 2, 2007 07:10 PMI'm still waiting to hear from the abstinence -only supporters: How many of you were abstinent until your wedding night?
We know that teen hormones are powerful, how did the successfully abstinent manage to tame them? I'm assuming that your children have adhered to your teachings, please share your secrets for others to emulate.
Posted by Michael R. on July 2, 2007 07:19 PMcrickets
[Sound of bed springs]
crickets
[silent tread of non-existant virgins on honeymoon]
Oh no, another one gone over to the Charles B. dark side.
Sigh.......head droops....then shakes.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 3, 2007 07:25 PM