The Institute (協会)

Crazy. Sad. Disturbing. A local high school here had a blood drive in September, and they had to reject 85% of the blood because of the presence of some sort of STD.

Sounds about right. I used to work clinics in the 90's and probably 20% of our clients (men and women) had an STD - syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia - all of which were becoming becoming more resistent to treatment.

I used to then see these same folk out at bars/clubs that weekend with new "partners."

Jake, WOW!!!!!!!

that number is a bit low, as those are based on documented cases. I work in the health field and STD's are rampant, often untreated, and it is often not the first time the person has been infected. It is a disturbing and true statistic. People that I assist with these issues seem to have lost all hope when it comes to their sexuality.

I guess all of the sex-ed is really paying off.

Think about this; nearly everyone starts their sex lives without an STD. This rapid "fouling" of what should have been a "pure stream" can only be via statutory rape by people who have been "experienced".

I question the usefulness of encouraging young people in Christ to abstain based on consequential reasoning.
For example: We tell a 14 year old boy who has professed Christ as his savior that we, as Christians, recognize the clinical data, which shows that large numbers of females are infected with STDs, and thus encourage him to abstain from extramarital sex.
Then our 14 year old is confronted with another problem, and he asks, "Well, what does the clinical data have to say about this?"
We have trained him to ask the wrong question.
He, and we, ought to be asking, "What does the Bible have to say about this?" And then we ought to make a big deal about the peculiarity of the Christian ethic in respect to the world. As we embrace him as a brother who shares a common ethic he experiences fellowship instead of data.
Note three examples of communities with peculiar ethics which have higher retention rates that Christianity: Hassidic Jews, the Amish, and Marines.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Wow, Mr. Snow. I took you for a more careful reader. Nothing in the post promotes consequentialism as a primary ethic and I'm not sure why you disassociated in your response. I knew somebody might misread and "go there" which is why I wrote "not only."

Also teaching consequences is important--this may be
why Jesus does it so much when he teaches about Hell. If teaching consequences is not helpful then should Proverbs 5 by ripped from the canon?

So while your comments are interesting and do make a great point about teaching primarily or exclusively about consequences, I'm not sure your point has much to do with the actual post.

For example, "not only is rejecting Jesus unwise, you will go to Hell too." This is a real and serious consequence.

Let me try this again, in the vain of Proverbs 5, not only is random hook ups not what God desires, you could get an STD too. I'm not convinced that that this consequentialist thinking.

The Bible teaches that there are consequences for our actions and that the text carefully warns people about the consequences (although it's not primary).

"Choose life so that you may live."

For me, the name of the game is teaching RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM. The whole idea of freedom must be re-thought under the umbrella of responsibility.

I have three thoughts about this, other than the obvious "And this is why you shouldn't fool around":
1) The sample for this study was less than 900 girls. It isn't reasonable to make a blanket statement about all American teen girls based on such a small sample. Further, the breakdown of STDs in the study is such that if some of the girls had more than one of the STDs listed, the results ought to be viewed differently.
2) What is the demographic used in this study? There are so many social and cultural variables that could be in play here that, again, making a blanket application to all teen girls is irresponsible and just a way to scare people.
3) These girls caught the STDs from boys. Perhaps someone should say something about that.

I am largely against making negative consequences the primary teaching tool for sexuality. I think it is far stronger and far deeper to make the primary tool that of positive benefits and blessings. That's the greatest reason to follow God's plan. The negative consequences are a, "And this could happen if you don't..." kind of thing. I think large segments of the Church has thought for too long that saying, "Don't have sex" is effective. It's most definitely not. Showing teens that God's best for them is beautiful and fun and amazing is far more effective, in my mind.

Drama, I would contend that these girls caught their STDs largely not from "boys," but from grown men. Again, not too many people have an STD prior to their "first time."

And while "consequential reasoning" has its pitfalls, if it's brought into the context of Biblical ethics on sexuality, it has a very good place.

A study of 800+ black American girls is taken as a "representative sample" of all black teen girls in the US? The only outcome of this story article will be to have more racists say “Oh those diseased black teen girls.” and have no positive effect at all on teen sexual diseases.

I’m an experienced database developer and world traveler and have worked on many projects including the human studies database at Fort Detrick in Maryland and I am very aware of the unreliable nature of medical research statistics.

I am also disturbed by the way the US media constantly insults, belittles and demonizes black people. Why? Blacks have cancer, Blacks have AIDS, Blacks are poor, Blacks are criminals etc. These stories have one point: to make anyone who sees a black person judge him/her as bad and a white person as good before gathering any data. It has affected my experience in the US negatively. I did better on every standardized exam, was a celibate teenager, and have a good income and savings. Why doesn’t someone come and interview me and make me a statistic?

Unrelable Data Collection
-------------------------

In my state, most of the STD data is gotten by testing poor women at free clinics. I know this because I have friends and relatives who are medical researchers, social workers or work in public health, which is BIG business in our major city. Research companies still get their data with a promise of treatment for the disease and CASH payments.

The government has tried to put a stop to coercive methods like the two I just mentioned, but researchers still use them and then publish skewed results of non-representative populations in an effort to continue the flow of grant money, get FDA approval etc.

Most normal women (and I consider myself to be one, although according to the news I am an thieving, illiterate disease-riddled drug addict who caused the subprime mortgage crisis) go to private doctors for their gynecological concerns, and many private doctors do not provide sexual data on their patients to the government. Most women, even black women, go to private doctors for their private sexual concerns and not to free clinics so that their medical information is made public. Therefore this study is not representative of any population and the fact that this article has been published all over the internet is ridiculous.

Even researchers should be aware of “representative” samples of sensitive data such as sexual disease studies. The CDC itself is aware of the problems in the collection of this type of data and says as much on their website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats04/interpret.htm)
. . .
there may be differences in the policies and systems for collecting surveillance data. Thus, comparisons of case numbers and rates between jurisdictions should be interpreted with caution. . . . In many areas, the reporting from publicly supported institutions (e.g., STD clinics) has been more complete than from other sources (e.g., private practitioners). Thus, trends may not be representative of all segments of the population.
. . .
(end quote)

Of late some institutions have pushed to associate diseases such as AIDS with black populations in the US and Africa with statistics such as “country with the highest prevalence” etc. --in spite of the fact that many eastern European countries refuse to participate in studies for the disease and do not provide accurate numbers of affected persons.

I find this article hard to believe based on my personal experience, and especially considering the prevalence of white women in the omnipresent pornography on the internet and elsewhere who have sex without protection, or the numbers of white prostitutes roaming the country (And every other country I have visited. I would venture to guess that there are very few women left in Bulgaria, Romania and the like). But I supposed pornographers and pimps must provide private doctors for their workers.

I fear that many people will take it as gospel because even though data collection methods are dubious, and the population is small and targeted, they WANT to believe the worst of black people.

Anthony,
You are right. I disassociated, and came with my agenda.
That said, I don't approve of consequentialist reasons for abstaining from particular behaviors among Christians.
I don't believe they are practical or compelling, especially among Christian young people. They encourage Christians to think like the world when making ethical decisions.
I'd rather say: hey, promiscuity is risky, but even the world knows that. Sometimes the expected net benefit seems to make the risk worthwhile. But as Christians, we don't make decisions about life based solely on reason. We also adopt a peculiar ethic in order to glorify God in our bodies. There is no risk involved in this decision at all, only worship in recognition that we are no longer our own.
Not giving in to temptation may in fact be the greatest form of worship we are capable of.
NS

Bike Bubba,
I do see the place for "consequential reasoning," as you very nicely termed it. The problem is that it is often the only reasoning. And at some point, teens realize that it isn't always going to be true. I have seen that far too often. I'm not saying it should be abandoned as a tool. I'm saying it is not the only, or even the best tool that could be used. That is all.

for clarification on my earlier post - I worked military clinics.

Juanita, if you're such a careful database creator and analyist, you might do well to re-read the article. It didn't claim that all of the sample were black, but rather divided the results into categories based on the race reported.

Dramaturge; agreed, but I must concede the honor (dishonor?) of coining (or first using) "consequential reasoning" to "jurisnaturalist."

Well, then, I'll be sure to give credit where it's due. I must've missed it when he said it. haha. I like the term, btw, though I realized when I reread my post that hard to tell. :-)