h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Bouncy. That looks like an empirically testable hypothesis. I wonder whether we would find that the teenage pregnancy rate map correlates with population density, and the poorest areas.

Drinking (binge or otherwise) would be harder to measure for areas.

Even so, the results wouldn't be conclusive as the underlying cause could be another variable commonly associated with low socio-economic status such as: poor educational achievement levels, poor housing and environment, dysfunctional families, poor nutrition, poor general health etc.

toxx

hi, i'm doing something i should't and i know it but i'm gonna give my opinions without having read the discssions and what have been said so far but this time it really is far too long
so my answer to the controversial would be : GOD = fiction , but a rather well done one though,( many people took it for truth)

Here goes then, this is what I found:

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/twri.nsf/a/EMPDEP1999#Map%201%20-%20Employ
Scroll about half-way down if it doesn't jump straight to it.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/plerg/Research/CHI/Teenage%20Pregnancy%20Report.pdf
Map on page 6.

The two maps are 5 years apart, but they do seem to correlate pretty strikingly.

Looks convincing, Bouncy. My earlier point stands, though. I think the ultimate analysis has to be economic. After all, there are rich unemployed (most of the royals, trust fund kids). That's why people are clustered in the worst and cheapest areas: in social housing or rented, cheap accommodation. It's a whole bunch of underprivilege, and money is the key.

toxx

I'm just going by what I know from the state schools I've attended in the States. In my own experience, which is I suppose like what you're noticed, we haven't really been given sex education at all, other than from a very medical and scientific perspective. While this does need to be addressed, I think a programme should focus around things like making the right choices and dealing with sex in its teenage culture aspect. Most teenagers are not going to grow up to be doctors; it is far more important that they are taught about what could happen to them in their later lives and possible ways to deal with it. Abstinence, however, should ideally just be presented as one possible option, and it can be pointed out that using contraception is also a relatively safe course of action.

Though this is the state at my schools, it's my impression that, depending on where you are in the country and what state you live in, the programme is going to vary. At the very least they could establish a national standard!

There's an interesting report here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1063324,00.html

Evidently, if a policy gives rise to an increase in STIs, then it will probably be less than helpful for preventing HIV spread in these specific situations.

<.

That seems to be quite a problem here as well! It's terrible to see kids ruining their lives by drinking too much - is there anything being done about that in the UK, Bouncy?

That's an interesting article, Andrew S.

<>

That's rather what I suspect has happened here as well...

Hello, unnamed feline.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=6&ObjectID=9005612

Interesting links, thank you, R Daneel, but what I was referring to in the posting you quote about thinking something was happening here, was binge drinking causing risky behaviour...

Oh--this thread can be maddening if one doesn't follow it closely.

i dont think teen pregnency is neccesarily a bad thing

Actually, no, Daneel, I was the one who was confused ! I referred to binge drinking, then I wondered about whether the article Andrew S linked to had wider application. So, you did have a point, thanks for the links, but I still tend to think that the article in timesonline had some valid points.

<<>>

What was the aim, here? I thought it was to reduce teenage pregnancies, not sexual behaviour. It's unreasonable to criticise a policy aimed at the one for not achieving the other. That's called 'moving the goalposts'!

toxx

"I say, give them all the information they need - which will probably be more than they want. Give them all the graphic details about STD's and unwanted pregnancies and all the rest of it. Explain how once someone gets genital herpes they have it for life! There is no cure. Explain that abortions are both physically and emotionally painful, not an 'easy solution'. Explain that in Western society Aids is now more a problem amongst heterosexuals than homosexuals. And that in all of these instances it *only takes once* for this to happen to them."

I know at least two people who got genital herpes from having oral sex with their long term partners. The partner who got it genitally had never had cold sores as a child and had no resitance. In one case, the virus had just never been active at the same time as the couple indulged in oral sex until they had been married for some years.

I know one wife who got AIDS from her loving husband - who had a brief fling with someone at work.

My partner tells that, when he works in Sierra Leone (where AIDS is rife) he is amazed at the number of white workers out there (government, education, military etc etc - short contract and long) who are willing to have sex - even unprotected sex - with each other and with local people or prostitutes. They give out the condoms in the bars over there, to no avail.

toxx,

Very good point that the idea was to reduce teenage pregnancies, not sexual activity.


Heathen,

Unfortunately, because of lack of proper education, people don't think they can contact herpes by having oral sex - they are also not told that if you rub your eyes after having touched an open herpes sore (either on your genitals or on your mouth) that you can get herpes in your eyes.


az

Interesting group, Civitas! Here's a quote from their website @
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/religiousHatred.php
'The 18th century defenders of the Enlightenment were right to fear religious enthusiasm. For the sake of religion, democracy and the continuance of our tradition of tolerance, there should be no law against religious hatred. Priests, rabbis and imams should develop thick skins.'
David G. Green, Director of Civitas.

alji

Hi, I'm back.
Glad to see my fleas & gnats got a bit of an outing in my abscence. Didn't Jesus accuse the Pharises of 'straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel'? (if that wasn't already mensioned; I haven't yet read the 366 posts you got through while I was away.)
I also noticed a definitive answer on my preposterous good/god assertation. I think I've been a prime example of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
Ah well.

Hi Toxx!



For "not achieving the other" read "making the other worse". I think it's quite fair in a joined-up world to criticise such a policy. And last year the policy didn't even achieve its own target, although I accept it has done so most years - by a narrow margin.

Putting that last year aside, I suppose you do agree there can be such a thing as a policy that is bad because of an unintended side-effect. And that you can weigh the consequences against each other. One could decide either way, but it's not a question of moving goal-posts.

Sure Andrew, you make a fair point. However, what we're talking about here is presumably an increase in self-reported sexual activity. It isn't obvious to me that this is such a bad thing. Neither do I know whether this is increased activity with a regular partner, increased numbers of partners or increase in the number of those who are sexually active.

None of these are obviously undesirable, compared with the transmission of STDs and the unwanted pregnancy rate.

toxx