From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:05:43 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1993Jan9.044551.21399@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

John, I think we are pretty much in agreement...see below.

> In article <1993Jan8.111923.1101@calmasd.prime.com> 
> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
> ]Well the "sexual revolution" also occurred in the last 25 years.  I
> ]would imagine that more sex lead to higher rates.  I'd also argue that
> ]useful sex ed for preventing STD's and pregnancy has been around for
> ]less than 10 years. 

> I had sex ed in 1963 that was quite explicit in that regard. Again,
> when I was in the Navy, we were specifically educated in avoiding STD's.
> That was in 1966 and 1967.

Did the pill exist in 1963?  There are also many other forms of
contraception available today, and abortion was illegal then.  Of
course there was no worry of AIDS in those days either.  Do you feel
sex ed had any effect on the sexual mores for the students?

I graduated from high school in Houston in 1973.  There was no sex ed,
not even in biology class.  It's odd but in late 60's my
ultra-conservative mother was involved in getting sex ed stopped in
the local schools.  Consequently neither me or my 2 brothers recieved
any sex ed at home or school.  However, my mother's plan somewhat
backfired.  She recieved the course materials from various sex ed
programs used in schools across the U.S.  I figured that these were
probably the worst of the worst (dogs humping etc.).  Anyway I
stumbled on to these and read them all.

> ]Your final comment is one that makes the rest of your argument totally
> ]pointless.  The only protection against AIDS is education.  Part of
> ]AIDS education has to include sex education.  
> 
> What a bunch of nonsense. The protection against AIDS is 
> abstinence, sex with noninfected people (generally achieved by a low
> level of promiscuity) or the use of a barrier. AIDS doesn't care
> how well educated you are.

John, you are agreeing with me here.  What you stated above is the
"education" I was referring to.  My point was how do you explain the
above without also explaining the logistics of sex?

> ]The reason that the number of AIDS cases continues to increase is lack
> ]of education about how the virus is spread.  The federal government
> ](read Reagan) had decided that AIDS was a "gay disease" and refused to
> ]enact a national education program until the late 80's.  The current
> ]administration has also refused to enact the recommendations of its
> ]own AIDS commission.
> 
> This is utter hogwash. Today everyone in america who doesn't live
> in a cave without TV knows how AIDS is spread and that condoms reduce
> the risk. Even so, studies show that there is still a high rate of
> unprotected sex - even among promiscuous young homosexuals.

It took lots of pushing to get the Reagan administration to enact a
national AIDS education campaign.  The General Surgeon's mass mailing
to U.S. homes about AIDS in the late 80's was against the
administation's wishes.  Yes, John everone today should know about
AIDS.  My point is that everyone should have know in the mid-80's as
well.

> What is needed is a change in attitudes. Unfortunately it is hard to
> convince adolescents that they are mortal!

Agreed!

> ]Do you not believe that HIV would be spreading even faster had no
> ]attempt at education had occurred?
> 
> I think it would be spreading faster in the gay community. I don't think
> education has had any effect in the het community (where the spread
> is quite low anyway).

Well, I know of many heterosexuals who changed there behavior as a
result of information about AIDS.  However, I think you are right
about many more people ignoring the information.  If we weren't
agreeing I think you would have suggested no education.  You don't
seem to be suggesting that.  What would you suggest (as a way to get
people to behave responsibly concerning sex)?  

Jim