Mucking about with Epistemology

I really should be focusing on my revisions but this letter caught my eye for engaging in one of the most sleight of hand use of equivocation I've seen in some time. And for having drawn the wrong conclusions but I'm sure she would say the same about me.

Sex education: Letter writer was not neutral
by Yeo Su' An (Ms)

Oh wow, that's utterly shocking. But more problematically, she's redefining the meaning of neutral as we understand it. And ironically, she uses the sort of moral relativism that she accuses the letter writer of engaging in when in reality there's a real difference between descriptive moral relativism and prescriptive moral relativism.

I REFER Mr Ho Chi Sam's letter, 'Polycentric approach to sex education'. He argues that 'various institutions and organisations should not teach sex education and pass their brand of education as universal, but be upfront about their subjectivity'. He seems to be implicitly adopting a relativistic framework which posits that all viewpoints are subjective, and to make a claim to correctness and objectivity is undemocratic and unacceptable in a diverse society. However, this framework is arguably unsustainable as, if all viewpoints are inherently subjective, this necessarily includes the very perspective on sex education which he is putting forth. The very fact that he is arguing for polycentric sex education demonstrates that he believes that encouraging youth to have safe sex is normatively better than encouraging abstinence. It thus follows that he himself is not neutral, but instead is taking a position along the moral framework.

In one sense, the moral relativist viewpoint is self-defeating as the writer rightly points out BUT the problem is that descriptive moral relativism is inherently true i.e. all norms are subjectively valid to the adherents of that particular ethos. Making a claim for universalism is actually hard when people don't buy into your subjective norms. There's a reason for the diversity of opinion and political views after all, no one thinks that their views are wrong for that reason.

The problem comes after that part about descriptive moral relativism i.e. what next? One could go from there to prescriptive moral relativism i.e. their ways are not ours, we may not agree with what they believe but there are no more wrong than we are right hence we do nothing. The other way would be to say, fine, but if we're all going to live together, what system do we use to get along with one another. In other words, how do we best "respect" (or at least tolerate) differing worldviews while permitting each their subjectively normative worldview?

The problem with the writer's critique is that it ascribes neutrality (a position) with affirmation which is frankly a little disingenuous because she's trying to draw more of a normative value from the original writer's support of polycentric sex-education than is actually warranted. To claim that "[t]he very fact that he is arguing for polycentric sex education demonstrates that he believes that encouraging youth to have safe sex is normatively better than encouraging abstinence" is accordingly fallacious because a) abstinence is part of a comprehensive sex education policy and b) his "belief" that it is normatively better may have more to do with a normative belief that one should be exposed to as many viewpoints as it may be that abstinence only policies don't actually work.

This point is critical as it is not merely theoretical but has real practical implications. By hiding behind the veil of plurality and neutrality, Mr Ho conveniently sidesteps the controversial nature of the polycentric sex education he advocates. Such 'diversity' sex education, as conducted in schools in Britain and the United States begins even at the primary school level, covering topics such as the use of contraceptives and how to engage in safe sex, diverse types of sex including heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, and alternative family structures such as cohabitation and same-sex partnerships. The controversial nature of such polycentric sex education is underscored by the heated nature of the recent debates in California, about the approach to be adopted with regard to the content of sex education concerning homosexual family structures. Strong opinions on both sides of the debate demonstrate that it is illusory to speak as if a consensus exists and polycentric sex education is a settled, widely accepted issue.

Oh gee...where have I heard that before? Just click on the tag below to see the same arguments brought up (and dealt with) before.

But separately, maybe it might be the editing but this whole paragraph simply does not make sense even from the internal logic of the writer? One could easily make the argument that it is precisely because it is controversial that one should adopt a comprehensive sex education policy. It's a fact that such family structures exist and it's a fact that some of these structures are no worse (if not actually better) than your so-called traditional family structure.

To understand how this paragraph is a fallacious appeal to emotions, just change the terms to mixed-race couples and you could have a paragraph emerging from the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.

Furthermore, let's be clear about the issue here. We COULD simply be taking about a comprehensive sex education policy focusing not on family structures but on safer sex including the risks involved in other sexual activities not limited to vaginal intercourse.

Lastly, the "debate" is not settled in the US because of the influence of the conservative religious right whose opposition is based on their notion of morality. They are entitled to their moral views, unfortunately, their moral views lead to real harm. The experts i.e. the medical people actually working in the field and doing research have consistently maintained that abstinence-only policies do not work.

Finally, Mr Ho argues that 'our youth should be exposed to this range of sex education, so they can make an informed decision and follow which material they deem to best suit themselves'. With respect, this argument rests on the flawed assumption that children and youth are rational, wise and ever judicious in their decision-making. As philosopher Herbert Hart pointed out in his critique of John Stuart Mill, this assumption cannot stand when viewed in the light of factual reality: Children and youth do not possess relatively stable wants and desires, and are impressionable and open to experimentation. Contrary to Mr Ho's assertion, making children aware of the health risks of promiscuous sex is no mere 'scare fest' to be peremptorily dismissed: It is an objective fact that teenagers who engage in promiscuous sex are at a much higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases than teenagers who abstain from sex until marriage. It follows that it would harm, not help, children to hide such scientific realities from them.

Wasn't it Dawkin's who said religious labeling (and possibility education) was akin to child abuse? That's the danger of making this argument, because it gives carte blanc to the people in charge that they are entitled to indocrinate those who simply do not know better. Secondly, gross overgeneralisation much? It's one thing to expose children to objectively erroneous facts (Intelligent Design/Creationism as a scientific theory), another to expose them to different value systems. Recall descriptive moral relativism, unless you can demonstrate that an abstinence-only education is objectively better (by whatever criteria you may choose), then it becomes another viewpoint but now we're pushing it as the numero uno supremo value for problematic reasons.

I think it is precisely for this reason that the writer tries of course to talk about "scientific realities" and the fact she mentions is not wrong, ceteris peribus. The more important point is whether a) abstinence-only education actually reduces sexual promiscuity and b) whether it reduces STDs and unwanted pregnancies. And the answer is simply no, and no, no, no.

TODAYonline: Creation, sex and condoms

W00t! Exams over and what better way than to thrall our ever present lovely local media for more stuff to write about. Anyway, I admire Ms. Ong's approach to sex and sexual education of her children but I just want to touch on the ever present problem of the naturalist fallacy that permeates way too many arguments.

creation, sex and condoms

Friday • March 16, 2007

frances ong

When my daughter attended a camp last year, her father gave her a box of condoms and explained that, like all good scouts, one must be prepared. When I went to Hong Kong alone for work, my husband gave me a box, too, and smiled.

Before anyone throws the first stone at him, allow me to explain.

*Sigh*, bring birth control pills for one really obvious reason. If you happened to get raped, swallowing a certain number of birth control pills act somewhat like emergency contraception to prevent implantation. But that's just a public service announcement.

We believe the best place for our teenagers to learn about sex is at home. This includes learning about the proper use of contraceptives, such as how to put a condom on and the benefits and side effects of the Pill, the IUD, and about abortion.

However, the use of contraceptives must not be taught in isolation. It is not a simple issue of "prevention is better than cure". Contraceptive use can prevent the creation of an unwanted child, protect oneself from sexually transmitted diseases and also might give one a false a sense of freedom to have sex with anyone, anywhere and anytime.

Argument of moral hazard: This is an argument that has arisen a number of times and like any argument, can be generalized and examined in other contexts. The idea is that if one is protected from risk, one is more likely to engage in risky behavior. This pops up all over the place, from mandatory statutory workmen compensation schemes, to state insurance in lieu of tortious action, to IMF bailout policies and of course my favourite response, just because we have fire extinguishers in the house does not mean we're going to start cooking with grease.

I remember an exchange I once had with Prof Kumar during torts when he was mentioning the aforementioned mandatory insurance scheme in the workplace whereby every employer contributed a certain amount to essentially pay for coverage for their workers. My question was whether this would give rise to an issue of moral hazard in the absence of statutory safety requirements and the like. His response was that people who purchase disability insurance are not likely to start running across the road or engage in riskier behavior just because they are covered. BUT this was qualified after some thought on the basis that risking your own life and limb is not akin to risking your employee's safety as long as you meet safety requirements.

The more general principle that can be drawn from these examples is that it is somewhat simplistic to simply argue that moral hazard will be the result of any action that reduces risk. By that "logic" moral hazard is everywhere the moment we reduce risk. Instead the more pertinent analysis would be a marginal one i.e. does this particular increase in risk prevent reduce risk to an extent whereby people end up taking even more risk than would otherwise be the case? In some cases this would be true (imagine a failure rate of over 90% for parachutes and then imagine whether your average reasonable person is going to want to do skydiving and now start considering whether it is rational for people to go skydiving with all the risk prevention mechanisms that are in place).

For me, I agree with Mrs Ong here insofar as nothing beats out evolutionary biology in terms of our desire to procreate. Hormones exist for a reason. Anyone who wants to pretend otherwise is attempting to ignore reality. Does acculturation help? To an extent, but I've done a previous post highlight a recent study that show pre-marital sex has been remarkably constant since the 1940s. So one does wonder whether there really has a golden age of chastity.

This was not our intention when we embarked on this journey with our children. We hope they will not engage in premarital sex, but we are aware that peer pressure and societal values act as a counterweight to what we teach them. We recognise that we cannot stop them if they intend to have sex.

All we can do is show them the true freedom of sex within a marriage. We are very open with our children about our sex life. They know that, on a lazy Sunday afternoon, it is best to leave their parents alone. They realise that sex is the deepest form of communication between two committed individuals.

Of course, some people will argue that this can also take place outside marriage. They will argue that they have formed meaningful, happy relationships and that marriage does not guarantee fidelity.

While others are free to make their own lifestyle choices, we believe sex should not be just a recreational activity one engages in after a single drink (or more, probably) on the first date.

Fair enough. But even adults? Even those pushing 30 or older? There is a distinction to be drawn between teenage sex and adult pre-marital sex, I'm still waiting for a justification against adult pre-marital sex that does not involve very dodgy statistics and "science" or that is based on some written text that claims divine inspiration (and you should know my views about religion by now).

We have observed that many teenagers and adults engage in premarital sex because they feel insecure. They want a sense of assurance from others. But, one of the untold effects of casual sex is the sense of insecurity one feels after the act is over.

Some people seek companionship and believe that offering their bodies is the easiest way to tie someone down. But, they may soon begin to ask themselves: Will my partner continue with this relationship, or will he or she seek another person to have sex with tonight? If we could fall in bed so easily last night, will we fall out of love as easily today? Why do I feel like a piece of used tissue paper when he does not continue the relationship?

Hop aboard the non-sequitor train! This is where I like to point out the socialization argument as once made much more hilariously by Bertrand Russel who pointed out our entire society's neurosis and even psychosis on sex by simply replacing the word sex with trains. So blinker a child's mind, make trains a taboo topic, cover his eyes when you approach a railway station, and you end up with the exact same reaction that is at its core utterly and totally nonsensical and fallacious.

Or to simplify, kids feel that way because society make them feel that way and for no other reason. Put sex on a pedestal for no good reason and this is the result you create. It is not sex, or pre-martial sex or casual sex that is the root cause of it. It is our attitudes towards it that is the underlying basis for this entire melodramatic Sturm und Drang.

Sex between two committed individuals is enjoyable, and the fruit of this relationship is the child that will be created in the process.

One of the reasons why our birth rate has plummeted is because, through the use of contraceptives, we have separated the act of creation from sex. By understanding the purpose and function of our body, we will learn to respect it as a powerful tool to create new life.

When they are taught about sex in this light, our children will be less inclined to engage in pre-marital sex, as creating a life brings on new responsibility.

Ah...finally the naturalist/naturalistic fallacy a.k.a. what is natural is good. What's the point of Understanding and of Knowledge if we do not apply it? I think it's fantastic we have managed to separate sex from procreation and I think it's an absolute moral good insofar as women now have control over their bodies. The gender revolution could not have occurred, nor the strides women have made if they could not control their reproduction. There are no two ways about it.

Anyway, this has made a nice interlude post Roman Law and dinner and possibly screwdrivers.

Peace

Reality check: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex - CNN.com

And the rate has been fairly stable all the way back to the 1940s. So there really wasn't a golden age of chaste youngsters. Which makes perfect sense given that there is an evolutionary reason why puberty starts as a fairly young age i.e. much younger than what we would common accept as a statutory age of consent.

Nevertheless I read it with a raised eyebrow as the numbers are pretty high. And as a skeptic, anytime I see something that agrees with me so completely, I tend to be cautious in affirming it until more facts come to light.

So here's the report from the Guttmacher Institute.

But first a disclaimer. I am not a statistician nor do I have much training in them outside of my A Level C Math classes. Furthermore, I don't really have a good ground in such research methodology, or at least nothing formally learned.

The first thing that struck me was their narrow definition of pre-martital sex which they defined as "either having had vaginal intercourse before first marrying or ever having had intercourse and never having married". The reason I say this is that there have been a couple of studies showing that teens (and adults) who while proclaiming never to have had sex, have engaged in what is called "anything-but" behavior i.e. having had engaged in what would be considered sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, oral and anal sexual intercourse. So either the figures would be way higher if such activities were included or possibly that sexual activity comes in a complete package.

Here are the results they drew:

Data from the 2002 survey indicate that by age 20, 77% of respondents had had sex, 75% had had premarital sex, and 12% had married; by age 44, 95% of respondents (94% of women, 96% of men, and 97% of those who had ever had sex) had had premarital sex. Even among those who abstained until at least age 20, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44. Among cohorts of women turning 15 between 1964 and 1993, at least 91% had had premarital sex by age 30. Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.

Well, so much for "expected standard" of behavior among society at large.

Note the last sentence because I want to point out a recent absurdity by the Bush "faith based" Administration which is now advocating abstinence until 30. That's right people, you can by now drink, drive, smoke, get killed and kill and you can't have sex. This is the question I've always wanted to ask one of those abstinence only people during those talks i.e. even if we were to take at face value everything you said thus far, would you include adults under the category of not having pre-marital sex and on what basis would you justify it.

Anyway, the rest of the research paper reads well and basically just repeatedly kicks the "conventional" wisdom in the face and then some more.

Some points to note. Median age of first premarital sex has been dropping since 1954 to 1993 (20.4 to 17.3) before creeping up for the period of 1994-2003 (17.6). Percentage who had had premarital sex by 15 has indeed shot up from 4% in the period of 1954-63 to 14 percent in 1984-93. Although the biggest percentage rise (50%) was between the periods of 1954-63 and 1964-73. While the percentage rise between 1984-93 and 1994-2003 was 7.69% (to 2 sf). Same goes for fall in median age.

Otherwise, the figures across the board since 1964 have been really really stable i.e. definitely not outside of the bounds of statistical significant i.e. noise.

So what would be the "moral" choice now? To basically ignore reality and the wider stable historical and future trends it presents, or continue with what is really a screwed up policy and in turn screwing up the lives of countless teenagers along the way? Sorry, irrational religious beliefs can no respect from me, particularly in this circumstance.

Peace.

TODAYonline: Talking Sex with Mom and Dad
by Frances Ong Hock Lin

This should be fun....heh heh. But evil malicious thoughts aside, I'm going to use this as a launching pad to discuss one of the oddities of some discussions I've had with social and religious conservatives and the somewhat contradictory stance taken with regards to the Naturalist argument a.k.a. the Naturalist fallacy i.e. if it is natural it must be right.

An example would be a discussion on homosexual rights where I exercised my right to free speach and basically ripped into a truly horrid post arguing against homosexuals having rights (on the basis that their act was unnatural and therefore their act should not be condoned etc.). But in another post on the same thread, I (amongst) some others) was challenged to provide a defence to rape on the argument that since it is natural i.e. baboons amongst other primates and some other species use rape as a form of assertion of dominance, keeping control of the pack and ensuring their genes can passed on.

Well the obvious answer is that some animals mate for life. A better argument is that it causes harm to 3rd parties and hence flouts the Harm Principle or some varient of the Golden Rule can be used here.

But more intrinsically, the argument is quite a bit of bunk because just as something happens that way, does not necessarily mean it ought to happen that way. Dawkin, author of the Selfish Gene, called by others a militant atheist and a believer in determinism and reductionism, nevertheless argues that as humans and bestowed (or at least having the appearance) of rationality and logic can and should transcend such naturalist tendancies. And I think that is right.

Anyway, I make no apologies for ripping into such posts. I simply get annoyed when our Sedition Act protects the supposed vulnerability of our fragile social, cultural and religious peace while denying equivalent protection to a much more vulnerable class i.e. sexual minorities. But that's a post for another time.

And now, back to the post....

The other day, my seven-year-old son told me he can only have "baby sex" when he is married, while it is perfectly okay to have "talking sex" all the time. I was caught off-guard and wondered what he meant.

But I soon recalled that in one of our many talks with our children, we had made a distinction between social intercourse (talking sex) and sexual intercourse (baby sex). We just hope that when our son announces to the whole world that he is having "sex" with his parents, we will not be arrested!

I don't see anything particularly wrong with pre-marital sex, not considering the day and age in which we live in, mostly the ready availability of multiple forms of contraception. The other stuff can be handled by education.

We have this long-standing tradition that when our children reach the age of eight, we would answer any question they have about sex — a mere three-letter word, yet much misunderstood

In Singapore, there is an interesting dichotomy. Teenagers and young unmarried adults are actively having sex and going for abortions, while married Singaporeans are too tired to even reproduce enough to replace themselves.

Um...why is this even a dichotomy? It's basically a false one for a number of reasons.
1. Pareto's Law. For most issues, it tends to be a disproportionately small number that account of a disproportionately large number of that incidences. Which is why, the old stat that one in three marriages in America end is divorce is very misleading. Similarly, five programmes make up 80% of the US Budget, which has led Paul Krugman to describe it as a huge pension fund (Social Security is the second largest programme) with an army.

2. Who has and get abortions? Her argument only works if it is indeed true that "teenagers and young unmarried adults are actively having sex and going for abortions" WHEREAS "married Singaporeans are too tired to even reproduce enough to replace themselves". And in fact, for this comment to be even not misleading, the first category has got to be more or even substantially more than the second.

Why are we parents so afraid to admit that we enjoy the art of making babies? Like many, at first I felt shy letting my children know we have an active sex life. It was also difficult to see my children as potentially active sexual beings; like my parents before me, it is more comforting to think of one's children as asexual.

Sex is not merely for procreation. And the sooner we can around to admitting that, the sooner we can have proper comprehensive sexual education, one in particular that does not simply involve the sort that believes that sex equals tab A inserting into slot b.

At this point, I'm honestly wondering whether she really "talks sex" with her kids or whether her notion of sex equals simply vaginal intercourse. That's a very dangerous stance to take. We pretty much know of the dangers of the transmission of STDs through unprotected vaginal intercourse, but the risk is still there with unprotected oral sex.

Studying in a convent in the 1970s, our only sources of information about sex were our friends, magazines and, for some of us, our boyfriends.

Fortunately, the convent had a good sex education programme. The irony of it was that it was the nun and priest — having taken vows of celibacy — who were the most open adults we knew on this issue.

I'll take her word on this but yes, that's truly truly ironic. I've also always wondered about RC priest giving marriage advice given that they are not allowed to marry either.

From them, we learnt to understand our own sexuality, that being masculine or feminine was not a crime, and being interested in the opposite sex was part of growing up. When my husband and I were courting, we were sorely tempted like any hot-blooded teenagers. However, we choose not to engage in pre-marital sex because we were not sure that we would be marrying each other.

The first sentence must be understood in a very particular context. Google her name and look at some of her previous articles. When she says feminine, she means the subservient sort (submissive wife anyone?). I'm not sure what she means by masculinity but I fear for the worst.

And I think it's rather cute that pre-marital sex is alright if you know you're going to marry your partner. Kinda sweet actually. But still, fully misguided. In fact, I'm still waiting for a moral argument against pre-marital sex that does not involve either an appeal to some religious authority or text or based upon some truly fallacious logic like the "meaning" of marriage.

Now we are married, we are glad we had waited. We need not live with the fact that we had a shotgun marriage or that we were pressured to get married because we'd had sex.

Hmmmm...ho hum. See above.

Sex education is more than the process of acquiring information. The education system is doing its part in systematically providing our students with relevant information.

Oh really now. *Snort* If sending in a Catholic group to give a lecture on sexual education is actually providing people with relevant information, I'll eat my socks. Unless one considers lying to students a good thing to scare them away from a misconception of sex. Click here for my take on what happened at AJC.

But, sex education should also be about developing attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, relationships and intimacy. It is equipping our children with a set of skills so that they can make educated choices about their sexual behaviour. Moreover, they have to feel confident about acting on these choices, and not be tricked or pressed into doing something they might regret later.

I absolutely agree. But see the next paragraph on how we diverge.

That's why sex education must begin at home. Sex between two happily married people is so seldom portrayed on TV shows or other mass media; instead, teenage or pre-marital sex is glorified.

And the problem with that is? The problem is that the premise on which she makes this assertion is never substantiated. I would love to see a post on why pre-marital sex is necessarily bad. Heck even Asst Prof Tan Seow Hon couldn't do that in her last article in the ST.

As parents, the best gift we can give our children is to help them understand that sex is best enjoyed within a marriage. Hopefully, this will plant in them a value system that does not include sex as a tool to gain approval or acceptance.

Bah humbug, more unsubstantiated assertions.

At the age of five or six, we teach our children to respect their bodies and that no one should be allowed to touch them. We introduce the subject so that they do not find it difficult, shameful or mysterious. When they reach their eighth birthday, they are allowed to ask us any questions about sex, and we answer them as best we can — factually, truthfully and sincerely.

This information is better coming from us than from friends or strangers.

With our three teenagers, we acknowledge that if they want to engage in pre-marital sex, we won't be there to stop them. This in no way implies that we encourage them to have sex. But if they choose not to heed our advice against it, we want them to protect themselves against Aids and sexually transmitted diseases.

We hope that having cultivated the value that sex is the deepest form of communication between two people in love, our children will not be seduced by the heat of the moment and regret for the rest of their life the choice they make.

Okay, getting repetitive now. So let me end here.

Peace

Online Story: Not enough babies? Change the liberal abortion law to solve problem
by Mark Chen Chih-chuan

*Wince*...not again. Alright, time to bring on some logic enforcement.

I listened to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech and understood the needs of our nation.

Among the repeated calls to have sufficient and competent talent and a self-replacing labour force, I find the call to have more babies most reasonable.

Um....yeah...okay. Babies good! More babies better! Especially for the economy in terms of labour?

I believe that the notion of nationality and statehood have weaved such a stranglehold that when it comes to various factors of production, while we accept the free movement of trade, goods and service, we refuse to similarly do so for people.

I don't see any necessary reason for why of all the factors listed, having more babies is necessarily the most "reasonable". I mean, how about explaining and providing a definition of reasonable.

In debate (or for that matter in law), we would by now be either screaming for a yardstick or criteria by which we could measure this "soft term". Well that, or gleefully rubbing our palms at the thought of our ability to impose our own definition on it. And then to bill our clients good money for it.

The need is very real and it can be met by all Singaporeans. There is a need to review the Termination of Pregnancy Act. There are three reasons: Demographics, eugenics, and ethics.

Brief answer: No, ewww no and no.

The 1974 Termination of Pregnancy Act states that a registered doctor can perform an abortion on receiving written consent from a pregnant woman.

Those above 14 and below 21 years can have an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian. In fact, it is the only procedure in Singapore that does not require such a consent.

And I say thank goodness for that. Teenage pregnancies are already horrible enough without having to drag the parents in. Especially if they are not understanding and supportive. It stands to reason as, if they were indeed as such, requirement of consent would be superfluous as they would be notified and consulted. It is in those cases where they are not that the lack of parental consent is important.

Of course there's also the argument based upon the distasteful notion that the parents had something to do with the teen being pregnant in the first place.

On 23 May 2005, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) quoted a study conducted by Singapore National University Hospital which showed that about 14,000 pregnancies are terminated every year, accounting for one-fourth of the total.

According to Mr Lee, there were 36,000 births last year - 14,000 shy of the needed 50,000. This is simple demographics and economics - no supply = no product = no self-replacing labour force.

That's what a) immigration, b) a shift to a knowledge based economy so that c) people can work to an older age are for.

The CNA report quoted the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Society as saying that over 1,000 tertiary-educated married women went for abortions in 2004, tripling the number of 300 in 1988, while those who were not as educated tended to use contraceptives.

If we have more than trippled the number of tertiary educated married women since 1988, then the rate has actually fallen.

In fact, thanks to the internet here's something all too relevant and destructive of his entire chain of argument. From Today we learn that they checked with the Department of Statistics and discovered that the number of university-educated women has increased from 17,300 in 1990 to 68,900 in 2000.

So this was close to a 4 (3.98 to 2 s.f.) fold increase (and by now would be much higher) and thus we can conclude that the rate of tertiary educated married women using birth control as a form of abortion has fallen.

But furthermore, our letter writter conceeds the existance of something that's prevents more births than abortion at any rate - contraception. I note that he doesn't advocate their ban.

A 2001 MCDS survey on social attitudes of Singaporeans entitled 'Attitudes on Family' found that the "pattern of educational differences in attitudes towards having children [was] similar to the national population statistics (Census 2000) that showed a strong negative correlation between family size and the educational level of females, with university graduates having the fewest children on average."

Well, we could prevent women from getting too smart and wanting fewer children (which presumes causation even though that's not a necessity). But let's give Mark the benefit of the doubt and elevate this argument to that of abortion being the least worse policy alternative.

The problem with the argument is that it would in fact conceed that it is probably the least efficacious of all possible policies, given that the low birth rate is multi-causal.

This may be one of the reasons why policies of longer maternity leave and infant care subsidies are not sufficient incentives, in particular, on abortion.

This seriously doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's effectively trying to tie two correlations (note, the above numbers are not necessarily causal i.e. women who do not want children may be more likely to get a teritiary degree for example) and then pull a massive non-sequitor.

Unless you can establish that tertiary educated women are in fact more likely now than ever (and presumably getting worse) to resort to abortion as a form of birth control (which we learn is plain wrong) AND that they would not simply switch to using contraception when abortions are banned (or simply pop across the causeway for an abortion) makes this an exercise in fruitity anyway.

The implication of this, no matter how distasteful, is clear and it echoes a similar fear in the past that led to eugenic policies.

Argh!!!! HOW HOW HOW?!!!! Show the effing link!

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in his memoirs "Our brightest women were not marrying and would not be represented in the next generation. The implications were grave."

Definately not one of his best statements ever. I take quite a bit of offence at this because my parents were blue collared workers (who became white collar ones by dint of effort and constant learning) and who nevertheless managed to bring whatever intellectual genetic potential to fruit.

Assuming the truth of and accepting the eugenics argument, there would be a lack of sufficient and competent talent with a liberal abortion policy. In a Straits Times report on 12 November 2005, Ministry of Health figures showed that in five years, an average of over 1,500 teenagers had abortions annually, about 10% of the national figure.

*Sigh* no there won't be.

According to a 31 July 2006 Straits Times report, Minister Yaacob Ibrahim cited 2004 figures showing that 434 Malay girls had abortions, forming about one-third of all teen abortions.

This caused the Muslim community to act to curb teenage sex. There was an ethical consideration.

Or perhaps we could adopt a comprehensive sex education policy instead (demonstrated to be more effective anyway) of pussy footing around on the basis of religion and "morality".

In his third National Day Rally speech, Mr Lee called on Singaporeans to "hold firm to our cultural and moral values." None of the ethnic groups, based on their traditional, cultural and ethical values, nor religious groups, have ever permitted an abortion policy as liberal as that of the 1974 Termination of Pregnancy Act.

I sense bull here. The Jews for example don't hold that the fetus is a person until it's born and Islam believes that ensoulment occurs in the 3rd trimester.

It would be incongruent to hold firmly to ethical mores without the moral courage to stand upon the cultural and moral foundations of the people.

Handwaving here. Piety is not substitute for reality and sound policy.

Although the Act may not be done away with, it is not inconceivable that it be reviewed seriously. There has been a lot of hype about the future economy, foreign ability, basic courtesy, overseas family, new-fangled technology, and political civility. But a solution staring the nation in its face is to preserve local fertility.

Note: all of the reasons above actually makes local fertility a moot issue.

Review the Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Review your entire argument please!

Peace.

SSRN-Porn Up, Rape Down by Anthony D'Amato

Disclaimer: I haven't read it yet.

Oh this is simply delicious! If nothing else, it at least destroys the assumption that pornography leads to (causatively or correlatively) an increase in rape.

The abstract reads:

The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

Anyway, offhand I can think of a few ways to poke theoretical holes in it e.g. whether the measurements include other lesser forms of sex crimes and whether various forms of pornography have a mutually cancelling effect. So I'm going to read it before any further comments.

Online Story: Education works better than moralising to prevent spread of Aids

Well, my letter was published albeit online but it's been edited to such an extent that the bite and sting of my original letter is dimished quite drastically.

Take a look for yourself to decide. The letter is blockquotes is the one published. The one after that in plain text was what I sent.

I read the letter "Don't fan flames of lust. There's a link between Aids and 'Crazy Horse' show" by Ho Ting Fei with dismay at his assertions (ST Online Forum, Aug 22).

Despite acknowledging that it is nothing more than a "bad coincidence", how does it follow that lowering the age limit to allow adults to watch a cabaret show leads to an increase in Aids? The lack of substantiation in the "link" between Aids and the 'Crazy Horse' show is telling.

There are many reasons for the rise in the number of Aids infection and its detection: an increase in the population, globalisation, travel, access to doctors and healthcare, better diagnostic equipment.

Can we really attribute the increase in Aids cases to the "decline in moral standards"?

I am glad I live in a country which takes a pragmatic stance and does not deny the HIV-Aids link. I hope that science will be the basis of our approach to public policy.

Educate our youths on this basis without restricting the right of adults to entertain themselves. Education is always better than moralising.

In short, be less prudish with less moralising, and more education. That's the key to keeping HIV Aids in check.

And this was what I originally sent in...

I read the letter, "Don't fan flames of lust. There's a link between AIDS and 'Crazy Horse' show" by Ho Ting Fei (Dr) with quite some dismay at the assertions made to demonstrate a non-sequitor, all this despite acknowledging that it is nothing more than a "bad coincidence". For how does it necessarily follow that lowering the age limit to allow legal adults to watch a cabaret show lead to an increase in AIDS?

The lack of substantiation is particularly telling when all we have seen to demonstrate a "link" between AIDS and "Crazy Horse" is the sentence, "If we are honest and truthful to ourselves, we cannot fail to see why AIDS and the "Crazy Horse" show are not so distant and unconnected" i.e. an assertion and a fallacious appeal to emotions couched as a rhetorical question.

The rise in the number of infections is due to a lot of reasons. Strip away things like an increase in the population, globalisation and easy travel making sure the virus spreads, more ready access to doctors and healthcare, better diagnostic equipment and thus more and earlier diagnosis. And can we really be certain that there is any statistically signicant increase left to deal with, much less attribute to this nebulous "decline in moral standards"?

I am glad I live in a country which takes a pragmatic stance and does not deny the HIV-AIDS link much less the efficacy of Antiretroviral drugs. And I hope that science will be the basis of our approach to public policy.

And hopefully, on that basis educate our youth and at the same time extend the scope of permissible action that legally recognised adults can carry out. Education is invariably always better than moralising and piety.

In short, less prudishness, less moralising, more reality and more education. That's the key to keeping HIV in check.

So what can we conclude? Well just possibly, they hate latin terms and logic enforcement. Heh.

Peace.

Online Story: Don't fan flames of lust. There's a link between AIDS and 'Crazy Horse' show
by Ho Ting Fei (Dr)

And I thought medical doctors were supposed to be better educated and trained than this? I mean, even granting the constrains of an ST letter, surely this could have been better argued?

In The Straits Times' reports on August 17, there were simultaneous reports of "sex infections on the rise among teenagers" and "R18 rating for cabarets".

This is a bad coincidence but a good opportunity for us to examine the reasons behind why HIV AIDS is on the increase in Singapore.

*Snort* first he acknowledges it is a bad coincidence and then he uses that purported link to demonstrate a non-sequitor. See below.

More disturbingly, it is on the rise in young people. There are various reasons for this phenomenon and some are obvious. The public has, at various times, expressed its opinion and cautioned about the decline of moral standards in society.

There are indeed various reasons for this, but what is this nebulous "decline of moral standards" that he claims and more importantly, how is it necessarily true that it (whatever it is) can be shown to be the major causal link for a rise in AIDS. Especially when there are much better arguments and fingers to point at.

The rise in the number of infections is due to a lot of reasons. Strip away things like an increase in the population, globalisation and easy travel making sure the virus spreads, more ready access to doctors and healthcare, better diagnostic equipment and thus more and earlier diagnosis. And can we really be certain that there is any statistically signicant increase left to deal with, much less attribute to a "decline in moral standards"?

Minister Dr Balaji Sadasivan has revealed the statistics and voiced his concerns about HIV infection in Singapore.

I am sure he and other healthcare personnel realise that if HIV infection is allowed to break through the barriers to affect the people, it will be out of control one day.

Which is why I'm so glad I don't live in a country like South Africa where the the President denies the HIV-AIDS link and the Minister for Health thinks prefers traditional and natural cures (that do nothing by the way) to the "poisons" of Antiretroviral drugs (that by the way really do work wonders i.e. from bedridden to climbing mountains).

The race to develop medical treatment may not catch up with the wild spread of HIV. Even if there is a cure for AIDS, prevention will generally remain a more efficient and cost-effective means of controlling the disease.

HIV AIDS is a social problem as much as it is a medical problem. If we are honest and truthful to ourselves, we cannot fail to see why AIDS and the "Crazy Horse" show are not so distant and unconnected, and why by giving more Singaporeans, especially youths, the chance to see the "Crazy Horse" revue is not as innocuous as it seems to be.

This is a terribly disappointing line of argumentation. It's full of insinuation and massively light on substantiation. An appeal to common sense tends to fail because common sense often isn't. Sometimes a counter-intuitive approach is necessary. And besides, it's been demonstrated that abstinence and pro-abstinence education policies don't work even if and especially if one looks at cross-State data in the USA with regards to STD and unwanted pregnancy rates.

Anyway. Hello?! Age of consent is 16 and prostitution is legal in Singapore! And you've picked Crazy Horse?! Only if you have a preexisting mindset that tries to deny reality and believes that the way to prevention is abstinence (much easier to believe in peace in the Middle East)

To me the introduction of the new R18 (Cabaret) rating is not just an act of bad taste but more a case of irresponsibility towards the youths and our population in general.

Let us not fan the flames of lust and temptation, particularly in our youths, and yet watch in desperation and despair at the raging fires of HIV infection.

Then teach them to handle it?! Education is always better than moralising and piety. Mind you, you're an adult at 18 and can be sentenced to death as an adult for a capital crime. You serve NS and can kill on orders, get killed on orders. You can smoke, drink, drive and skydive and do a lot of other things that could get you horribly killed or injured.

This last two paragraphs show exactly where the prudish, moralising doctor stands. I simply say this. Less prudishness, less moralising, more reality and more education. That's the key to keeping HIV in check.

Peace

Feeling Fisky

After 3 plus straight hours of Administrative Law, I'm feeling fisky as in without the 'r' as in I'm in a fisking mood. So it never hurts to have a letter from my favourite fundy group Focus on the Family to talk about.

At this point I should probably put in a disclaimer that despite me being on the SPPA youth committee, in no way does the following commentary reflect anything but my own personal views.

I couldn't link to a free copy on the "Interactive" (why not just call it online, I don't find it particularly interactive) ST site, you'll have to find your own copy.

Anyway, here's "With help, Teens can do the right thing", and I'm going to look at the mathematicians and staticians who read my blog for some help with the stat they cite.

So let's take their statistic on the supposite efficacy of their program, "No Apologies", in case any of you actually wondered, it's to create the fundy's favourite martyr complex i.e. the WHOLE WORLD is pumping sex in your direction yada yada blah.

Assuming all figures are true, from a sample of 17,000 young people in the community for whom they did their programme for, here's their finding. On average (mean I presume), 76% do not believe in pre-marital sex but post-workshop, it rises to 92% (an incredible 12% rise over their reported figures in the little phamplet they have). So what does this really say about the program? Well, one thing that we can be assured of, this is indeed a statistically significant increase. If one were to take the former 80%, it might well be a statistical fluke.

Unfortunately then, what this figure tells me is that lies and fear and undue influence work when they sound authorative enough. And the organisation does indeed use very standard lies (despite the fact that they have been repeatedly rebutted they make no attempt to change the information. I think this goes beyond wilful ignorance to actual lying) with regards to the efficacy of condoms with regards to prevalence of STDs and pregnancy.

And they don't give the opposing viewpoint. I would love to see how they deal with a proper Q&A section with a proper psychologist and doctor who has kept up with the relevant readings in this area. And of course, a debater who doesn't give a damn about religion and religious authority.

Because at the end of the day, until you demonstrate that pre-martital sex is intrinsically bad and that the extrinsic harms that come with pre-martital sex cannot be dealt with by a decent sexual education that does not promote abstinence only, then what Focus on the Family is doing is really real harm, limiting the choices of youth and adults in determining their sexual lives, depriving them of information, putting more guilt on youths who are fighting with a freaking biological imperative and worse of all, probably causing way more harm than good when our youths don't know how to deal with STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

I would seriously love for them to come down to NUS. =P And I invite all my regular readers to ask question, just that, ask questions and for proper citations. For at the end of the day, religion and religious views are never an unmitigated good. Especially when it comes to sex and sexual education. And our youths deserve better.

Peace.

Addendum: This post has been slightly editted for grammatical errors.

Or is it all a matter of closed religiousity?

(ed: Reposting blog post because of spelling and formatting errors)

ST Article: "Is it all a question of openness?"
by Asst/P Tan Seow Hon

Reading the article, one cannot help but feel that this is a question still in search for an answer. Despite all that she wrote, nevertheless we are not left with an alternative with what it might boil down to.

Unless one reads between the lines of course. The only plausible alternative is that pre-martial sex is not good (I'm not even entirely sure she could even make the point that it was bad) because well "Someone" (nudge nudge wink wink) says so.

But let us focus on the substance of the article and in particular the claims made by the good Assistant Professor.

1. That a new orthodoxy about pre-martial sex seems to be emerging amongst the youths.

I'm not entirely certain about this assertion given that she extrapolates it from a single example (now 3 I hear, probably loads more) of a couple phonecaming themselves having sex.

Mind you, just less than a century ago, they would already have had kids and would be out working in the factories or managing the manor but nevermind that. The more important point is whether one can extrapolate a new <i>orthodoxy</i>, note the word, from a single example. The plural of anecdote is not data. But even if we concede that such a thing is possible, given the furor over premarital sex since the injunctions about virginity in most religious texts centuries past and present, are we necessarily seeing a new orthodoxy or more of the same old same old?

Aside: Maybe the new orthodoxy is exhibitionism. That should be personally interesting.

2. Some youths view those who believe pre-marital sex as a no no to be immature, prejudiced and judgmental.

Why Yes! Wow, brilliant observation, arguably with the intention of prejudicing the reader. But I don't give a flying fox about that. The real issue is which holder of views is more likely to be correct in their views.

I'm still waiting for a reason why pre-marital sex is INTRINSICALLY bad without recourse to either a) societal viewpoint (which as we know as the greaters arbiter of all that is good and pure....like pure racial lines =P) or b) some text asserting so.

Still waiting really.

3. That this is due to us no longer having a language of right and wrong. BUT that we poor poor liberals and post-modernists are just confused because we believe in individualism and autonomy but those notions still resides within the language of right or wrong.

What post-modernists more accurately say is that every viewpoint is a social construct and thus is subjectively valid. So the real question becomes, how do we arbitrate between them? I'm all for the use of an objective standard of Harm, the mainstay of Liberalism or even Utilitarianism as a consequentialist form of morality. Either way, by no stretch of the imagination or the facts (without outright lying or destroying the notion of Science) is pre-marital sex intrinsically bad.

This could be the start of a very long essay about the basis upon which we order society and how one determines Good but let's leave that for another day. Although if you search around on this blog, I've probably made some mention about that.

BTW, I very strongly recommend reading Bertrand Russell, he's at the very least funny and incisive.

4. We do not live by our instincts and that's what separates us from animals.

According to vegans (and this cute little article stuck to the drinks machine along the walkway to the Central Library), by the same argument, just because we need to eat and are omnivourous does not justify eating animal protein and the general exploitation of animals. Good enough argument? You decide.

And anyway how do we determine what is Natural (issues of self-evidentness abound)? Furthermore, my reason tells me that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with pre-marital sex, nor nothing particularly prized about virginity. Whereas my instinct (reason more likely) tells me that admonishments about pre-marital sex and keeping of virginity is the hallmark of a patriachical society premised upon the subjugation of women and based upon an erroneous mode of superstition.

5. No connection between marital and pre-marital sex.
6. The use of the word marital in order to "confer some of the same moral connotation upon a non-martial relationship that would otherwise be questionable".

Why do and should we hold in esteem something that is nothing more than an error of history and language?

Other than for its ironic and fallacious value of course.

7. Sex in a relationship with marriage in view makes marriage conditional.

So what? The same goes for the whole idea of dating, meeting his family, registering at ROM and a whole host of other things when it comes to marriage as a <i>choice</i>. When marriage isn't a choice than the list of things the marriage is contingent on becomes longer.

Family astrologer meet other family astrologer.

8. Marriage as more than a mere ceremony.

And therefore? Then the argument needs to be that somehow sex and marriage are inextricably linked and not simply by social convention. And even if it were, it would be logically fallacious to argue that Not A therefore B. No, that would only be true if A and B were mutually exclusive and in this instance they are not.

Adding insult to injury was a rather fallacious use of the hypothetical and caricaturedd post-modernist. And even if one accepts her basic assertion that post-modernist (all?) view it as a monumental affair, a life changing experience if you will, again the question is raised, so what? The more important question then becomes what is marriage and why does it 'sanctify sex'.

Any reductionist argument on the side of the marital sex bunch tends to cluster around arguments based upon sex as a means and not an end in and of itself. While I agree that this might be a notionally valid veiwpoint, nevertheless, its weakness lies in its mistaken assessment of its a priori assumptions necessarily being true much less still valid even today.

People have sex for pleasure. Get over it already.

9. Tries to sweep away notion of changing nature of marriage by simply saying that the increase frequency of divorce does not change the nature of the MOMENT of marriage.

So what happens after the moment of marriage? If one logically extends her last line about how one would not like to have sex in a 'partial and conditional love', the implication must be then that marriage is about 'total and unconditional love'.

I pause to savour the absurdity of that statement.

Moving along and on a substantive ground let us examine the nature of marriage. In some countries the groom purchases the bride, in others the bride purchases the groom. In ancient Greece, the negotiations were handled entirely by the groom and the bride's father (who would give mead which was made from honey for an entire moon, hence the origins of the word honeymoon). Arranged marriages have persisted all the way till now and it beggers the belief that this is about total and unconditional love unless one buys into some Orwellian notion of doublethink like slavery is freedom and lack of choice is love.

So where does this notion of a love marriage come in? Even in Chaucer's time, the notion of romantic love was that of romantic courtship where the female held the 'reins' of power in the relationship. The notion, like the stories, were entirely fictitious and were created as a partial salve against the reality that women were often nothing more than chattel. In Singapore, the MCYS census were rather interesting revealing that many felt pressured into marriage either by their family/friends or by society. Companionship? About 30%.

I leave this last point to the sociologists to dissect, but for now ta!

Peace.

*A Sociological Exercise on Homosexuality*

If you were in NUS today and were wondering of the sudden proliferation of homosexual public displays of affection (PDA), the 'reason' is because of a sociological class on Human Relations, which decided to do an experiment today to see its effect on the student populace.

The following was related to me by Chew Lin.

It takes a lot more intimacy and explicitness to elicit a response to a female-female couple than a male-male couple.

For a male-male couple, simply holding hands was more than sufficient to get people to look. Some went as far as to stop and stare or to stop and gossip (apparently this was a phenonmena exclusive to female groups).

However, for a female-female couple, holding hands was thought to be insufficient and they decided to hold each other round the waist instead. No big deal it seems.

Feeding each other ice cream? Again no big deal (contrast to a guy pair doing this in the canteen).

Commenting that the other person's hair smelt nice? Again no response.

Finally Chew Lin pulled out the stops and decided to be really explicit in the co-op in the following 2 scenarios.
a) Standing in front of the condom selection with her 'lover' and commenting that the close fit condoms were designed for small penises, but that they (referring to her 'lover' and her) didn't have that problem did they? THAT got a big response from the people round them.

b) Standing in front of a table loaded with aromatheraphy stuff (which included chocolate, tea and other assorted things like massage oils) and talking about licking it off her 'lover's' toes or something to that effect. Again a similar response to the guys feeding each other or holding hands was elicited.

Yes, apparently she was the only one who could say all of that with a straight face.

Now, observant readers would realise that there was a potential flaw in the methodology used. There is no control couple. Therefore, one could very legitimately ask whether to what extent the shock or curiosity or both was due to the rather explicit nature of what she said or because they were a 'homosexual' couple.

So we decided to carry out a similar experiment using ourselves as 'bait'. With two friends who will remain anonymous, they followed us to observe reactions.

The condom reenactment was a bust because there were insufficient people around to hear us. One of the supposed observers struck up a conversation with a friend in the queue, the only person mind you, such that there were literary no members of the public.

So off to the aromatherapy section. One female lady, who looked to be your average NUS female undergraduate. All observations from here on are mine and solely mine and not the observeres.

So we started chatting with each other casually before ratcheting up the explicitness. First was the use of chocolate body sauce instead of melting chocolate because it took too much time. A glance to the side at us.

Then came the dangers of flamable stuff in the bedroom. And my further suggestion of the use of whipped cream. Slight pause and looking up (though not at us). From here on, it's quite apparent she's listening in without trying to appear too obvious.

Complaining about how chocolate hardens too soon to be of any use. Looks at us.

Chew Lin suggests the use of cream in the chocolate to slow down the hardening process. Again, side glance at us.

So there we have it. Assuming that she could be considered representative of the populace, it's not just the homosexuality bit but the idea that a couple is taking about events in the bedroom that would get similar reaction for according to Chew Lin that was about the level of attention she got in her earlier experiment.

Now I had thought the lady was a little non-pulsed and perhaps shocked. But according to the two observers, she was actually interested in listening to our conversation. So there's something to be said about 'confirmation bias' and perception being screened through our prejudices.

Peace!

Sex education in schools will remain secular - Feb 14, 2006

MOE: Guidance Branch - Sexuality Education

Shianux(Han) does a thorough fisking of an ST letter. It's so deverstating that I don't really think I can add anything to it. But the writer of the letter comes out looking either like a very sloppy research or a very incredulous one.

The top two links and their contents seems alright on a first reading, sort of like an all things to all person's kind of policy one would run when trying to find a compromise between the very real health issues that a comprehensive sex education is meant to address and on the other hand "to understand and respect the attitudes, values and beliefs regarding sexuality propagated by other communities."

Whatever that means.

I haven't had the opportunity to review the new curriculum and I don't think I had any sexual education back when I was in secondary school (beyond the very clinical one in my biology textbook) and warnings not to get distracted by members of the opposite sex (it seems that our seniors were tying up with their opposite counterpart from RGS).

The same went for junior college, this despite being what could be one of the most liberal and 'western' programme that one could be in JC. So it's very fortunate (and probably amazing) that none of my classmates got involved in the very real problems that comes with sex in whatever form.

Here's the interesting thing...

Complementing the curricular programme is the co-curricular package called the Growing Years series. It is developmental in nature, spanning the upper primary, lower secondary, upper secondary to post-secondary levels. Feedback from key stakeholders were gathered and incorporated in the development of the materials at every stage. The stakeholders, who represent the different religious and racial groups, include parents, community representatives, medical practitioners, social workers, youth workers, psychologists, legal professionals, students and teachers.

The Growing Years series addresses the subject of human sexuality from a holistic perspective, involving the intellectual, emotional, social, physical and ethical aspects of sexuality. These are covered under four main themes: Human Development, Interpersonal Relationships, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and, Society and Culture. Topics covered include the understanding gender identity, building rewarding and responsible relationships, consequences of teenage sexual activity and pregnancies (including abortion), masturbation, pornography, homosexuality, dating and going steady, cohabitation and marriage, and influence of the media. Abstinence is presented and promoted as it provides teenagers with the highest level of protection, being 100% safe against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. As the Growing Years series is value-based, parents are given the choice to opt their children out of the programme if they so desire. The opt-out rate by parents has been very low, at less than 1%.

One wonders whose values are being presented here. A quick glance at the list of stakeholders indicates that there is likely to be some form of conflict as to which of the policies are best likely to work.

Furthermore, it looks to me that some stakeholders are more equal than others if I read this paragraph right. The notion of value-based I think must be taken in contrast to the Framework for Sexuality Education which presumably focuses more on the basic science(?) in "provid(ing) accurate knowledge about human sexuality and the consequences of sexual activity so that pupils would be able to make carefully considered and informed decisions on sexuality matters". In which case, I think the narrow moralistic stance are more likely to win out in a simple situation of the most conservative denominator winning. I cannot see these groups willing to accept the notion that homosexuality may not be unnatural or a choice or that masturbation is a good alternative to sex.

The other worrying thing is that of the rise of "everything but" we see in America in response to pro-abstinence/abstinence only policies in schools. Since the focus is on vaginal intercourse, students end up staying within the letter but not the spirit of the law as they engage in other sexual activity that carries with it a similar if not higher risk of STDs (if not pregnancy). So while it may be technically accurate to say that abstinence is 100% effective, one needs to ask abstinent from what?

My posts on this topic may seem repetitious but what is worth mentioning is worth repeating.

Peace.

Sexuality workshop an eye-opener for teens - Feb 7, 2006

*Once more unto the Breach!*
Just a quick response today because the majority of the letter is anecdotal.

IN THE article 'Students cry foul over sexuality workshop that pushed these messages' (Sunday Times, Jan 29), reporter Jeremy Au Yong said a four-hour workshop of the Family Life Society irked some students.

It was held under the Education Ministry's guidelines to provide sexuality education for upper secondary and tertiary students. He said the teachings were 'too strong' because it discouraged contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization and human embryonic stem cell research and allegedly infringed on other freedoms of thought.

As a parent of two adult sons, a practising doctor, and a volunteer helper in orphanages locally and overseas, I am grateful to see that the Family Life Society is bringing traditional values on sexuality to the sexually active young here.

As a young medical student, I learned about infectious diseases such as gonorrhoea and syphilis. We saw men and women in venereal disease clinics with fear in their eyes as they passed pus from their genitalia in pain. We also saw the tears of women who had repeated strictures of the fallopian tubes because of venereal-transmitted disease. These women remained sterile.

Later, I would be one of the first to see the early cases of HIV and Aids in the United States. There was fear in the partner, knowing that to contact Aids was a death sentence and ostracism from their sexual partners.

At an orphanage overseas, we find that without the exceptional love of the care-givers, these orphaned children would be dead.

Some children were dumped on the streets by the single mums. If they were lucky and got picked up, they were saved. In other instances, abandoned babies could be eaten by hungry dogs.

Locally, in one of the new homes for 'battered children, and teenaged mums in crises', we try to provide them a shelter until the mum can complete her studies and learn her trade. I wondered. Was this a price of the freedom of sexual expression?

Yada yada yada. Nice anecdote but ultimately irrelevant and ending with a non-sequitur. The freedom of sexual expression may be mutually exclusive with a pro-abstinence approach, but it is not mutually exclusive with an abstinence plus or a comprehensive sexual education approach.

Therefore the real issue should not simply be whether the freedom of sexual expression is bad, for it's pretty much a moot question, but rather which policy advocated best prevents all these horrible things from happening. Pro-abstinence policies do NOT work. And definitely do not work as well as comprehensive sexual education. For links, statistics, citations, please refer to the previous post.

In fact, one has to wonder how much sexual education those 'battered women' (what the hell does this got to do with freedom of sexual expression anyway?) and teenage mothers got. Are you thinking what I'm thinking B1? Yes I think I am B2...

When my teenaged sons were growing up, my wife and I would reflect on the question 'what if both of us died suddenly, who would look after them? What if they picked up bad moral values and would not listen to our counseling?' My experiences in a public school helped me to guide my sons but like in my time, masturbation and homosexual behavior were not rare in the schools, though dating with the opposite sex was not frequent. We were free and unrestrained in what we wanted to do as long as we did not breach school discipline.

A little incoherent this. I really don't understand what his point his. Is he trying to associate freedom of sexual expression with bad values and morals?

Family Life Society has its opponents. While it champions responsible parenthood, the sanctity of marriage, the sexual act within marriage, and the precious value of all human life (regardless of how weak that life is), it also actively discourages euthanasia in all forms, such as contraception (where sperms are killed), abortion (where life is intentionally terminated), and embryonic stem cell research (where the hapless human life is destroyed).

If he's a medical doctor as is claimed above, then he's being disingenuous with regards to the human life bit. The scientific definition of human life is anything with human DNA, thus hair is human life and does not answer the broader issue of abortion and its morality. As for contraception, I think it's reflective that he only looks at male type contraception and besides nocturnal emissions kill sperm as well.

My sons are now responsible professionals. While we disagree from time to time, my wife and I still keep our traditional values.

The teenage sexually active school children here have been given an eye opener. It is now their choice.

Tradition good? *Shrugg* it all depends. I would seriously like to know what choice these school children were given, being lied to does not allow for an informed rational choice to be made. Not having access to the opposing viewpoint does not allow for any possible choice. At best it is a choice made out of ignorance, at worst, duress.

Peace.

*ST Article: Spike in number of teens with sex infections....but is there and so what?*

Hmmm, the title is not as punchy as I somewhat hoped it might have been. Here's a partial fisk for your edification. Personal comments are prefaced by a >.

Para 1.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people hit by sexually-transmitted infections

> Okay, catchy paragraph, let's see if it's properly substantiated with a longitudinal study preferably over a period of 5-10 years.

Para 2 - 3
Figures from the government-run DSC Clinic show that those aged 10 to 19 now form 6 per cent of all sexually transmitted infections (STIs) - double the 3 percent in 2002.

They accounted for only 206 cases in 2002, 490 in 2003 and about 600 cases last year.

> It's only 3 years but alright, that could still constitute a trend. I just wonder a number of things. 1. What's the repeat infection rate? 2. What sort of counselling if any does the clinic do? Is it only abstinence? In which case it's going to be less effective than the alternative of teaching safer sex.

If we're talking about a majority of people who repeatedly return for treatment, then the number of new patients admitted every year works out to be about 200 i.e. constant and given the birth rate of Singapore working out to be around 1.6-1.7, it means that the rate of new infections is actually dropping. Of course such a figure would mean that there were no infections in 2001, so a more reasonable figure would be what? 100-150? Anyway, the data wasn't on the DSC Clinic website, so anyone who has data would be greatly appreciated if you could send it over.

But fine, let's say there's this alarming trend in the number of teens having STI, then what's the cause behind it and we come to...

Paragraph 8 and 9
Counsellors at the clinic attribute this disturbing spike in sex diseases among the young to a cavalier attitude towards sex.

"Their more immediate concern is unplanned pregnancy and, ironically, they try to prevent this by the unrealiable withdrawal method," said Ms Theresa Soon, DSC's senior executive.

> URGH!!!! Nope they're not so much cavaliar as willfully and awfully misinformed. Sorry but when you have pro-abstinence groups peddling junk science like condoms don't work and can't prevent STIs and you should be all good boys and girls and not have sex before marriage (where you will suddenly and miraculously have all the knowledge you need to have sex and prevent unwanted STIs and pregnancy), what the hell do we expect?

1. Preaching and I use the word preaching, abstinence doesn't work. It's terribly alienating and people will tend to want to have sex regardless of what you say and not equiping them with the knowledge and skill to know what they're going is gross negligence. Even if you manage to convert all the people on the margins to believe in abstinence, there's still going to be a core who will have sex regardless of what you say and they are the ones you need to reach out to.

2. An abstinence only policy (as opposed to the Abstinence plus policy that I adovcate) is mutually exclusive to teaching about safer sex and this has severe repecussions on STIs. It's not simply, as Ms Theresa Soon knows and implies through her statement, about preventing unwanted pregnancies. It is also about preventing STIs. Hands up all those of you who know that STIs can be transmitted through unprotected oral sex. In fact any form of penetrative sex can lead to the transmission of STIs.

More than that though, condoms if properly used work, tremendously well. Not as well as ABSOLUTE abstinence perhaps (see oral sex comment above and an impossible pipe dream) but way better than what Focus on the Family claims. Click here for a meta-study on condom effectiveness by NZ MOH or hell, just use a google search on "effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs". The organisations that promulgate the who ineffectiveness of condoms bit tend to be right wing christian fundamentalist groups.

3. The link in the above two. Given that condoms are made out to be about as effective as the withdrawal method or condoms, guess which one a young teenage male will prefer. Gee. We have a duty to our young female citizens as well, and perhaps it's time to get over some outmoded moral quesiness and perhaps think about allowing teenage girls to obtain oral contraceptives. IT'S THEIR BODY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. Why the hell we regulate some parts of it while not allow them to take control of their own bodies? But more importantly, expecting females to be able to control their sexual partners to such an extent that they can effectively make them wear condoms is a little too much to expect. Why haven't we started bringing in female condoms yet?

Which brings me very nicely to paragraph 10 and the incident from the 16 year old Normal Stream student who has had sex with 4 partners and was forced to have sex with her first boyfriend but began to enjoy it 6 months later when she dated a 28 yo man.

> Before I begin with the serious discussion bit, let me indulge in a little juvenile humour. I don't get the bit about the 28 yo man except that it probably proves the point that good sex requires experience and practice. So in the absence of actual practicals, theory might help. Perhaps we should provide 'fornication manuals' in schools then. If we believe that reading stuff makes them more knowledgable or better people (moral and civics education for example) then I don't see the real problem with erotica being made available at a younger age. Before you start lighting torches and picketing my place, please note the following: to purchase a Playboy in Australia requires you to be 15. In the Scandenavian countries, it's 14.

But the more serious issue is this. This paragraph is utterly irrelevant in the sense that having sex does not NECESSARILY equate to a higher risk of STIs. She was forced to have sex so I really don't see the bearing on any part of the earlier paragraphs. But more importantly it fails again to distinguish between the 'morality' of pre-martital sex and the necessity of equiping teens to know how to have safer sex.

Which allows me to end with the final quote Madam Halimah Yacob who says, "We need to strengthen the value system of our young, so that they understand the virtues of keeping chaste and shun pre-marital sex and promiscuity." Let's just hope that their husbands and wifes don't fool around then. And that after years of keeping them in ignorance, they will suddenly know everything.

Peace.

Princeton group promotes chastity

*Sigh*

I'm going to try to see if they have a full website and then do a full level, DefCon 5 fisking. In the meantime, I'll just content myself with snarky comments. But let's just do a little a thought experiment and bring it over to Singapore.

Consider the following. The average age for a Singaporean male in University is about 21 years of age. At that age, he has a casting vote and is capable of putting it in a ballot box where it will be counted. He has a say (somewhat) is the running of the country and can in fact stand for parliament and become a Member of Parliament where he will have the locus standi to introduce bills that become the laws of the state. He would have finished 2 1/2 years of National Service where he would have at the very least learnt how to use a weapon. In my case, quite a number of weapons. As a Medic Specialist (NCO to all my foreign readers), I have men under my command and I am responsible for their lives and wellbeing. As a Senior Medic or even a company medic I am responsible for the lives and health of men not even under my direct command. By this time, I can be sent to the gallows if I commit a capital crime, and will be treated as an adult under the law for the purposes of sentencing and determination of criminal liability. The law states that at the age of majority I am presumed to have the capability to enter to contracts and sign over my work and body for the purpose of employment (actually you can do that at 14).

And after all that, I can't make a decision as to when I should have sex? And you mean to tell me that Princeton undergraduates are idiots who can't think?!

Peace!

p.s. this is a work in progress and there is more to come.

Addendum: Ahhh, forget it. They already lampoom themselves.