Free University for Virgins Wednesday, July 20, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/20/uganda.virgins.reut/index.htm KAMPALA, Uganda (Reuters) -- A Ugandan member of parliament has pledged to reward girls for their chastity by paying their university fees if they are virgins when they leave school, a local newspaper said on Wednesday. Bbaale County MP Sulaiman Madada said any girl in his district who wanted to take part in the scheme aimed at promoting girls' education would be given a gynecological examination by health workers to check they were virgins. ~ Oh this is just perfect! Can you imagine if this became college policy here?
I'm shocked you'd support something that gives scholarships to people who engage only in anal and oral sex. This whole thing is ridiculous.
Now ITN is supporting a program that is championed in Uganda. I know you're winking, but if that really happened, that's when I would give up on hope for America. No one has any right to tell someone whether they can have sex or not, and then give favoritism to those who didn't when they go into college (and it's government supported).
On the other hand: It is well-documented that Africa has the highest AIDS rate in the world, and it is not from the use of dirty needles by heroin addicts. Sexual promiscuity is the recognized culprit. A cross country coaching associate of mine recently returned from Kenya where he studied their training methods. In addition to learning about their technique, he also learned that 90% of Kenyan children are born into households where the bio-dad is either totally absent the child's life, or available only sporadically. So if a program like this is of benefit in combating this trend and the spread of disease; great.
According to a survey (can't find the link), girls who take an abstinence pledge are much more likely to engage in anal or oral sex, since they believe that they are remaining abstinent.
So there needs to be programs started to teach that those two behaviors are bad as well and full of risks... the threat of AIDS in the African nation means that ABSTINENCE is a requirement rather than a goal... Take a look at the fatality rates from AIDS in Africa! This is no joking matter anymore! And at the rate the western nations are heading, we will be in the exact position soon....
There may be a time in our lives, here in America, very soon actually, due to AIDS, STDs, and other sexually transmitted fatal diseases, that Abstinence is required and a monogamous marriage compulsory. That thought should give pause to those mocking it, and mocking the teaching of it, in the classroom.
If it works, great, but children who have received enough education to go to college are probably more likely to be informed about HIV already. Even Pat Robertson has acknowledged that condom use is essential for lowering the rate of transmission of HIV.
For the first time, on a mass societal level, in human history. How the hell did this place become Politics II?
I agree, but "book learning" doesn't guarantee it. In the final analysis, anything that suggests an alternative to abstinence, pure and simple, sideways, backwards or upside down, will keep one free from disease, is to have the priority wrong.
Much to your proper chagrin, I did not advocate the behaviors or actions you alleged. I do, however, support the Ugandan member of Parliament and his plan, simply because half his nation is dying from AIDS and he is left with few options... You should post an occasional opinion on topic, rather than simply an opinion on the posters.
No one denies that abstience is the only 100% sure way to avoid contracting an STD (unless you're born with it or raped). However, back in the real world . . .
Plus, your point about education is well taken to begin with. Given that... 1. ...you're almost certainly right: educated people worldwide are less likely to engage in high risk behaviors, especially compared to uneducated urban and rural poor--it's safe to assume the same applies in Uganda 2. ...money available for prevention programs in Africa is scarce, so the highest priority is to apply it where there is the greatest need ...is investing money in a plan to create a small number of 22 year old virgins a worthwhile investment of these funds? Plus, the whole thing smacks of the same old paternalistic same old: "Got a sex-related problem? Let's batten down the babes!"
Because teenagers, whether you like it or not, will have sex. And instead of evading this reality, it's required that they know how to protect themselves. And there's hardly an epidemic in this country.
Agree with this. This, not so much. Granted, the new infection rates slowed among white MSM dramatically, and the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapies made a huge difference in AIDS related mortality rates beginning in the late '90s here, but this improvement has begun to slow and death rates have leveled off in the last couple of years. Despite these welcome trends, in 2003 (latest published stats from the NIH) AIDS related causes were the number 7 killer in the US. The number of new AIDS cases per year bottomed out at around 40,000 in 2000 but has begun to climb again and was above 44,000 in 2003 (I think 1995 was the highest, with around 75,000 new cases). And there are some frightening trends: new infections among women are increasing, especially African American women, new infections among young MSM are increasing, probably related to crystal meth and ecstasy use coupled with decreased concern over HIV due to the new treatments. So while you're right the epidemic is nowhere near as bad here in the US as in Uganda, it's still worth calling an epidemic. None of this, IMO, makes paying college students to be virgins a sensible strategy for combatting HIV, however. Which was your basic point, I take it.
*sigh* Again, you miss my point. It barely had anything to do with you. I don't have time to explain it to you either.
Good dig. Saved me some time. Why should everyone in the world have to suffer just because ITN couldn't get laid in college?
Heaven forbid we should TRY to do something that WILL reduce the rate of STDs in the world. I do not understand why some people feel that telling kids the truth about the ONLY GUARANTEED WAY TO PREVENT STDs IS ABSTINENCE in the hope that maybe 5% will follow that advice who would not do so if the responsible adults in their lives didn't tell them. But "no." Let's let just give them a pack of condoms and send them on their way because, you know, those hormones just rage... It never ceases to amaze me how many people on this forum just can't wait to criticize or maginalize the impact of telling kids the truth. The excuse that "it is hard to do" is just garbage. Lots of things are hard to do. Adults that take that approach are wimps who have bought into far too much pop psych.
Well, maybe in your imaginary Either-Or Land where you can pick from one of only two possible solutions, sure. But in America, where I attended school, they teach kids about contraceptives and how non-vaginal sex can be riskier while ultimately preaching abstinence. Then again, you wrote a part of your post in all caps and bolded it, I guess you're right. Because in real life, people who shout, gesture wildly and accuse people they disagree of being wimps are the ones who make the most sense.