Crossing Your Fingers with Abstinence-Only Sex Education

40 Percent of Young Adults Think Birth Control 'Doesn't Matter':

In abstinence-only sex education classes across the country, kids are taught that condoms have a 30 percent failure rate, that the pill causes cancer, and that pregnancy can result from touching another person's genitals -- if the curriculum mentions contraception at all. It's no wonder that many young adults don't understand how birth control works. A new Guttmacher study quizzed 1,241 sexually active young adults between 18 and 29 about contraception, asking them to choose "true" or "false" for basic statements like "all IUDs are banned from use in the United States" or "condoms have an expiration date." More than half of young men and a quarter of young women received a D or F on the quiz. Six in 10 underestimated the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.

Unsurprisingly, the more young people knew about birth control, the less likely they were to have unprotected sex. For each correct response a woman scored on the quiz, her odds of expecting unprotected sex in the next three months decreased by 9 percent. Meanwhile, her chances of using a hormonal or long-acting reversible method of birth control increased by 17 percent.

And it's not as if the ones forgoing contraception are ready to become parents: 69 percent of the women and almost half of the men claimed to be "committed to avoiding pregnancy." A full 40 percent of them agreed that birth control really doesn't matter -- "when it is your time to get pregnant," they agreed, "it will happen." In other words, a significant number of young people's "commitment" to remaining childless involves crossing their fingers, not wearing condoms or swallowing pills.

As discussed in this Salon article -- Why Obama's in bed with abstinence-only education -- the Obama Administration funds ridiculously ill-informed abstinence-only sex education, including the Heritage Keepers Abstinence Education.

The government shouldn't be involved in sex education -- or education -- at all... but given that it does so already, it ought not fund dangerous religious dogma.

Read more...

Video: Is Public Breastfeeding Indecent?

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed public breastfeeding. The question was:

Is breastfeeding children in public wrong? My wife and I want to have kids, and one question we have concerns public breastfeeding. Is it immodest or improper to breastfeed in public? Should stores permit or forbid it on their premises? Should public breastfeeding be restricted or banned by law as indecent?

My answer, in brief:

People ought to support public breastfeeding, even if they prefer not to look at it. It's not a sexual act, and mothers should be able to feed their babies when they're out and about.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Read more...

Webcast Video: Consent in Sex

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed consent in sex. The question was:

What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?

My answer, in brief:

To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Warning: This video is loooong at 42 minutes. (It's a new record for me!)

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Read more...

Discussions of Atheism and Transgender in Sunday's Webcast

In Sunday's live Rationally Selfish Webcast, I'll be answering two questions that might be of particular interest. The questions are:

Which bathroom should a pre-operative transgendered person use? The brutal attack at McDonald's on a transgendered person in April 2011 was apparently started because that person used the ladies restroom, which was already occupied by a 14 year old. Was the transgendered person wrong to use that restroom?

And:

How much should I tell my parents about my beliefs, given that I'm still financially dependent on them? I'm in college, and if I told my parents that I'm an atheist, they'd probably stop paying my tuition. Should I tell them now, or wait until I'm done with college?

Go to www.RationallySelfish.com on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET to watch me answer these questions live and join in the text chat.

Here's the full announcement for this week's webcast:

For Sunday's live Rationally Selfish Webcast, I'll answer questions on the purpose of bankruptcy law, bathrooms for the transgendered in transition, private versus state prisons, revealing atheism to religious parents, and more. Come join the discussion!

• What: Live Webcast on Practical Ethics


• Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins


• When: Sunday, 30 October 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET


• Where: www.RationallySelfish.com

Here are this week's questions:

• Question 1: The Purpose of Bankruptcy Law: What is the proper purpose of bankruptcy laws? When should a person renegotiate his debt with lenders, if ever? Should a person be able to wipe his debt clean by going into bankruptcy? In your July 10, 2011 webcast discussion of strategic default on mortgages, you suggested that a person shouldn't be able to do that, but shouldn't lenders be responsible for who they lend money to?


• Question 2: Bathrooms for the Transgendered in Transition: Which bathroom should a pre-operative transgendered person use? The brutal attack at McDonald's on a transgendered person in April 2011 was apparently started because that person used the ladies restroom, which was already occupied by a 14 year old. Was the transgendered person wrong to use that restroom?


• Question 3: Private Versus State Prisons: Should prisons be run by the state or private companies? After reading this Huffington Post article, I wonder whether prisons should be run by private companies or the state. I tend to think private is almost always better than anything state-run, but the current system of private prisons seems to be corrupt at best. More generally, what would a prison system look like in a free society?


• Question 4: Revealing Atheism to Religious Parents: How much should I tell my parents about my beliefs, given that I'm still financially dependent on them? I'm in college, and if I told my parents that I'm an atheist, they'd probably stop paying my tuition. Should I tell them now, or wait until I'm done with college?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

If you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen later to the audio-only podcasts. Visit NoodleCast to listen to past episodes or subscribe to the podcast feed. Also, you can submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

Read more...

Two Videos on the Ethics and Politics of Nudity

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I discussed two questions on private and public nudity. Since people's views on this topic are often driven by religion, I thought that I'd post the videos of my answers here.

The first question was:

What's the proper approach to nudity? Should we all be nude all the time? Should nudity be saved for your lover only? Should children see their parents naked? Should we have clothing-optional get-togethers with friends? Basically, what is your view of the proper contexts for nudity?

Here's the video of my answer:

The second question was:

Do restrictions on nudity and sex visible to others violate rights? While having a zestful online debate, someone claimed that Ayn Rand contradicts herself in claiming that public nudity should be censored. (See "Thought Control" in The Ayn Rand Letter.) Since sex is a beautiful act, why should people be protected from it? Could a ban on visible pornography or sex be a slippery slope to other intrusions by government?

Here's the video of my answer:

If you like them, please share them! Also, all my webcast and other videos can be found on my YouTube channel.

My next live Rationally Selfish Webcast -- where I answer questions on practical ethics and living well -- will be on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. You can submit and vote on questions, as well as watch the live webcast and join the chat, from www.RationallySelfish.com.

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

• Question 1: Fear of Death: Should death be feared? Why or why not? Also, why do most people fear death? How can a person overcome that, if ever?
  
  
• Question 2: Using the Do Not Call Registry: Should the "Do Not Call" Registry exist? The National Do Not Call Registry was established in 2003, and it's run by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Is this legitimate? Does a person have a right not to be called by solicitors and other unwanted persons? Given that there was no real attempt to come up with a private, market-based solution for the issue of unwanted solicitations, was this a legitimate case of "market failure"? Should advocates of free markets put themselves on the "Do Not Call" list and/or report violators thereof? Why shouldn't a person just hang up?
  
  
• Question 3: Genetic Influences on Thinking: Do our genes affect our reasoning? Evolution makes fruit taste sweet and burning human flesh smell awful. Presumably, evolution can hard wire pleasures and pains because interaction with that thing has caused our ancestors to live longer or die earlier. Wouldn't this same process make certain actions easier or more difficult, such as sacrificing yourself to save your child versus watching your child die? Couldn't evolution affect that decision by making focus more difficult, so that a person is easier impelled by his immediate emotions?
  
  
• Question 4: The Morality of Selling Your Body: Is it moral to sell your body? Selling our bodies or certain parts of them are perfectly acceptable in our society, such as being an egg or sperm donor, being a pregnancy surrogate, or selling hair. But others are condemned, such as prostitution or selling organs. Where should the line be drawn? When is it moral to sell a part of oneself -- and why?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

If you're unable to attend the live webcast, you can listen to these webcasts later as NoodleCast podcasts by subscribing in iTunes to either the enhanced M4A format or the standard MP3 format.

Read more...