Look deeper

Recently there is a study and the focus is on Indians are ignorant about sex till age 15. From the western perspective, this is a problem, but is it?

If a kid body temperature is found to be 37.8 degrees Celsius, it is an issue from the western medicine perspective, but is it? During the SARS in 2003, guidelines were given to disallowed children with fever to go to school. However, there were a number of kids were being kept away from school for many days because their daily temperature ranges much higher than the "normal" 37 degrees. Later, it was recognized that ... although their measured temperatures were higher than 37 degrees, they are not having fever nor feeling unwell.

So, what's going on? We should not just look at numbers and forget about the context. The normal 37 degrees is an average derived from observations, but not based on theory. For a person who is not similar to those being observed, or even for an individual among those observed, we shouldn't insist that the person normal temperature be that average.

Another example, if there were a study on general knowledge regarding winter, I am quite sure that Singaporeans will have extremely low scores. However, this will not be a worry because such knowledge is not relevant in Singapore, unless the weather changes drastically. Put it another way, it is not that Singaporeans have failed to acquire winter knowledge or Singapore education system has overlooked this area, but the circumstances here doesn't require us to know so much about winter.

So, what does the result Indians are ignorant about sex till age 15 suggest? Does it suggest that Indians are in danger because of this ignorant? Does it mean the India education system is behind time? I seriously don't think so. It should reflect that in India, most people do not need to worry about these knowledge because they are relatively much safer than the western world as they are not too affected by the bad influences from the sexual revolution since the 60's [yet].

Thus, the alarm is that how could we delay or avoid the influence of the terrible sexual revolution?

"You can't" and "I can"

What are the differences between these two phrases: "You can't get good score" and "I can get good score"?

The former focus on "you" and what you "can't" achieve, while the latter focus on "I" and what I "can" achieve.

What is the reason to make the first type of statement? When it is more likely to focus on "you" then "I" and "can't" than "can". What kind of situations could that be? ...
When there isn't much to say about "I" and/or about "can".

When a person can achieve something, would he be interested in telling people that who are the people who can't achieve it? I don't think so. Thus, when someone is telling the world who can't achieve something, I bet the unmentioned fact is that this person also can't achieve it.

Thus, when we read news such as Abstinence [programmes] 'not effective', I bet the opponents also didn't achieve effectiveness, else shouldn't they mention it? Also, it should suggest that there are growing number of supportive people and beliefs that abstinence programmes work, which typically imply there are evidence that abstinence programmes work. Furthermore, by conducting studies targeting on some selected abstinence programmes, but none of other programmes, is quite a bias approach.

More importantly, the results only suggest that the situation is quite bad, and I don't think they are showing that the situation is getting worse. In addition, abstinence programmes are not controlled experiments where the subjects are not allowed to be influence by many other things that they are exposed to in their daily life. I would say that common sense should point towards the argument that when abstinence programmes are not effective yet, shouldn't we reinforce them, and tune down other counter influences, especially in media and adults' behaviors, that are undermining the effectiveness of such programmes.

E.g. "Have sex without love is wrong, or isn't ideal" should be a better and correct message than "Have sex before the age of 16 is not allowed" which is obviously a way for adults to hide from guilt.

Can I say that to have intimacy is to infect each other?

In an excerpt, Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak, of an article in CNSNews.com:

But the media are now obscuring that fact, according to Matt Barber, director of cultural policy for Concerned Women for America (CWA).
“The real story here is the way that the media have whitewashed this outbreak,” Barber told Cybercast News Service. “It is amazing to see what they’ve done with this.”…

and ...

Medically speaking, any break in the skin that is exposed to the organism can then set off an infection, which can destroy “a lot of tissue” before it’s brought under control, [Internationally known infectious disease specialist Dr. John] Diggs said.

Since the main media have whitewashed such news due to concerns about political correctness, let the side media like bloggers who do not have political correctness concerns spread these important information out.

Looking at the medical perspective on infection, it seems like most intimacy behaviors are acts of infecting the other party. Thus, having only one partner in one's lifetime is a smart choice!

No Sex Allowed - Milo Turk

CD: Available from cd Universe.

Video: His performance during the American Idol audition, on youtube:

Lyrics: this is the best I could manage to put together the lyrics found on the web:

I'm sitting around minding my biz
Something is wrong and I don't know what it is
My love comes around she's an Oedipus Rex
She starts playing with me, all she wants is Sex
But take it from me hear what I say
I don't need that there's a better way

So I promised her love as she sings along
Cause sex is weak and love is strong
Whoooooooo
No Sex Allowed
I don't want to be part of your crowd
No Sex Allowed
If you don't like it - Get out of Town!

We touch and we feel our bodies just so
whether she's satisfied, I don't know
She complains that she wants to go all the way,
I think about it myself, but then I say
"Stop it now, the subject's getting old,
cause you don't use no birth control…."

She said "listen boy, what's the matter with you,
don't you dare deny that you want sex too,"
I said "it's something that you can't explain,
you're headed for the sun like a fool in the rain."
HIV, pregnancy, and then what's next,
is it really worth it to have sex?

One for all and All for One

Is vaccine for you? Actually, most people had it without saying yes, or even ever had had this question in their head. However, in this era, what's the chance that you will be infected if you were not vaccinated? The chance could be very low for certain infections that certain vaccines are designed for. So, should someone then say, "It isn't for me."

Some years back I heard a discussion regarding should individual choice or rights be ignored for the sake of welfare of the population, and make it compulsory for all to be vaccinated?

In 18 Dec 07 TodayOnline's article: a 56 year-old man said: "It's not for me … It's good for single, young men only. Elder and married men like me who have only one partner are more decent and safe." If a person is safe, there isn't any big different to go for the test, other than the extra few dollars to pay. If only "more" decent and safe, i.e. not 100% safe, isn't it good to be tested? And, even if you have only one partner, not questioning faithfulness, but you can't know for sure if your partner is also decent and safe.

Also, another 54 year-old man said: "Testing isn't for me — the more you know, the more problems there will be." This is similar to choosing not to be vaccinated because somebody would rather die if infected. However, this is not about a single person's life, but about avoiding potential epidemic of infectious diseases that can cause much much more lives.

So, one test for the benefits of all, and all live properly for the benefit of One Human Race.

Sex education: the ABC Model, and Is abstinence education bad?

Just found and would like to read these two articles:

A Primer on the ABC Approach to HIV
and
The Attack on Abstinence Education: Fact or Fallacy?

Go Speeding

We know that it is dangerous to speed. In educational materials that tell drivers don’t speed, we don't see a further message that says, if drivers really cannot abstain from speeding, then please wear more protective gears, just in case.

Let suppose someone were to produce a video to curb speeding behaviors.

A catchy title is chosen: “Go Speeding.” 99.9% of the contents are about the potential fatal consequences of speeding such as lost of lives, both one’s own and others’, heart pain of loved ones, permanent injuries, and etc. That is, a very strong and clear message of “don’t speed!”

However, for the sake of some who just couldn’t help but will surely go speeding, the producer also includes “DVD extras” such as how to wear proper and top notch protective gears, do regular checks and maintenance on the vehicle, speed only on familiar roads, and etc.

I doubt any traffic related authority will agree to the inclusion of the above “DVD extras.” It basically tells the audience that you may still go speeding, contradicting the “don’t speed!” message.

I think it is not an issue to most, if not all, that why educational materials for drivers only send the “don’t speed!” message, without, at the same time, also giving advises to some people who just couldn’t help but speed.

Yes, it is also important to know about safety precautions. However, these safety precautions in driving are for normal driving, and should not be used to suggest that speeding is conditionally acceptable. Furthermore, these safety precautions are designed for, and are only quite, but not fully effective to prevent injuries in accidents during normal driving. These are not designed for speeding scenario.

This article is not about traffic safety. This is about a recently DVD entitled "Go Have Sex."

I find it illogical to include the “DVD extras” in the “Go Have Sex” DVD. The “safe sex” message simply contradicts the “no pre-marital sex” message.

Yes, it is also beneficial to know about contraceptive measures. However, these contraceptive measures are for family planning, and should not be used to suggest that pre-marital and extra-marital sex are conditionally acceptable. Furthermore, condoms and the likes are designed for, and are only quite, but not fully effective to prevent pregnancy in normal sexual life, i.e. within marriage. These are not designed for prevention of STDs infections, and pre-marital and extra-marital sexual lifestyles would further reduce their effectiveness.

To all parents and educators, please do not include contradictory contraceptive materials when sending the “no pre-marital sex” message!

What does 800 births by teen single mom in a year imply?

800 is not a small number, but it doesn't seem to suggest a serious situation.
Lets see if...
For some of these moms, this birth was not their first pregnancy.
For majority of them, this pregnancy is not a first time "success".
For many other teens, they might just have avoidedbecoming a mom, i.e. "succeeded to abort".

Lets give just the above 3 considerations some numbers...
On the average, assume that
this birth was the 2nd pregnancy;
this pregnancy was the 6th "try";
these 800 moms were the "very unlucky" ones at the ratio of 1:10.
These numbers were rough guesses, and I don't think they are the extremes.

Thus, there are at least 800*2*6*10 = 96000 sexual acts by unmarried teenage girls, in just a year.
Individual "freedom" does not give them rights to create or risk creating lives in such irresponsible manners!!!!

How small is 0.3%?

0.3%, the estimated ratio of HIV positive people who are not aware of it.
0.3% is 0.3 per 100, or 3 per 1000, or about 1 per 350.
Seems small..
Consider these:
The population being studied were from blood samples collected at hospitals.
It is sort of bias towards people whose blood were for some reason collected at hospitals.
Nevertheless, it is not obvious that there are more or less "high-risk" behavior people in this group as compared to the general population.
On the other hand, it is obvious that vast majority of the population do not practice "high-risk" behaviors, and it is reasonable to believe that majority of these 0.3% are those who have "high-risk" behaviors.
Thus, my message to those who want to feel that 0.3% is very low and continue your "high-risk" behaviors:
Among the high-risk communities, the ratio is much higher than 0.3%.
For example, if we assume that there are 10% high-risk behaving people, and among these, 50% do not feel that they are infected without recent testing, then the 1:350 ratio might become 0.5:35, or 1:70 or 1.4%!
Personally, I believe 10% is too high an assumption, and 50% too low. What if it were 1% and 90%? Then we have 0.9:3.5, or 1:3.85 or 25.7%!!!

High-risk behaviour

What a nice term! What do we think of people with high-risk behaviour?
Are these people brave? E.g. some performers put themselves in danger by getting close to dangerous animals such as snakes, crocodiles, scorpions, etc.
Are these people skillful? E.g. stuntman and sports man in sports such as diving and gymnastic who risk injuries to carry out actions of high difficulties for movie filming and other entertaining or fund raising purposes.
Are these people sacrificing? E.g. soldiers who volunteer themselves to fight in the front lines to protect their love ones and homeland.
Sigh, the term usually does not refer to the above. It is use to describe people who have multiple sex partners, and therefore risking themselves and their partners to infection of STDs, HIV and the likes. "High-risk" is too neutral a term to be used. Should use terms such as irresponsible, selfish, lustful, inconsiderate, thoughtless, uncaring, careless, reckless, foolish, negligent, etc.!

Why vs How

Imagine a day when pistols became very common. The problem of increased bullet-wounded deaths become significant.

What is more important to do between these two approaches:
a) To teach people at the earliest age possible and relevant on HOW to properly use pistols.
b) To strenthen the conscience and maturity of people from the earliest age possible on living a life that benefits everyone.

To me, it is obviously the latter.

Now, change "pistol" to "condom/contraceptive method", and "bullet-wounded deaths" to "extra-marrital births".

My answer is still (b). What's yours?

Don't do it! However if ... then do it with precaution.

The traffic police knows it is dangerous for motorcyclists to ride in between vehicles rather than on the middle of the lane. They try to educate them to bring across this message. In nowhere did they suggest that, if motorcyclists really cannot abstain from riding dangerously, then please wear more protective gears, just in case.

This blog entry is not about traffic safety. I just find the above to be so common sense that nobody questions the traffic police for only asking motorcyclists to abstain from dangerous riding behaviors, without giving any advice for those who just refuse to the abstainence message.

Now, on the issue of extra-marrital sexual behaviors, historically it has been proper for sexual behaviors within marriage and between husband and wife. Yet, when only abstinence is being taught, many people think that safe sex should also be mentioned. In contrast to the traffic analogy above, this is RIDICULOUS!

Just ask the police or anyone what they think would happen if the motorcyclists were also told after all the talk on riding properly, that if they really cannot abstain, then please wear more protective gears.