you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 7 hours ago* (4 children)

Without data from an intuitive standpoint I can see where she may think sex ed could lead to an increase in pre-marital (I assume teenage) sex, even if more but safer sex is still preferable to less but more risky sex. So I did a quick search and it appears that she’s just wrong anyway!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

    The premise still fails, it assumes teenagers are rational actors.

    Are you really going to state that your Axiom is teenagers weigh risks and benefits from all available information?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    I’m confused. What I’m saying is that without looking at data I could totally see someone imagining a teenager saying “oh, cool, I don’t have to worry about having a kid if I just use a condom” then having more sex because of that. And if I could imagine that for one teen, then I could imagine it for many. That doesn’t seem to be the case though based on the link I shared.

    Are you saying teenagers are incapable of weighing pros and cons? Because that wouldn’t make sense. That’s exactly what they’re doing when they play CoD(teens still play that, right?) and decide using a shotgun is the best choice on the Cargo map. Just because their reasoning is less developed doesn’t mean it’s not there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago

    don’t have to worry about having a kid

    No. The current situation is they

    don’t worry about having a kid

    Adding info doesn't change the fact that they are not considering consequences, or value the consequences so low vs the immediate result.

  • source
  • parent