According to a recent report by ABC News, "One in 10 Men Has Multiple Sex Partners.":
At any given time, a significant percentage of men are engaging in multiple sexual partnerships with women -- a situation that may facilitate the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
The headline is dramatic but buried in the details reported is that the actual percentage was 6.6 and they "adjusted" the numbers to come up with "as high as" 11. The article also makes a number of sweeping generalizations designed to convey the idea that this is an issue the public needs to be worried about.
But then, the truth, buried near the end, comes out:
Adimora agrees that other factors could be at play, as men who engaged in concurrent sexual relationships also seemed to have other behaviors in common.
"Men who did have concurrent relationships were more likely to be intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, to have relationships with women who had multiple partners, and to have had sexual relationships with men in the past," she said.
And then the clincher - the policy recommendations that go with all this:
"We need approaches that will remove health disparities caused by poverty, stigma and discrimination, poor access to health care and education," Coleman said. "We need to develop a sexual health approach to HIV infection which will provide sexuality education, access to sexual health care, all which is culturally sensitive and relevant."
In other words, this kind of aberrant, dangerous behavior is confined to easily identified subgroups of the population, but we are going to use it as a club to bring graphic sex ed straight to your kids.
What I want to know is why doesn't "cultural sensitivity" extend to our values?
Comments (5)
Because your values are outdated, originating in a time long before contraception when sex and reproduction were inseperably linked. Times change. It just takes a while for some people to catch up.
November 1, 2007 4:47 AM | Comment Permalink
What I can't understand is why is telling anyone who is in danger of getting a deadly disease a sensitive issue. What's wrong with the plan old truth. Why is it that the public becomes responsible for the unhealthy behaviors of a group of irresponsible individuals who should know better but apparently don't care. I do believe that truth in education is more important than trying to solve the problem created by not telling the truth about sexual behaviors that can lead to STD's.
November 1, 2007 2:22 PM | Comment Permalink
Your post is titled "Spinning Research 101".
I guess you graduated from class requirement "Spinning Research 100" with flying colors, as demonstrated by yours and Tony's claims on CNBC in October 2006 and in Perkins web post "The Politically Incorrect Truth".
FRC claimed:
Of course, you guys left out the fact that the study was based on only 35 men. Yup. 35. Pitiful.
For a refresher course, read Boxturtlebulletin's succinct account of yours and Tony's rather smarmy misuse of statistics on sexual behavior.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2006/10/08/105
Not to mention his update on the issue.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2006/10/20/116
Perhaps I'm not "culturally sensitive" enough, but when did it become morally acceptable for so-called Christian political organizations to misrepresent the truth and outright lie?
November 5, 2007 8:42 PM | Comment Permalink
Why should the multitude pay for the sins of a few. The liberals have always given them excuses for their behavior or they have a "right" to behave in dangerous behaviors. Why is it, they are always crying to the rest of us that these problems are ours and we should pay for it
November 8, 2007 3:50 PM | Comment Permalink
Nice pointing out of the FRCs previous statistical abuses. My blog has quite a number too - I find the FRC has a very poor record on statistical matters.
Pat: Who is not 'telling the truth'? The dangers of STDs are already well publicised. All sex-ed programs cover them, both comprehensive and abstinance-only. The problem here is that a significent number of people, fully aware of the dangers, go ahead with casual unprotected sex regardless.
November 16, 2007 7:10 AM | Comment Permalink