Abstinence only vs Sex Education

Post by **Elwing** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:11 am

Not to interrupt anything or whatever, but I thought the onion is being very funny again.

On the other hand, the mindframe of one senator Coburn in this article is very worrying indeed. I'm still hoping he is misquoted or something, but seriously?

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:35 pm

Originally posted by Elwing
Not to interrupt anything or whatever, but I thought the onion is being very funny again.

On the other hand, the mindframe of one senator Coburn in this article is very worrying indeed. I'm still hoping he is misquoted or something, but seriously?

I don't get why people think abstinence education programs will/are working. Do these people NOT remember being 16? Even if these programs effect a few kids who will wait for marriage (:rolleyes), what about the kids who don't? We offer them nothing then?

I found this part of that article most interesting:

â€œWhen it came to preventing sexually transmitted diseases, students in the [abstinence] programs fared no better than those in the control group [who received no abstinence education]. The study also found that students who promised to remain virgins were less likely to use contraception when they did have sex, and they were less likely to seek S.T.D. testing.â€

Post by **Elwing** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:04 pm

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLIC ... /fsest.htm

has a nice overview. Can't check their facts, but several other sites seem to confirm this general picture. What I can confirm is that in the netherlands:
-abortion has been fully legal since the 1960's.
-the pill used to be free as well, and nowadays is still largely paid for by the government.
-sexual education is taught in biology class in the first year of highschool if I recall correctly, and onwards in a class called "social hygiene". this is required teaching in all schools, both christian and otherwise. Most giggling in a school class I have ever done.

there maybe some changes since my teenage years, but that is what it comes down to.

I do want to make a footnote to this-after all there are lies, damn lies and statistics! Local culture plays a major role in this. Also, these statistics date from 1997- they may look a bit less rosy now, and this seems to be due to immigrant girls, mostly...Though there are some who suggest the higher costs of the pill may have something to do with it.
In any case, it's not as simple as transplanting this scenario.

but what has religion to do with this? My parents are hardcore christians but they started bothering me with the bird & bee thing long before I went to highschool...

edited due to not enough perspective...

[Edited on 17-3-2006 by Elwing]

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:00 pm

Well, I remember being 16, and I teach teenagers. What I notice is that if you expect a kid to behave badly in any way whatsoever, it doesn't matter what you tell them. They'll live up or down to your expectations.

Post by **Elwing** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:23 pm

I agree. My parents told me the facts, and trusted me to take good and informed decisions. And I did. Eh...That is what you meant didn't you?

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:57 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
Well, I remember being 16, and I teach teenagers. What I notice is that if you expect a kid to behave badly in any way whatsoever, it doesn't matter what you tell them. They'll live up or down to your expectations.

So, should we even tell the kid the stoves hot? He's gonna touch it anyway. And when he's got a severe burn, and he doesn't knwo what to do with it, well, serves him right.

I'm not sure, because your wording is slightly vague, are you for abstinence education over sexual education? That's what i'm seeing it as....

Why not teach children when sex is appropriate, but also teach them what to do if they don't wait. How to use birth control, how to get it, how to avoid STDs, etc. I don't get how teaching them NOT to do something they are bound to do anyway is considered a smarter approach than teaching them how to do it safely.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:35 pm

>I'm not sure, because your wording is slightly vague, are you for abstinence education over sexual education?

I don't see how it has to be either/or, when it comes down to that. But neither is going to be really effective unless we deal first and foremost with society's expectations that kids are just a bunch of bonobos in human form and never listen to anything but their hormones. Treat a kid that way, and how do you think he or she will act?

chicory · Post by **chicory** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:51 pm

I

bonobos!!! I just found a copy of this for cheap at Barnes and Nobles. They're like my favorite social species now!

And the world would be such a better place if we were more like bonobos. (Gives me hope for the future

)

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:50 am

I actually think that there is a very high chance that at least some of these scrawlers are bonobos. I very well may as well have been one when I was going through puberty...but then I was taught that I could do things "other" than just have sex...

All I can say is that I was raised in an open house where we had good discussions about sex, the possible repercussions, and safety. I wasn't promiscuous (though yes, I did have premarital whoopie as previously mentioned). My very religious friend who's parents raised her strictly...hoo boy. I adored her - but lemme tell you - being strict and trying to force absinence didn't work with a hot damn. Instead she lied to her parents, and got herself into some very dangerous situations.

Teens shouldn't be considered idiots. They should be considered as people, who while having the desires of an adult, do not yet have the brain wiring to necessarily make the best decisions. That is why education, and as much safety things that you can put into place is so important. Talking about your teen about the importance of being safe and about your desires for them to wait for marriage or whatever your belief system is great. But make it a "do it or else" situation, and a teen often acts like, well, a teen.

I remember all too well being a teen. And I was a good teen. The thought makes me quake in my boots as a mother of two. Teens tend to get caught up in the moment without thinking of things, less you go over it like it was a fire drill. Then when panic (or in this case desire of whatever - drugs, fitting in or sex) sets in, they can find acceptable ways of dealing with the situation.

Sex isn't bad or dirty - but it can impact you very deeply emotionally and/or physically. I intend to arm my kids with everything that I can, and that will include a ton of knowledge - including my value system, and the supplies that they need to keep themselves safe.

And well - there will always be the bonobos. And if my kid is one, I want them to know how to stay a safe, happy and healthy bonobo.

(Frig how I love that word. Bonobo bonobo bonobo...it just puts a smile on your face. Have a happy and healthy bonobo day everyone!)

Paws

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:24 am

I wasn't going to weigh in on the sex thing...but I have to agree with Paws...
I too was a good teen...and I got the "If I every find out you've had sex, I will break your knee caps and sew them together." from my mother. I got standard sex ed - they taught abstance is best, the only true safe, but *but* in case, here are your other options. It came in handy. Not that...well...not that I ever told anyone, not my best friend, not my sister, Heck...not even my doctor (altho I have now).
Why? Because I was too afraid of my mom. To afraid of what other people would say. And you know what, when my little sister started having sex with her boyfriend (she was 17, he was 16) I bought them condoms. Kept her confindance, provided she and he always practise safe sex.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:03 pm

Well, my point was that we aren't bonobos. We are guided by more than animal instinct. If we choose to ignore our higher thinking for whatever reason, that's our own fault. And handing out condoms isn't going to make that "safe." Somewhat less dangerous, in a world where, outside the comfort of modern Western Civilization, AIDS has reached pandemic levels, is not the same as safe. Not in the least. In the field, condoms have up to a 15% failure rate. Is it less dangerous than unprotected sex? Statistically, yes, of course. But all it takes is one condom failure to mess up someone's life. And it's never as if our only choices are condoms or unprotected sex.

(As for the myth of safe sex, I do believe under the right circumstances sex is a good thing, but I absolutely do not think it's "safe." Safe maybe like skydiving or stormchasing in tornado alley, maybe.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:06 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
Well, my point was that we aren't bonobos. We are guided by more than animal instinct. If we choose to ignore our higher thinking for whatever reason, that's our own fault. And handing out condoms isn't going to make that "safe." Somewhat less dangerous, in a world where, outside the comfort of modern Western Civilization, AIDS has reached pandemic levels, is not the same as safe. Not in the least. In the field, condoms have up to a 15% failure rate. Is it less dangerous than unprotected sex? Statistically, yes, of course. But all it takes is one condom failure to mess up someone's life. And it's never as if our only choices are condoms or unprotected sex.

(As for the myth of safe sex, I do believe under the right circumstances sex is a good thing, but I absolutely do not think it's "safe." Safe maybe like skydiving or stormchasing in tornado alley, maybe.

Which is why most programs teach abstinence as the only safe way, but also gives options as to how sex can be handled in a responsible manner, condoms, birth control, making sure you and your partner are up to date on std tests...Teaching abstinence alone isn't going to make it any safer when the kids eventually do go ahead and decide for themselves whether or not they're going to wait for marriage..

Kid's are capable of thinking for themselves. They're living, breathing, thinking human beings like the rest of us. But, it doesn't mean they are capable of always making the right choices. And it's best to have all bases covered, on a topic such as sex, for all the kids who will decide not to wait.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:12 am

But we don't teach how to safely drive against the flow of traffic, just in case some kid decides for him or herself to enter a freeway via the offramp. There is a time and place for "this is best because any other way could get you and/or your loved ones killed in ways we'll describe to you in graphic detail, and we'll show you the grisly pictures to prove it."

(That method of drivers' ed put me off driving altogether from the time I was 16 until I was 23.)

Post by **HoodedMan** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:27 am

That's the worst argument by analogy I have ever seen. That's probably because people are not very likely to drive in oncoming traffic because they will kill themself.

Teens are very likely to have sex at some point; firstly, because reproduction is the most important biological drive of all living things and secondly due to the sheer sociological pressures involved at that age.

chicory · Post by **chicory** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:42 am

Angelique > Your driver's ed class made you drive the wrong way on the Interstate? That's suicide!

The local teen center was thinking about handing out free condoms - having them for the taking in a bowl. But, when they asked the city council if they could, the response by one of the councilor's was "If we offer condoms we are saying to kids that are not having sex, now go experiment." "We can keep kids away from having sex by not supplying condoms."

Kids should never have to drop out of the eighth grade (friend of mine) or have two! babies by the time they're 17 and too young to vote, just because they're too young to know about condoms!

It's not that unusual for people to get married or be living together at 19, 20 - even if that's considered young. So why is consumating a serious relationship at 18, 17, or 16 so bad? Unless there are religious objection to sex before the two people have been recognized by their church or state. And then that doesn't help the gay kids.

So, I don't understand why it's even as issue at all to offer information and the tools to be safe to everyone, especially the people who are least likely to have access to that. Otherwise it's like you're just throwing away the people who don't choose to follow the same rules - by allowing them to get sick or pregnant.

And getting pregnant doesn't destroy a person's life. It changes it, especially if they decide to keep the baby - but they're not dead. And STD's can be managed and in many cases cured. But, people's lives would be easier if other people weren't so squeamish about dealing with reality.

(And the kids in the teen center debate make *so* much more sense than the adults in this do. Except for Spectrum, Spectrum is great.)

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:41 am

Originally posted by Angelique
But we don't teach how to safely drive against the flow of traffic, just in case some kid decides for him or herself to enter a freeway via the offramp. There is a time and place for "this is best because any other way could get you and/or your loved ones killed in ways we'll describe to you in graphic detail, and we'll show you the grisly pictures to prove it."

(That method of drivers' ed put me off driving altogether from the time I was 16 until I was 23.)

I have to agree with Northstar...that just isn't apples and oranges...it's apples and talc!

Think about this for a minute...the *only* reason many people say no sex before marriage is for religious reasons. So those that are gay or bisexual are royally screwed in the states and many, many other countries, and if a person does't have any religious reasons as to why not - should they be forced to live as another person believes because the other people thingks that right?

What about those that choose to never marry - should they be celibate because some believe it's wrong?

Post by **HoodedMan** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:49 am

Originally posted by chicory
Angelique > Your driver's ed class made you drive the wrong way on the Interstate? That's suicide!

No, she was talking about grisly photos.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:50 am

Originally posted by chicory

So, I don't understand why it's even as issue at all to offer information and the tools to be safe to everyone, especially the people who are least likely to have access to that. Otherwise it's like you're just throwing away the people who don't choose to follow the same rules - by allowing them to get sick or pregnant.

And getting pregnant doesn't destroy a person's life. It changes it, especially if they decide to keep the baby - but they're not dead. And STD's can be managed and in many cases cured. But, people's lives would be easier if other people weren't so squeamish about dealing with reality.

Well well said...

The Drastic Spastic · Post by **The Drastic Spastic** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:48 am

I can't believe anyone thinks that teaching kids sex outside of marriage is horribly horribly dangerous is healthy. That's how you end up with miserable repressed adults with terrible relationships and a high chance of divorce. Like people can just forget about all the shit that's been pounded in to them about sex as soon as they're married.

Here's a better car analogy: Driving cars is dangerous. I don't know the stats, but it's dangerous. Cars kill more people than sex does. But do people stop driving? No. No, they wear seat belts, which grant complete invulnerability... oh, no wait. They don't. But people drive anyway. Teenagers, even. Not teaching people about seatbelts because "it encourages driving by making it safer" makes about as much sense as making condoms unavailable because "not having condoms discourages people from having sex". Sex ed should be taught like drivers ed: fun, but a serious responsibility with the possibility of major negative consequences, which can be minimized by doing X. People would be able to make informed choices, and enjoy it when (WHEN) they decide to do it.

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:34 am

Bloody frikken wonderfully said Drastic.

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:16 am

I took a break to let off some steam... played through Dungeon Siege 2 the entire way way through, hacking and slashing my way through hundreds of monsters, until I came back....

first, my final word. it's not so much that I have difficulty understanding that people from different sects follow different things in the bible, or that the abrahamic religions have fractured into wildly different religions and the reasons... it's why. not why are they different exactly.... but.... If everyone is in agreement that those are the words of God, why is it considered ok to dismiss them? I mean, it's either that God just changed his mind along the way, that these things he initially said were horrendous sins suddenly are ok to ignore for certain people, which doesn't speak of an omnescient god at all, it's all just made up and changed with the times, or people are ignoring the word of God. Yes, ignoring, there's no other word for it, no matter what specific sect they follow, or what Paul said. It just isn't logical. I apologise if that's overly harsh, but that's where I'm coming from. I realize that the NT says salvation came only through Jesus Christ, but it really disturbs me that this creates a religion where certain members (but not others, I know) believe they're saved just because they believe, not because of what they DO. I think this attitude has been the reason for many acts of cruelty and violence in the name of religion. These fucking serial killers 'finding the lord' shortly before they die, and it means (according to some) that these horrible people are going to heaven, and I'm going to hell (again, according to some, I don't actually believe this obviously) even though I've led a good life, just because I don't believe 'Jesus Christ is my lord and savior'. It's sadistic. I realize religion can be a very positive thing, but when you act like it's a positive thing for everyone and has never been involved in anything bad, I find that sad. Sad that you're insulating yourself in a protective bubble unable to see things the way they really are. EVERY religion on the face of the planet has a skeleton or 50 in its closet, Christianity is no exception, no matter how much you say that the ones who did these bad things weren't 'real' Christians. if they weren't Christians, what were they? what were the priests who molested boys if not Christian? what about the same church members that tried to cover it up instead of bringing them to justice? what about the priest and group of nuns who KILLED a fellow nun because they believedshe was demonically posessed? what were parents who let their own children die out of deeply held religious beliefs for lack of medical care (Christian Scientists)? and are you really suggesting that in the original article linked to that the people who comitted the sacrifices were not Hindu? it's the same logic at work. It's not all good, even though it may be good for you, personally. I'm not saying such vile acts REPRESENT any religion, but i am saying no religion is immune from having such things happen in its name. it could be due to people twisting religious texts to mean something most people don't think they do, or they could be thinking they're gonna be saved no matter what, just cus they believe, or a number of other reasons, there are many possibilities.

Speaking of insulating people from the realities of a situation... abstinence only sex ed is a horrible way to do things, imo. I think it's more dangerous than it is helpful. There are studies out there that show an INCREASE in teen pregnancy and STD's in areas where abstinence only is used in lieu of sex ed. because hormones are raging, teens are GOING to have sex, it's just the way it is, it's not that they're nothing but a bundle of uncontrollable hormones, but a number of them will have sex, fact of life. but the abstinence only kids were having sex with no condoms because they didn't know any better, and got pregnant and sick as a result. Abstinence education isn't interested in helping teens be more healthy, it's interested in preventing sex becuase the people running these programs find premarital sex morally wrong.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/ ... 50504.html

As others have stated, sex is natural, it's NOT morally wrong to have premarital sex for many people, and the only reason people are going to abstain until marriage is for religious beliefs, or personal beliefs that took a lot of thought and self reflection. If these kids are not religious (or are from a religion where premarital sex is not frowned upon) it is not fair to impose ignorance on them, especially when ignorance could result in a result as life changing as pregnancy or AIDS.

Look, I am from a non-religious family that thinks premarital sex is perfectly ok. My parents lived together and had lotsa sex (as disturbing as the mental image is to me, it's true

) long before they were married. they were open about it, and they taught me and my sister all about sex and the results it could have when we were, like 10. They didn't do it in a scary way, they didn't try to scare us into not having sex, but they did make it very clear there were serious consequences of sex, especially if you were unprotected. And you know what? While neither my sister nor I held to a 'no sex until marriage' rule we never had unprotected sex, we were on the pill by the time we were 16 (though it was partly due to the fact that i was on Accutaine which carries risks of severe birth defects, not that I was actually sexually active at that age) what they imparted was that it was SPECIAL. It was something you don't want to give away lightly, but it is perfectly ok to give it when the time is right, and that time wasn't necessarily marriage in our family. they said it COULD be dangerous, not jsut ebcause of STD's or pregnancy, but having sex witht he wrong person, so it was wise to be careful and prepared. They encouraged us to be open with them, and we weren't forced to do it in secret, which took away 'it's all secret so it must be a HUGE DEAL!' thing, we were more laid back about it. We knew what would happen, we knew the results, we knew the risks, and while we may have been curious, that curiosity was dulled, because we knew a lot of the details already from our parents. And my sister and I both didn't have sex until we were 18 or so, and we never got a STD, ever, and we never had a pregnancy scare. Though my sister has 2 children, they were planned. because we were WELL INFORMED, we were safe, not because we were ignorant.

ps. love the analogy, Spaz, right on the mark

[Edited on 19/3/06 by Bamfette]

idsunki · Post by **idsunki** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:05 am

It just cracks me up that bonobos got mentioned on here. My girlfriend has a degree in anthropology and fell in love with bonobos (not literally).

As for the whole Bible thing; I have the same problem with the Bible as just about any holy book for any religion. First, I ask what they believe.
"What this book says."
Why do they believe that?
"Because the book says so."
And what will happen if they don't?
"Bad, bad things."
And how do they know that?
"[insert God or Prophet here] said so."
And how do they know that?
"The book says so!"

It's all very circular, with the book proving that what it says is for real because the main character in the book says that it is real. This is why I lean back and forth between agnosticism, atheism, and deism. Man, talk about what the Founding Fathers really intended for this country - Deism!

Bamfette · Post by **Bamfette** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:32 am

have you ever seen the Church of Hank internet thing? I'll have to dig it up, hilarious. but yeah, I should have mentioned... I don't mean to pick on Christianity. It's just that's what sparked the discussion. the fact that pretty much every religion has this circular logic and cherry picking of beliefs keeps me a steadfast atheist. I was raised in a non religious family, but was encouraged to explore religions (as was my sister, now a Wiccan) but they just made no sense. to many logical problems.

*edit: found it http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

[Edited on 19/3/06 by Bamfette]

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:40 am

LOL!! I expecially liked the line in that link Jill that reads "weiners in buns, no condiments...".

Y'all wrote everything else so well, I don't have anything else to add, except for me (and I imagine a lot of the others here) this isn't about bashing religion, but is about standing up to oppression of any person through religion. Naturally it is the minorities that usually have to withstand oppression, and in this day and age the flavor of the week happens to be gay relationships. In another 30 yrs it wil be another group that will be picked on...unless we can get beyond ourselves and just learn to live, love and let live.

No one has to be better than anyone else.

Paws

Post by **HoodedMan** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:12 am

Very well put.