Abstinence only programs Yay or nay?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet][b]The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy out of any country in the developed world. Experts say that restriction to sex-ed, contraception, and condoms fuel this rate, while in European countries (who have less than half of the amount of teen pregnancies) teens are given confidential access to contraceptives.
46% of those polled above believe that schools should teach that abstinence is best, but also discuss how and where to obtain contraceptives. This provides a good combination of both an abstinence-only and comprehensive sex-ed programs and is often referred to as an "abstinence-plus" program.

Background
Government funding of abstinence-only programs have existed for the past 20 years. The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) began in 1981 and was designed to prevent teen pregnancy by promoting self-discipline and chastity. The program received $11 million in federal funds that year and $19 million in 2000. In 1996 the federal government added a provision to the welfare-reform law to establish a federal entitlement program for abstinence-only sexual education. The program distributed $50 million per year for five years into the states. Since that time funding for these programs has increased nearly 3000%.
The federal definition of an eligible abstinence-only education program is one that:

has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, physiological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. [/b]

That's an excerpt I found from an article on abstinence only ciriculum taught in 1/3 of the schools in the US.

[color=purple][URL=http://]http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml[/URL] [/color]<--- and there's the link to an article aboutit on Planned Parent hood's website

Personally I think this program is a bunch of bs. Especially over blowing the facts of condom failure and the fact that all the teachers are allowed to talk about is condom failure rates. Not how effective they are for preventing STDs and pregnancy, failure rates. In the end I think that type of teaching backfires because after lessons based soley on condom failure plus the failure of other forms of protection (including the pill, patch and shot) the students who took this course will inevitably be afraid to use the mentioned tyoes of birth control and protection and just not use anything and have an unplanned pregnancy. Hence why teen pregnancies in the US are up instead of down thanks to this program.

I figure that some of you are probably thinking that it's the child's parents responsibility to teach their kids about sex and different types of protection. But some parents are either too squeemish (ie emberassed) about telling their kids about sex and others are just too straight laced to mention the word sex around their kids. In these cases school would be the only place their kids would learn about sex. And I really don't want my daughter to learn about sex from her friends who think that oral is completely different than regular intercourse (I know a 15 year old who thinks that sadly)

So this actually brings me to another question, how did you learn about sex in the first place? Parents, friends, the Discovery Channel?

I kind of learned from my parents... my mom more accurately and a few unpleasent experiances that I'd rather not remember. What kid really wants to remember that?

I do request mature thought out replies to this topic. Thank you[/color]

[Brasil]

Real fast,

[quote][color=darkviolet]In the end I think that type of teaching backfires because after lessons based soley on condom failure plus the failure of other forms of protection (including the pill, patch and shot) the students who took this course will inevitably be afraid to use the mentioned tyoes of birth control and protection and just not use anything and have an unplanned pregnancy. Hence why teen pregnancies in the US are up instead of down thanks to this program.[/color][/quote]
I find that logic to be incredibly stretchy. Because Abstinence programs impress that condoms aren't failsafe, that most birth control methods (contraceptive-wise) aren't 100% guaranteed, teen pregnancy is on the rise?

Teen pregnancy is on the rise because more and more teens are having unprotected sex, simple as that, and more and more teens are having unprotected sex because of social stigma, simple as that.

Not to put so fine a point on it, but teens getting pregnant is due to stupidity, naivete, and peer pressure...not Abstinence programs.

And to blanket label Abstinence programs as BS is incredibly naive, as well, because...

[quote][color=darkviolet][b] has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, physiological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.[/b][/color][/quote]
...while I don't necessarily enjoy seeing the "out-of-wedlock" mentions there, I don't see how anyone can label the program as "bs" when those are the goals of the program.

[SunfallE]

Personally I think that at least some form of education regarding sex is better than none whatsoever. Here in Utah there is no sex education. There is a high rate of teen's becoming pregnant here in Utah so it would be interesting to see if adding a sex education program to the cirriculum would make a difference. Otherwise unless the parents take the time to educate their children they are completely ignorant of the risks involved. I was lucky as my mother took the time to explain things to me when I was about 12 years old as she wanted me to be informed about the possiblity of becoming pregnant or getting sexually transmitted diseases and other good information to help me protect myself.

Although I'm sure the current program could be improved I'm 100 percent sure that it's better than the current lack of any program here in Utah.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Siren'] I find that logic to be incredibly stretchy. Because Abstinence programs impress that condoms aren't failsafe, that most birth control methods (contraceptive-wise) aren't 100% guaranteed, teen pregnancy is on the rise?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Yes, they imprerss that condoms aren't fail proof, but that's all teh program talks about. Failure rate. No success rate. Birth control (IE the pill) may not be 100% effective. But when used properly the success rate is around 99% It's a proven fact.

Abstinence may be the only 100% effective birth control method, but it's not the [i]only[/i] method availble. HIgh school age kids and anyone thinking about having sex should be made aware of other methods other than abstinence.[/color]

[quote name='Siren']Teen pregnancy is on the rise because more and more teens are having unprotected sex, simple as that, and more and more teens are having unprotected sex because of social stigma, simple as that.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Maybe because they were never taught how to use a condom or made aware of methods of protection other than abstinence. Or maybe it's the 'Everyone is doing it' ploy and the other person isn't smart enough to say no.

The united states has the highest teen birth rate of any modernized country because of this type of Sex education. Denmark has the lowest because their schools actually get into telling their students about sex and how to avoid getting pregnant. Do the math. And I can find the information about the Denmark fact.[/color]

[QUOTE=Siren]Not to put so fine a point on it, but teens getting pregnant is due to stupidity, naivete, and peer pressure...not Abstinence programs.

[color=darkviolet] Could be due to both. Maybe these kids should just be supplied with condoms so if they do decide to have sex there's less of a chance that these teens will become pregnant. Simple as that.

Yes maybe handing a teen a condom is like saying: Go ahead have sex. But

[quote name='Siren']And to blanket label Abstinence programs as BS is incredibly naive, as well, because...[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Okay too lazy and busy to cut paste and edit what I pasted prior but the part in there about [b]teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; [/b]

There are plenty of people out there having sex before marriage who are still mentally healthy. As well as children born out of wedlock who are perfectly sane. It shouldn't be taught that you're going to have issues if you have sex before you're married. It goes right up tehre with saying that sex is bad and sex is only done in order to pro create.

Maybe not complete BS, but enough BS for parents to be worried.[/color]

[quote name='Siren']I don't see how anyone can label the program as "bs" when those are the goals of the program. [/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Again. Teaching kids how to try and say no good. Teaching kids to avoid drugs and underage drinking good. Teaching kids that sex is wrong and if you have it before you get married you'll be messed up 'bad'.

Besides there are some programs out there (The silver ring thing) don't have a success rate:

[center]"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months ? a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It?s almost two school years."

So what's the downside?

"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they?re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex." [/center] This is a direct quote from the creator of the Silver Ring Thing) [URL=http://]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml[/url]

Personally I think that any teenagers thinking about having sex should be given a real baby (with its parent around to supervise) in various stages. 0-3 3-6 6-9 then 12 months and at 2 years. After that see if they want to have sex.

Unfortunately my plan will never go into affect. :animecry: [/color]

[Arcadia]

[size=1]The biggest problem that I have with abstinence-only programs, besides the fact that it is more a religious program than anything else, is this right here:

[quote]teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects...[/quote]
Harmful psychological and physical effects? I was not aware that there's a difference between pre-marital and marital sex, besides the addition of a shiny new ring. It has nothing to do with marriage - you can get harmful effects regardless of that if you and your partner are not careful.

More than anything, any sex ed programs should focus on explaining both sides of the issue. How can you have positive results when you're only learning half of the issue? Do I need to make a "the grass is always greener..." statement here? It may be terribly cliché but it still holds firm. People need to be [i]informed[/i]; only then can they make an educated desicion about sex. The decision cannot be made for them.

Personally, I do not believe in abstinence simply because I view sex as an important aspect of any relationship. Waiting till marriage is nice, but has anybody looked at our marriage rates as of late? That's not entirely promising. You don't have to abstain from sex in order to value it as a very special, beautiful thing; I don't plan on waiting until I get hitched, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sleep around with just anybody. And you also can't expect everybody to view it in the same light - you cannot legislate morality.

In the end, you may not agree with pre-marital sex, but you have to at least understand and tolerate the fact that it does happen and it's better to be fully educated about and prepared for any consequences that may occur.[/size]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] Yes, they imprerss that condoms aren't fail proof, but that's all teh program talks about. Failure rate. No success rate. Birth control (IE the pill) may not be 100% effective. But when used properly the success rate is around 99% It's a proven fact.

Abstinence may be the only 100% effective birth control method, but it's not the only method availble. HIgh school age kids and anyone thinking about having sex should be made aware of other methods other than abstinence.[/quote]
I think you just kicked yourself in the mouth with that one. If teens already aren't using protection/birth control, and may be using protection/birth control incorrectly when (if) they do, what is the likelihood that protection/birth control will have that 99% success rate?

I'm not saying scaring kids into not having sex is the right thing to do here, but to tell them that if they use the pill correctly, there's a 99% chance everything will turn out fine, given how reckless and dumb most teenagers are?

I'm sorry, but I've transcribed far too many fetal ultrasounds of 14-year-olds in their second trimester. I don't support scaring people in general practice, but I think this is one issue that we can't afford to soften up on. I certainly support giving teens all the information available, but I don't want to lull them into a false sense of security.

[quote]Maybe because they were never taught how to use a condom or made aware of methods of protection other than abstinence. Or maybe it's the 'Everyone is doing it' ploy and the other person isn't smart enough to say no.[/quote]
Putting on a condom is not difficult; I find it incredibly hard to believe that a moderately intelligent teenager doesn't know how. If they can't read, then they should be able to figure it out: place and roll. That's basically it.

And I think it's sad if high school sex ed isn't teaching students about the variety of protection/birth control methods. My high school did, and I'm sure as hell the surrounding high schools did, too--and I find it incredibly hard to believe that nation-wide, there's this absence of remotely comprehensive sex ed.

[quote]The united states has the highest teen birth rate of any modernized country because of this type of Sex education.[/quote]
Where is this statistic coming from? Where is this conclusion coming from? The site you linked us to says Abstinence-only doesn't work because teens are getting pregnant--that seems like saying the Abstinence-only programs are the reasons more teens are getting pregnant, and that's a fallacy. Teens are getting pregnant because teens are being stupid, lol (and reckless).

[quote]Could be due to both. Maybe these kids should just be supplied with condoms so if they do decide to have sex there's less of a chance that these teens will become pregnant. Simple as that.[/quote]
Again, you kicked yourself in the mouth with what you said below:

[quote]Yes maybe handing a teen a condom is like saying: Go ahead have sex. But[/quote]
What kind of message is that going to give? "Here, be safe when you have sex," or "Here, have sex."? Distributing condoms is not my idea of how to help teenagers. Is Santa going to start throwing out Trojans instead of candycanes at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade?

[quote]Okay too lazy and busy to cut paste and edit whatI pasted prior but the part in there about teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

There are plenty of people out there having sex before marriage who are still mentally healthy. As well as children born out of wedlock who are perfectly sane. [b]It shouldn't be taught that you're going to have issues if you have sex before you're married.[/b] It goes right up tehre with saying that sex is bad and sex is only done in order to procreate.

Maybe not complete BS, but enough BS for parents to be worried.

Again. Teaching kids how to try and say no good. Teaching kids to avoid drugs and underage drinking good. [b]Teaching kids that sex is wrong and if you have it before you get married you'll be messed up 'bad'[/b].[/quote]
[quote name='Siren in his first post in the thread]...[b]while I don't necessarily enjoy seeing the "out-of-wedlock" mentions there[/b'], I don't see how anyone can label the program as "bs" when those are the goals of the program.[/quote]
Do read my posts, Chibi, [i]before[/i] trying to reply to my points.

[quote]Besides there are some programs out there (The silver ring thing) [that] don't have a success rate:

[center]"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months ? a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It?s almost two school years."

So what's the downside?

"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they?re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex." [/center]
This is a direct quote from the creator of the Silver Ring Thing) [url="http://"]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml[/url][/quote]
How does this support the idea that Abstinence programs are bull****? It doesn't look like the [i]program itself[/i] failed there; it looks like the [i]teens themselves[/i] failed. Do we blame an entire system for the faults of the individual?

Do I need to reference the Deltas-on-trial-hearing scene in Animal House?

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Parents are already struggling in accepting responsiblity. Now they want to foist the entirety of their children's sex education onto the school system? That's pretty crap, lol.

I'm not going to deny that the contribution schools have towards Sex Education is important, but nevertheless, how the hell did people survive before schools started Sex-Ed programs? It's a question that needs to be asked.

The fact is, it is not a school's responsibility to encourage certain sexual attitudes amongst it's students. All that schools need to do is tell them the facts. Parents then need to step up to the plate and imbibe their children with the correct attitudes and such towards sex.[/size]

[James]

[color=#737373]Yeah, I agree with Baron to some extent. I think sex education is important (in a more technical biological sense), but what ever happened to parents talking about contraception and so on with their children?

My parents (well, my mother at least) were always relatively open about that stuff. That's not to say they were "permissive"; they knew that myself and my siblings weren't going to go out and have sex at a young age. We simply weren't raised in a household where that kind of behavior would be acceptable, to ourselves or to our parents. However, I think they understood that if we made the choice at any stage, it was something we'd do regardless. As a result, I think that they always made a point of mentioning the importance of safe sex.

I mean, my parents were never ignorant enough to simply say "Just don't have sex, okay?" You have to combine the two messages, I think. I knew not to have sex at a young age, but I was also armed with the relevant information, just in case I ever did make that choice. So on this subject, I think that a combination of approaches is suitable. Not every child is the same and if you stick to an abstinence-only education, you're not arming that person with the information they need should they have sex. Afterall, if people are going to do it, they'll do it regardless what anyone at their school says, lol.

Not to say that there should be an encouragement of it or anything; I think it's important that it be discouraged at a young age. But knowledge about contraception and safe sex is also critical, as many studies on the subject have shown.

Still, I do agree that parents should play the major role, not schools. Schools can provide some "technical" education (in regard to the biology and so on), but I think that parents really need to sit down with their kids and discuss the relevant issues.[/color]

[sbrebaby]

I think that there should always be a sex ed course in shcools and it should be manditory for all at a sertain age. If i had found out about sex ed i would have led a different life instead of the one i have led for thoseof you who know about me on the site. i was married do to being pregnant. I wish i could take it all back and i probably would have done things different then. and it isn't bs because of teaching that sometimes condoms fail and other birth controls to. I didn't know that if you take an antibiotic while your on bc that it counter acts the bc and you are not being protected and that is how i got pg. So if they had a better sex ed course and i would never had those problems. :animesigh so abstinence Yay or Nay.... I vote yay

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I believe that premarital sex is wrong, but I won't focus on this idea too much. As some of said, it's just a "shiny ring". Setting aside religious and social beliefs, marriage comes with this sort of responisbility that is absent most of the time in premarital relationships. Becoming pregnant won't be such a burden.

I think that what we need to teach is that having sex, whether premarital or not, comes with risks. We need to teach that if you are not prepared or willing to have children yet whatsoever, you must abstain from having sex at all, and if you are willing to accept having children, even though you may prefer not to, then use contraceptives in that case. No matter how well contraceptives work, they are not 100% effective. The possibility of becoming pregnant is still there, no matter how small. Abstinance is the only 100% effective method.[/COLOR]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=James[color=#737373]]
Still, I do agree that parents should play the major role, not schools. Schools can provide some "technical" education (in regard to the biology and so on), but I think that parents really need to sit down with their kids and discuss the relevant issues.[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Century Gothic][size=1][color=DarkRed]I agree.

Not that the school system desn't work, but I myself would feel more confortable talking about things like that with my parents.

Then there is the fact that a school system has to be a one-size-fits-all system. Parents can teach sex ed according to their family's beliefs.

I also agree with your combined approach. Discourage sex at young age, but arm them with the knowledge to do what's right should they decide to, that's the sensible solution here.[/color][/size][/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Siren] Again, you kicked yourself in the mouth with what you said below:


What kind of message is that going to give? "Here, be safe when you have sex," or "Here, have sex."? Distributing condoms is not my idea of how to help teenagers. Is Santa going to start throwing out Trojans instead of candycanes at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade?



Do read my posts, Chibi, [i]before[/i] trying to reply to my points.


How does this support the idea that Abstinence programs are bull****? It doesn't look like the [i]program itself[/i] failed there; it looks like the [i]teens themselves[/i] failed. Do we blame an entire system for the faults of the individual?
[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Deleted part of what I wanted to reply to but who cares? The point isn't that all methods of protection are safe, the point is that there are other methods out there besides abstinence. Birth control is one of those methods. I believe it actually has a 99.9% success rate when used properly. I'd also tell my daughter that when having sex with someone she's not married to to use two or more forms of birth control and get the person tested as well.

The problem I have with the abstinence only program is what I've stated time and time again. All they talk about is abstinence and failure rates. And that's why the rate of teen pregnancy (as you''ve seen) has been increasing. I think if they included success rates as well as failure rates when used correctly along with how to try and abstain the program would be much better.

THe logic I'm going by is that if you tell a kid not to do something because it's wrong they're still going to do it anyway. You may as well just tell them to go ahead and have sex, but use a condom. Obviously you didn't read it that way. That way maybe They'll think twice before having sex in the first place because when they see the condom they'll think of mom. I don't think I said anything wrong.

And yes I do read what you type (every last friggin' word of it let's not have the Movie fiasco again) I was just possibly agreeing with you about the pre-marrital thing.... Including the part about why the psychological part was complete BS. Maybe I should ask if you read everything I type before replying.

I think we blame both. Teenagers for being dumb enough not to use a condom properly and consider what they're in for in the first place and the system for only talking about failure rates and scaring kids from using condoms..

I'm sticking with what I typed before. Teenagers who are considering having sex should be made to take care of a real baby. Not one of those stupid baby think it overs (the BTIO at least stays still, you don'ty have to bathe it dress it change it or feed it. ) A real baby. preferably a noisy squirmy teething baby (not mine). They will be supervised by the child's (baby's) parent but will have to take on all the responsibilty. And [i]That's[/i] how the sex part of sex ed should be taught.[/color]

[TheShinje]

How exactly, is talk about a failure rate scaring people away from using them?

Surely, anyone would conclude that a 1% failure rate in protection is better than going to hell with it and using none at all?

And besides, this program espouses the one contraceptive that is 100% safe, and risk free. Safe condom use should be there and explained, but in the long run, abstenince is your safest bet. People need to be aware that condoms aren't bulletproof, and this program acheives that.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Evil Jedi']How exactly, is talk about a failure rate scaring people away from using them?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I've read about it and done some research.

Also think about what you just typed up there. Say someone just brought out a new invention or something. But instead of telling you the pros and cons about the product all they talk about are the cons/ Wouldn't you be more hesitant to use the product? It's the same as talking about solely the failure rate of condoms. If you tell them about both pros and cons there's more education.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']Deleted part of what I wanted to reply to but who cares? The point isn't that all methods of protection are safe, the point is that there are other methods out there besides abstinence. Birth control is one of those methods. I believe it actually has a 99.9% success rate when used properly. I'd also tell my daughter that when having sex with someone she's not married to to use two or more forms of birth control and get the person tested as well.[/quote]
Again, coming back to how adept teenagers are, CHW. Let's be frank here. The majority of teens today are morons. There are a few bright spots here and there, but I guess I just don't have as much faith as you do in the "m4d sexn skills" of teens today.

[quote]The problem I have with the abstinence only program is what I've stated time and time again. [b]All they talk about is abstinence and failure rates. And that's why the rate of teen pregnancy [u](as you've seen)[/u] has been increasing.[/b] I think if they included success rates as well as failure rates when used correctly along with how to try and abstain the program would be much better.[/quote]
As I've seen? So a few of my classmates getting pregnant back in 1998, [i]before[/i] Sex-Ed/Abstinence-only classes is due to the Sex-Ed/Abstinence-only and not because they're sluts, or reckless? lol

Blame both, like you say later on, that's a stretch, because teens were getting pregnant long before Abstinence-only hit the scene in the 80s.

And you still haven't provided any statistics to concretely back-up your claim that Abstinence-only programs actually are the cause of increased teen pregnancies, CHW. [i]Do you have any reputable studies to prove the correlation you say is there?[/i]

[quote]THe logic I'm going by is that if you tell a kid not to do something because it's wrong they're still going to do it anyway. You may as well just tell them to go ahead and have sex, but use a condom. Obviously you didn't read it that way. That way maybe They'll think twice before having sex in the first place because [b]when they see the condom they'll think of mom[/b]. I don't think I said anything wrong.[/quote]
By that logic, telling kids not to smoke, [i]drink and drive[/i], etc. is a bad thing, as well, because they're going to go out to do it anyway, [i]because[/i] we say it's bad for them, [i]because[/i] it's prohibited? Should we just go handing out packs of Marlboros and bottles of Jack Daniels, as well?

And Oedipal complexes are bad, by the way, in any shape or form. Psychological stress in how you're recommending is...a bad idea.

[quote]And yes I do read what you type (every last friggin' word of it let's not have the Movie fiasco again) I was just possibly agreeing with you about the pre-marrital thing.... Including the part about why the psychological part was complete BS. Maybe I should ask if you read everything I type before replying.[/quote]
Who said anything about a movie fiasco, CHW? I'm talking about this, right here.

And frankly, you would have had no reason at all to mention "out-of-wedlock," as if you were using it as some type of rebuttal to my post, because I had expressed concern regarding the "out-of-wedlock" bits in my very first post in this thread. So there are two possibilities here, by my estimate:

One, you didn't read the post.

-or-

Two, you're just replying with irrelevant nonsense.

[quote]I think we blame both. Teenagers for being dumb enough not to use a condom properly and consider what they're in for in the first place and the system for only talking about failure rates and scaring kids from using condoms..[/quote]
Failure to use a condom is due to Abstinence-only programs preaching condom hellfire and damnation? How about just teenagers being reckless and dumb?

[quote]I'm sticking with what I typed before. Teenagers who are considering having sex should be made to take care of a real baby. Not one of those stupid baby think it overs (the BTIO at least stays still, you don'ty have to bathe it dress it change it or feed it. ) A real baby. preferably a noisy squirmy teething baby (not mine). They will be supervised by the child's (baby's) parent but will have to take on all the responsibilty. And That's how the sex part of sex ed should be taught.[/QUOTE]
And I'm ignoring it.

[Pumpkin]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] Okay too lazy and busy to cut paste and edit what I pasted prior but the part in there about [b]teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; [/b]

There are plenty of people out there having sex before marriage who are still mentally healthy. As well as children born out of wedlock who are perfectly sane. It shouldn't be taught that you're going to have issues if you have sex before you're married. It goes right up tehre with saying that sex is bad and sex is only done in order to pro create.

Maybe not complete BS, but enough BS for parents to be worried.[/color][/QUOTE]


[FONT=Arial][Size=2][b]I have to agree with this paragraph above me, its a load of BS. Yes we should list the negatives of sex, but as far as being abstinent, that is the students decision to make. If they chose to have sex, they should be telling about how they can keep safe but telling a kid they will lose everything by having sex before marriage is awful. I was never told anything like that in sex education classes, thank god, but if I did I know it would only force more kids into doing it seeing as they will now view it as almost "illegal" in a way which is why kids go out and illegally drink alchohol. Because it's fun to do things your not suppose to right? I also don't agree with them saying having a kid out of wedlock is bad, I know plenty of people who are not married and have children. They seem perfectly fine to me, of course its not something people dream of, but its not the end of the world. Its your decision to make.

As far as how I learned about sex pretty young, from school abut mostly from friends. School talks about sex as if its a bad thing but your friends talk about it the opposite. I'm sure people know what I'm talking about. I learned enough to know that being safe is the best way, and sex education is where a lot of people learn about the details because my parents never taught me anything. It's worse when your parents tell you, I think. School should provide valid information but not alter someone's decision. I do think its a good idea to encourage abstinence which they still do in Sex Ed, but as for saying sex is bad, is the only thing that really bugs me. Your not evil if you have sex before marriage. Infact one of my teachers have even stated, only do it when your ready. And thats what should be taught. It's your choice to make. [/b][/FONT][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]

THe logic I'm going by is that if you tell a kid not to do something because it's wrong they're still going to do it anyway. You may as well just tell them to go ahead and have sex, but use a condom. Obviously you didn't read it that way. That way maybe They'll think twice before having sex in the first place because when they see the condom they'll think of mom. I don't think I said anything wrong.

[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[b][FONT=arial][SIZE=2] Most parents would view this as a bad idea or as Siren has stated "handing them the condom and telling them they can have sex" not trying to pick fights here, I see the point of that also. But I also see where Chibi is coming from, if my parents were open to me about sex, I probably would have had a different view about it. I know plenty of people who have had parents who are involved and I have to admit, it works quite well. They might NOT like it, but wouldn't it be better to know what your kid is up to and know that they get tested and are being protected? Its a lot better then being shunned or told your bad for doing something. It makes it easy to talk to your parents about having sex. I know I will be more open with my daughter (if i have one) about pregnancy etc. It's better to know then not know. Hope that makes some sense...[/SIZE][/FONT][/b]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Pumpkin][FONT=Arial][Size=2][b] Most parents would view this as a bad idea or as Siren has stated "handing them the condom and telling them they can have sex" not trying to pick fights here, I see the point of that also. But I also see where Chibi is coming from, if my parents were open to me about sex, I probably would have had a different view about it. I know plenty of people who have had parents who are involved and I have to admit, it works quite well. They might NOT like it, but wouldn't it be better to know what your kid is up to and know that they get tested and are being protected? Its a lot better then being shunned or told your bad for doing something. It makes it easy to talk to your parents about having sex. I know I will be more open with my daughter (if i have one) about pregnancy etc. It's better to know then not know. Hope that makes some sense...[/SIZE][/FONT'][/b][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Thank you Pumpkin. *builds shrine to pumpkin*

I'm not trying to say that it's okay to just go and have sex. Just tell your kids that sex is good. But it's a better idea to wait until they're older, more mature and preferably in a stable relationship.

I grew up being told sex is bad and it's not. It's just something that should be used carefuly. Very caefuly. You have to think a lot before you have sex. And hopefully if you have sex before marriage or before engagement you're either 1.) on birth control 2.) using a condom or 3.) doing one and two.

I'm going to talk to my daughter about sex quite openly and frankly. And if she decides to have sex even after the talk, I'll give her a condom and tell her to use it in good health.

On a closing note, why don't you agree with my baby plan Siren? It promotes abstinence and it's surpervised.[/color]

[Umbra II]

I think that the problem is that there are more people out there now willing, and wanting, to have sex willy-nilly for the moments gratification, and do not stop to think about the repercusions. True, it is the same story for all teen-agers at all generations, but there is a rise now and not as much before is because, mostly, that there are more people in the world now then there were then. Pluss, the way htat it is represented in America puts it in a light of pervertedness, which makes those who really want to do something wild are more inclined to take that course of action. Take Europe, for example. To them, its not perverse, but a part of life. If you've seen "Monty Python's Flying Circus" you'll probably remember the paper cut outs of naked women. To them, its simply humorus, but here it may be considered disgusting.
Also, I beleive that, for those who will do anything for thrills, sex ed. will make no difference whatsoever. It is those who may be talked into it, those sussecptable to peer presure, who should be educated and make descisions for themselves. I don't think sex ed. can hurt.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']On a closing note, why don't you agree with my baby plan Siren? It promotes abstinence and it's surpervised.[/quote]
Straight answer?

It's idiotic and unfeasible, and more Maury Povich fodder than an actual, well-developed suggestion. It's an idea, that while attractive, is possible only in the hyperreality of bad talk show TV.

That's why.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Siren]Straight answer?

It's idiotic and unfeasible, and more Maury Povich fodder than an actual, well-developed suggestion. It's an idea, that while attractive, is possible only in the hyperreality of bad talk show TV.

That's why.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Or you just lack immagination.

Trust me, you wake up to a screaming baby at 1am you really don't want to have sex for a few days. Do it for a few nights by yourself and you'll want to give up sex all together.

I'm the voice of experiance.

It does sound like an odd reality TV show I know, but I think it'll work. Especially when the baby pukes all over the main characters.[/color]

[shinji172]

well in responce to the whole baby program thing there is a (admitedly limited) method that does work:

babysitting

chibi has made a good point and whilst this isnt exactly what she was suggesting, just looking after a child for a few hours can make you think twice! thanks to ONE one hour job (the only one i did in my entire lifetime) I decided that I wouldnt be ready for any fatherly duties for a long time (not that id want to at this point in my life anyway). of course the problem is getting the opportunity to babysit :animeswea

as for the abstinence programs themselves, they are only useful to an extent: whilst they do show how birth control isnt perfect,only focusing on the negative can cause some teens to think of these contraceptive methods as completly ineffective. not only that but after listening to one of these programs at school I found that it didnt cover (in great detail) how contraception can be helpful for the protection of sexualy transmitted diseases.Only that sex can lead to them

whilst i do realise that that is only one program, If that [B]is[/B] the general teaching of abstinence only programs then there NOT the sort I would like to hear.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Or you just lack immagination.

Trust me, you wake up to a screaming baby at 1am you really don't want to have sex for a few days. Do it for a few nights by yourself and you'll want to give up sex all together.

I'm the voice of experiance.

It does sound like an odd reality TV show I know, but I think it'll work. Especially when the baby pukes all over the main characters.[/color][/QUOTE]
I'm sure I just lack imagination, CHW. :rolleyes:

And it's not that I'm doubting the effectiveness of your idea, because experience with a real live infant is eye-opening for sure. I'm not about to deny that.

What I [i]am[/i] arguing, however, is the [i]feasibility[/i] of your idea. I'm making a distinction here, so pay attention.

The [i]effectiveness[/i] of your idea is worthwhile, but your idea is [i]only[/i] effective when it's [i]successful[/i], and for such a large-scale as you're suggesting, the likelihood of your idea being a success flies right out the window, quite frankly, which brings me back to my initial point:

Your idea is impossible to implement, unless it takes place within the limited confines of the hyperreality of bad talk show TV.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Siren] And it's not that I'm doubting the effectiveness of your idea, because experience with a real live infant is eye-opening for sure. I'm not about to deny that.

What I [i]am[/i] arguing, however, is the [i]feasibility[/i] of your idea. I'm making a distinction here, so pay attention.

The [i]effectiveness[/i] of your idea is worthwhile, but your idea is [i]only[/i] effective when it's [i]successful[/i], and for such a large-scale as you're suggesting, the likelihood of your idea being a success flies right out the window, quite frankly, which brings me back to my initial point:

Your idea is impossible to implement, unless it takes place within the limited confines of the hyperreality of bad talk show TV.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Okay, I can see where you're going with this. It's like the abstinence programs that are in effect in 1/3 of the schools in the US. They work just fine for the students who are intelligent enough (like us) to just say no. But for the ones who are just plain curious or just plain dumb there need to be different methods. That's where my idea comes in. It's for the plain dumb ones, the curious ones should get an exstensive course in the pros and cons of protection.

I do realize that there's more likelyhood of the whole extreme babysitting idea going on in reality tv then in a school. But schools (atleast the one I went to) do have parenting classes. If a school district has a high teenage pregnancy rate then more evasive teachings, perhaps helping out a family with a newborn should be implimented. More than just a baby think it over that wakes up and cries until you stick a key in it and simply teaching abstinence.

Honestly, that's all I can think of for right now. In 6 minutes if my daughter's still crying I have to go take care of her and hope she'll take her bottle with the medicine in it. Do you have any other ideas other than solely teaching abstinence and other conventional ideas? Despite our no duh differences I think you're a rather intelligent person. (I hope)[/color]

[Goodbye, Face]

Just interjecting my opinion in this issue. In the end, it really doesn't matter how you teach the kids, as they're still going to learn about whatever isn't taugh and they're still going to have teenage sex unless they believe otherwise. Like me, I knew that I would try my best (yeah, it's hard sometimes) to stay a virgin until marriage even before I had sex-ed. I know people who are four years younger than me who have sex regularly. All in all, I think that people should be taught both, as in, practice abstinence, but if it ends up happening, use protection. That's my mindset and I'll stick to it. You should give the kids all the info there is on it, then let them make their own descision. That's the only way I can make sense out of the debate.

[Morpheus]

This is how sex-ed should be taught:

1. Explain to the children that they will probably have sex.
2. Show them every method of birth control and tell them that the more you use the better.
3. Send them on their merry little way.

Seriously, 99.9% of people taught to be abstinent will not be abstinent.