Poll: Big Issues with Abstinence-Only Sex Ed
- Thread starter Sir_Auron_the_Badass
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't even think my sex ed class mentioned abstinence at all. I think the whole issue of how you feel was mentioned in passing, but for the most part, all I remember was "This is a condom, practice putting it on." Which, you know, is much more useful information should abstinence fail - or, ya know, you get the opportunity in a club toilet or something. I do remember, though, that you - or maybe your parents - had the option of pulling out (Pun partly intended) of the sex ed lessons if your parents - or you - had a problem with learning sex so early. Or something like that, anyway.
Or, and I know this is crazy, they could have LISTENED AND NOT DONE ANYTHING! I mean, its not out of the question, considering the whole "can not control it" thing is a myth. Most teens are smart enough to control what they do and not let thier hormones rule them, and its a small minority that cant.....or at least, thats what it seems to be in the Midwest. (maybe the whole "Shotgun cleaning" practice helps.)CrossLOPER said:
We were taught about condoms and the pill and whatnot. I don't think practicing abstinence was ever brought up as a serious alternative because, for a majority of people, it's not a realistic expectation. It seems to have a special place in the US school system though.
Only one girl in our class got pregnant during secondary school (and she was the only person to have been pregnant while I was there) and that was with her long-term boyfriend because the contraceptive failed, not because she didn't use it. I'm not sure which one she was on but she was an unfortunate member of that teeny-tiny percentage.
Only one girl in our class got pregnant during secondary school (and she was the only person to have been pregnant while I was there) and that was with her long-term boyfriend because the contraceptive failed, not because she didn't use it. I'm not sure which one she was on but she was an unfortunate member of that teeny-tiny percentage.
Which doesn't work. Tell most teenagers they can't have sex, most teenagers will turn round and say 'fuck right off'.Zaik said:
Tell them they can have sex, but to use protection and warn them about STIs [truthfully, none of this bollocks about AIDS being caused by gay people] and they'll not only listen to you, but they won't resent you for being a lying c*** later in life...
We got taught comprehensive sex education at the age of about... 10? 11? It was in year 6, not sure how that translates into the American 'grades.' Then we had all of it reinforced again a couple of years later, with more detail and info on self cancer checks and the like.
Guess what? Not a single girl in my school got pregnant. I left to go to a different college, but as far as I know, nobody from that school has gotten pregnant yet. Seems like a win for comprehensive ed to me.
Pretty much every single person in the western world who lives outside of the US bible belt is aware that abstinence only education is profoundly retarded.
There really isn't much left to discuss about it.
Get rid of the religious notions of purity and virgin worship. It needs to be done.
There really isn't much left to discuss about it.
Get rid of the religious notions of purity and virgin worship. It needs to be done.
Yes he should. I went to a catholic school. They teach us what sex is, that abortion is bad, that STI's are bad, and that we shouldn't have sex until marriage.Zaik said:
Lol thanks for the preachy shit.
So yeah, religion does affect this, and it shouldn't.
I went to a private Christian school throughout my entire elementary and high-school education. I remember my first exposure to their policy on sex was in 4th grade. The teacher asked the question "what kinds of relationships can people have?". I replied with a list of possible relationship types, which included "sexual". I was suspended for the next two days.
By their logic, having sex outside of marriage was akin to committing adultery against your future wife. Thinking of sex was equally sinful, since desiring to sin is exactly as bad as committing the sin in the eyes of God.
Our only analog to sexual education came in tenth grade, during the reproductive health portion of our health class, taught by the gym teacher. For that portion, we were made to watch some old videos from the 1980's with a bunch of crazy-eyed lecturers naming off every STD known at the time and pretty much saying that we would catch them all if we had sex before marriage.
In late high school, teachers were more forthcoming about sex, though their policy towards it didn't really change. Among the extra things they told us: STD's are God's way of punishing those who have premarital sex. For that reason, it is a sin to try to find a cure for any STD.
(We also had one crazy Spanish Language teacher around for about a year, who insisted that American scientists created AIDS to wipe out all the black people in Africa. He was kicked out after his first year teaching.)
The downside to all this is that every student in our class, save for one or two ultra-religious kids, instantly recognized this line of teaching as bullshit and simply listened to it to entertain ourselves. Most students didn't have sex, but that was due to the steeply unbalanced boy-to-girl ratio, more than anything else.
Suffice to say, everything important that I learned about sex, I learned from the internet and from a friendly cable guy who liked to hang out with my mom. He bought me a playboy and explained proper condom usage to me. Thanks, cable guy.
By their logic, having sex outside of marriage was akin to committing adultery against your future wife. Thinking of sex was equally sinful, since desiring to sin is exactly as bad as committing the sin in the eyes of God.
Our only analog to sexual education came in tenth grade, during the reproductive health portion of our health class, taught by the gym teacher. For that portion, we were made to watch some old videos from the 1980's with a bunch of crazy-eyed lecturers naming off every STD known at the time and pretty much saying that we would catch them all if we had sex before marriage.
In late high school, teachers were more forthcoming about sex, though their policy towards it didn't really change. Among the extra things they told us: STD's are God's way of punishing those who have premarital sex. For that reason, it is a sin to try to find a cure for any STD.
(We also had one crazy Spanish Language teacher around for about a year, who insisted that American scientists created AIDS to wipe out all the black people in Africa. He was kicked out after his first year teaching.)
The downside to all this is that every student in our class, save for one or two ultra-religious kids, instantly recognized this line of teaching as bullshit and simply listened to it to entertain ourselves. Most students didn't have sex, but that was due to the steeply unbalanced boy-to-girl ratio, more than anything else.
Suffice to say, everything important that I learned about sex, I learned from the internet and from a friendly cable guy who liked to hang out with my mom. He bought me a playboy and explained proper condom usage to me. Thanks, cable guy.
The trouble is, the numbers tend to show that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't reduce teen pregnancies.Zaik said:
I can't remember where any decent papers are available online at the moment (just had a big lunch, brain not working very well), but the Wikipedia article has a few references I seem to recall.
In the UK, abstinence-only sex ed is only taught in Muslim and Catholic schools.
I truly don't understand why anyone would think abstinence only-education would be a good idea. It means more teen pregnancies, more STDs and a lot of social stigma towards the subject, and to what end? To make sure that kids don't take part in one of the most enjoyable activities you can take part in?
I mean, the "ruin something fun, delightful and full of love, and make the world worse for it at the same time" would be something you'd expect from a comic book villain, were we talking about any other subject.
I mean, the "ruin something fun, delightful and full of love, and make the world worse for it at the same time" would be something you'd expect from a comic book villain, were we talking about any other subject.
The first time Junior meets the father of the girl he is dating, Daddy will be sitting in his big chair, box of shotgun ammo next to him, cleaning a 12-guage, then look junior in the eye, and say "Nothing is going to happen with you and my daughter, RIGHT???!" I DARE you to try ANYTHING on her knowing that daddy is armed, and very protective. (Ah, the memories. Her dad trust me now, though.)CrossLOPER said:
Well, going by what my school was, we were all the kids of farmers, soldiers, and blue-collar workers. Considering I was really popular with girls (I knew just about all of them), I can say with 85% certainty that most of them did not have sex during the year. Because most of them were smart enought to know that it was better to wait, because again, out of my class, only 2 girls got pregnant (and only one was on accident
).
Sex ed in my school can best be summarized by the phrase "If your penis is ever outside of a condom, it will catch on fire and fall off. Have a nice day."
So yeah.
Pretty bad, they actually encouraged a lot of masturbation
My female friend went to the women's sex ed class (Obviously) said part of the lesson was which vegetables are safe to masturbate with. (No joke)
Mostly what they did for the men was pass around picture after picture of STD ridden penises.
So yeah.
Pretty bad, they actually encouraged a lot of masturbation
My female friend went to the women's sex ed class (Obviously) said part of the lesson was which vegetables are safe to masturbate with. (No joke)
Mostly what they did for the men was pass around picture after picture of STD ridden penises.
I can't answer you poll because I don't understand what "I support this" is for?
-Would this support the bad situation you describe?
or
-Would this support your proposal that it should be stopped?
---
I think the message should rather than be:
"Have sex with condoms"
but be
"Do not have sex WITHOUT condoms"
That's the problem with sex, the whole semen transfer business. Semen includes such a large number of shedding cells it transfers blood born diseases very effectively and the vajayjay or butthole is not like the skin over your body, it is is mucosa membrane vulnerable to all sorts of these microbes.
And IF a condom does break (fucking HOW, look how much latex condoms can be stretched before they break)...
(I guess if the condom has been in your wallet for 2 years, yeah it may have partially dissolved)
... then you put on another condom if there is still time. This is where a morning after pill would be very useful as while not every dude carries an STI, all of them likely have active sperm cells. Also abortion needs to be a practical option when that doesn't work. Roe vs Wade applies just as much to teenagers as adults.
-Would this support the bad situation you describe?
or
-Would this support your proposal that it should be stopped?
---
I think the message should rather than be:
"Have sex with condoms"
but be
"Do not have sex WITHOUT condoms"
That's the problem with sex, the whole semen transfer business. Semen includes such a large number of shedding cells it transfers blood born diseases very effectively and the vajayjay or butthole is not like the skin over your body, it is is mucosa membrane vulnerable to all sorts of these microbes.
And IF a condom does break (fucking HOW, look how much latex condoms can be stretched before they break)...
(I guess if the condom has been in your wallet for 2 years, yeah it may have partially dissolved)
... then you put on another condom if there is still time. This is where a morning after pill would be very useful as while not every dude carries an STI, all of them likely have active sperm cells. Also abortion needs to be a practical option when that doesn't work. Roe vs Wade applies just as much to teenagers as adults.
Which government? State Government? Federal government?Sir_Auron_the_Badass said:
My sex education was comprehensive and as far as I'm aware it still is.
Then again I'm from a place where "people having sex for fun makes the baby Jesus cry" is not considered a valid argument.
Then again I'm from a place where "people having sex for fun makes the baby Jesus cry" is not considered a valid argument.
I think the back-and-forth between Varric and Aveline in DA2 kinda fits with this whole thing - she's asking him to do signs or even graphics for the lawless to stop breaking the law and he suggests he just paint her a sign that says "Don't" and she can hit people with it.
It just doesn't work to keep telling people not to do something and since they're going to do it (or at least a significant percentage of them are) it is better policy to educate them what the risks are and how to minimize the risks and fallout of having sex. Then they can decide if they're going to do it or not with some knowledge of what's involved rather than being told they shouldn't have the decision - since they clearly do.
It just doesn't work to keep telling people not to do something and since they're going to do it (or at least a significant percentage of them are) it is better policy to educate them what the risks are and how to minimize the risks and fallout of having sex. Then they can decide if they're going to do it or not with some knowledge of what's involved rather than being told they shouldn't have the decision - since they clearly do.
Um, they CAN'T forbid teaching anything else as that would blatantly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. This is a way of getting religious ideology enforced surreptitiously. Then again it isn't ENTIRELY religious, but it is NOT SCIENCE, it is based on conservative bias. Abstinence-only policy does not come from the perspective of wanting to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or prevent the spread of STI/D's. It comes from the perspective of stopping ALL sex outside of marriage.Zaik said:
Encouraging abstinence isn't a very good way of stopping girls getting pregnant, contraceptives ARE. Contraceptives like the contraceptive pill, and ideally barrier methods like condoms.
It is not an "honest reason" for abstinence-only to prevail over encouraging barrier methods like condoms in protection from STIs and contraceptive pill or morning after pill for protection from getting pregnant. These are cheap and effective. You don't even have to put the condoms out for free, just sell them but ALLOW them to be sold where young students can easily buy them.
It's quite clear from the rate of both unwanted/teen pregnancies and the spread of serious STIs that NOT ENOUGH are restraining themselves. Restraining, abstitnence, may be ideal. But it's crazy that "Abstinence ONLY" will work.BOOM headshot65 said:
Shotgun practice might work if the father is somehow always able to know what is going on, but when the daughter fears her boyfriend will be physically harmed if her father discovers she is pregnant or has carbs or whatever, she will simply keep the outcome a secret.
I mean this "Abstinence Only" education won't even make pregnancy-testing facilities available, the girl won't know they are pregnant till they have missed one or two menstrual cycles. They aren't even taught how to recognise STIs and what to do if they get them... jsut the assumptions they should never be exposed to them.
Imagine if this was done with other things:
Herp: "Don't drive dangerously or you'll have a crash"
Derp: "But what if I do have a crash and am injured, who should I call"
Herp: "I guess you better call Marty McFly and get in a time machine as you weren't even supposed to have been driving dangerously. I guess you are just shit-outta-luck and I won't tell you where you can get any help"
That is exactly what is done with Abstinence-Only: don't have sex. If you do, you are on, your, own.
America's education of sex ed is fucked. (see what I did there?)
Media is hyper-sexualized. Average age of intercourse is somewhere between 13-15 if I remember correctly.
in my experience with sex ed: Abstinence. I tried to bring up alternatives i.e: monogamous consensual relationships that practiced safe sex once during a discussion.
I was shut down immediately. The teacher practically JUMPED to shut me up and then go on a long speech to the tune of ABSTINENCE before marriage or ROTTING GENITALS!!! FEAR SEX CHILDREN!! FEAR IT!! FEAR!!!!!
Then he showed up some gross pictures of various diseases.
At that moment I lost all respect for that teacher.
Here is what I think sex ed should be: FACT. Pure Fact. Teach children about the risks. Teach them how to minimize them. Teach them anatomy. Teach them that society has a huge number of different views and outlooks on sexuality. Encourage them to ask their parents about theirs, but also to form their own opinions based on the facts.
Media is hyper-sexualized. Average age of intercourse is somewhere between 13-15 if I remember correctly.
in my experience with sex ed: Abstinence. I tried to bring up alternatives i.e: monogamous consensual relationships that practiced safe sex once during a discussion.
I was shut down immediately. The teacher practically JUMPED to shut me up and then go on a long speech to the tune of ABSTINENCE before marriage or ROTTING GENITALS!!! FEAR SEX CHILDREN!! FEAR IT!! FEAR!!!!!
Then he showed up some gross pictures of various diseases.
At that moment I lost all respect for that teacher.
Here is what I think sex ed should be: FACT. Pure Fact. Teach children about the risks. Teach them how to minimize them. Teach them anatomy. Teach them that society has a huge number of different views and outlooks on sexuality. Encourage them to ask their parents about theirs, but also to form their own opinions based on the facts.
Biggest problem I see with abstinence-only is that it is not education.
All you are saying is "You should not have sex, because having a baby at 16 is not cool"
Problem is that this won't stop people from bumping uglies... only now they do it uneducated.
Teach kids how all of this work and they are at least prepared. Abstinence teaching and sexual education IS NOT mutually exclusive. And no teaching people about something doesn't make them go out and do it. (Because they are already doing it)
All you are saying is "You should not have sex, because having a baby at 16 is not cool"
Problem is that this won't stop people from bumping uglies... only now they do it uneducated.
Teach kids how all of this work and they are at least prepared. Abstinence teaching and sexual education IS NOT mutually exclusive. And no teaching people about something doesn't make them go out and do it. (Because they are already doing it)