Poll: Big Issues with Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

[Brutal Peanut]

Believe it or not, I never went to any kind of sexual education class in school. My family, is a family of medical professionals. What I went through and saw for information about sex and the consequences of forgoing safety measures, was far more horrific than any class described to me by my peers. Since I live in Southern California and apparently nothing was ever too horrific for my peers, just awkward and giggle-worthy. I also looked up quite a bit of information on my own to educate myself, since that has always been my way. I also watched different programs that described masturbation and sexuality, in a positive and healthy light, as long as one was safe.

I think it's important to actually stress both cold-hard facts on diseases, pregnancies, etc., encouraging teens/young adults to not be scared of buying contraception, proper safety practices and use of contraceptives, and abstinence (not until marriage, just until they feel they are ready and not to feel pressured). However, I can't help but feel religion should be left at the door on something like sexual education. Then again, I don't mean to offend, it's just my opinion.

 

[Sir_Auron_the_Badass]

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.

the fact that the government grants funding to school districts that promise to teach abstinence-only sex "education" instead of a comprehensive, fact-based style.

Which government? State Government? Federal government?

Federal Government provides the funding, but it's up to individual states and then school districts to decide if they want to accept that funding at the cost of comprehensive sex-ed (whether or not they were already providing it).

As for the poll, the ones that say that you agree with means you support what form of sex-ed your school district (as far as you know) currently teaches.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[Treblaine]

Federal Government provides the funding, but it's up to individual states and then school districts to decide if they want to accept that funding at the cost of comprehensive sex-ed (whether or not they were already providing it).

As for the poll, the ones that say that you agree with means you support what form of sex-ed your school district (as far as you know) currently teaches.

So at what level is the funding being stopped if they deviate from teaching Abstinence Only? Is it:

-Federal government mandate
-State government mandate
-District regulation

 

[Sir_Auron_the_Badass]

Federal Government provides the funding, but it's up to individual states and then school districts to decide if they want to accept that funding at the cost of comprehensive sex-ed (whether or not they were already providing it).

As for the poll, the ones that say that you agree with means you support what form of sex-ed your school district (as far as you know) currently teaches.

So at what level is the funding being stopped if they deviate from teaching Abstinence Only? Is it:

-Federal government mandate
-State government mandate
-District regulation

More likely than not, it would be at the district level; each individual district will ask or be asked if it wants the funding. Obviously the ones seeking out and asking will most likely vote yes, but the ones being asked might say no, at which point they become uneligible for the funds (until the next vote on it, probably when new members come in/old members leave) and another district is turned to and asked.

CAPTCHA: butler did it. How strange, I just recently watched Clue the movie.

 

[Sir_Auron_the_Badass]

The teachers themselves weren't so damn narrow-minded but they were forced to teach a more or less abstinence only curriculum for sex-ed.

99% of the time the only thing they could talk about were the *possibility* of consequences from having sex and unprotected sex all the same.

But when kids asked questions they were able to stray from the bs, so it was all good once everyone caught on, and I would like to say we got a good idea on it all, from both sides thanks to the teacher(s) themselves.

I know what you mean, my PE teachers were the ones teaching my health class, except for the days sex-ed was supposed to be covered. The district brought in a pro-abstinence representative for those days, who totally wasn't (christian) religiously biased *cough* wore priest's black clothes, white collar, large cross neckless, and carried a bible *cough*. There were a few kids in the class from various other religions besides any form of Catholicism (since this was, in fact a public school) that asked the representative why they should follow his set rules because their religion/deity doesn't follow those rules, and all he said was "because the true god doesn't allow it". I facepalmed so hard as soon as he looked away after that. The day after that our actual teachers purposely let slip that they were forced to take those days off because the school knew they were a lot more open-minded about sexuality and contraceptives than the district would've liked, and that if they taught it their way, they would've been fired.

 

[Plinglebob]

Only sex ed I got when I was younger was a lesson when I was 11 about the general mechanics and another when I was 14. I learned more from Monty Python.

Spoiler: Not safe for work

 

[BarbaricGoose]

The curriculum in my school was comprehensive, and I am a Don in the Mafia, but I also support this. Abstinence doesn't work.

 

[Naeras]

But I feel that if a private school wants to do something, and the parents paying to send their kids there approve it's no one else's business.

As long as they don't complain when their kid turns pregnant because one of their friends says that "you can't get pregnant from the first time" or "as long as you don't kiss it'll be okay".
Yeah, I've heard those. =/

 

[malestrithe]

Federal Government provides the funding, but it's up to individual states and then school districts to decide if they want to accept that funding at the cost of comprehensive sex-ed (whether or not they were already providing it).

As for the poll, the ones that say that you agree with means you support what form of sex-ed your school district (as far as you know) currently teaches.

So at what level is the funding being stopped if they deviate from teaching Abstinence Only? Is it:

-Federal government mandate
-State government mandate
-District regulation

State level. All education policies in the state are decided by your states board of education.

Federal government can't mandate anything. Apart from the 40 percent the Feds give to the states for education regardless, programs like Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind are more of a contract deal. It is no different than the one you signed when you started working. You do what is expected of you, don't screw up often and you get paid. The feds can only do what the state allows it to and nothing else. No Child Left Behind was never enacted in Utah or Massachusetts. Race to the Top is not enforced in 5 states.

Districts rarely do more than make sure State policies are enforced.

 

[Master_of_Oldskool]

My school district is unfortunately still abstinence based. When I took the class, my teacher, whom I shall refer to from here on as Mrs. Westboro K. Santorum, was horrifyingly enthusiastic about it. Mrs. Santorum gave us a brief introduction to the actual biology involved, and then spent the rest of the semester, and I shit you not here, telling us how relationships work. For most of four months, this completely untrained, unqualified zealot spouted armchair psychology bullshit about how men only react to visual stimulus and women only react to emotional stimulus, how a relationship not built on a "solid foundation", i.e. one without sex, could never hold up, and even how porn, in her opinion, could end marriages.

My favorite part, I think, was when she demonstrated how sex with multiple partners made one lose their ability to have a meaningful relationship... in the same way that tape loses its stickiness. This was far, far too much stupidity to take on one sitting. I raised my hand, waiting patiently as Mrs. Santorum told us a parable about a crack whore, all the while sticking the tape to things and ripping it off. Finally, her story concluded, she was forced to acknowledge me, and I explained, in one-sylable words, that people are more complicated than tape. And Mrs. Santorum's response?

"No they're not."

That's it. That's all. Not a single rational argument, not even some dubious bit of pseudo-psychology. Just "No they're not." The entirety of human thought and emotion, no more complicated to her than a strip of plastic and adhesive.

Westboro K. Santorum still teaches there.

 

[Treblaine]

Federal Government provides the funding, but it's up to individual states and then school districts to decide if they want to accept that funding at the cost of comprehensive sex-ed (whether or not they were already providing it).

As for the poll, the ones that say that you agree with means you support what form of sex-ed your school district (as far as you know) currently teaches.

So at what level is the funding being stopped if they deviate from teaching Abstinence Only? Is it:

-Federal government mandate
-State government mandate
-District regulation

State level. All education policies in the state are decided by your states board of education.

Federal government can't mandate anything. Apart from the 40 percent the Feds give to the states for education regardless, programs like Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind are more of a contract deal. It is no different than the one you signed when you started working. You do what is expected of you, don't screw up often and you get paid. The feds can only do what the state allows it to and nothing else. No Child Left Behind was never enacted in Utah or Massachusetts. Race to the Top is not enforced in 5 states.

Districts rarely do more than make sure State policies are enforced.

I thought as much.

Now in general I support devolution of power but some REALLY dumb shit happens at that level, kinda gets the least constructive kind of attention in between the big nationwide issues (herp derp president stuff) and the local district whining. In many ways this is where a national constitution needs to be enforced more rigorously than anywhere else.

I am not convinced an Abstinence-Only sex-ed policy is about the best welfare for the students, but rather morality posing as objective sex-health advice. While it IS true that abstinence is a good policy it is the "Only" part which is the issue, giving no education, options nor defence for ACTUAL sex. In which case it shouldn't be called Sex-Education, it should be called Celibacy-Education. Sex-education need to educate people on sex.

Abstinence-Only seems to just reinforce with young people a conservative ideal of never having sex before getting married, Young Virgin Brides. And it leaves those who break this "rule" high and dry it doesn't give them any useful education on pregnancy and STI's. It guilt-trips them pressuring them into "pledges" that only encourages them to cover up any pregnancy or STI that they get if they do succumb to these very strong urges.

Abstinence-Only does play into religious prejudices a lot, but I think it's mainly just a stupid policy that could be proposed by any out of touch and overprotective parent who hold the ridiculous ideal that every individual with marry as virgins and only ever have sex with their partner who they are married to. They don't seem to get how "virgin" is the most soul crushingly demeaning term that can be heaped on a young person.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

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.

Which is why I am not ok with Abstinence-only. I prefer what I call "Abstinence-emphasis."
Give them the real facts, tell them about contraception, but remind them "Money can be saved and trouble avoided by abstaining." Also, kids should have the option to opt out if they so chose.

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.

Which is kind of Ironic when you think about it, because keeping it secret will get him harmed WORSE by daddy. Then again, around here it is a commenly held view that daddy is the dictator of his house, and his wife is the queen dictator with just as much power (my dads actual analagy). If you are under the age of 18, you get NO privacy unless you have fricking EARNED it. For example, my parents totally trust me being alone with my girlfriend, having my bedroom door lock, and driving around on my own when I go to town....because I have been bending over backward and jumping thourgh countless hoops so I could show them I can be trusted. And even then, my parents prefer that one of her family members is home when I go over to her house. (isnt too hard, her brother and mom are usually home)

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.

Which, again, I am ok with steps like those being taken, namely making it easier to test for pregnancy and what not. That said, there should still be a stigma attached too it, IMO.

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.

Except........that is basically what they tell you around here when you are a teen driver. If you get in an accident, and its your fault, you better hope the cops find you first. If you crash your car or parents car, you are covering the damages yourself. Cant do that? Kiss your summer goodby, because your mowing lawns and getting any job that pays. Damage someone elses car? Same thing. Most parents will not bail your ass out. Heck, my parents, it is a "Not at all" deal. My dad, with a straight face, said "If you ever end up in jail for any reason, you will be staying ther for however long they want you, because I aint paying your bail."


Also, Side note, I did some looking....apparently, the midwest is below average on teen pregnancy rates...dispite having the same basic policys as the south. This tells me that what matters is socio-economic status and race (cold hard statistics say minorities are more likely to give birth in teen years.)

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Which is why I am not ok with Abstinence-only. I prefer what I call "Abstinence-emphasis."
Give them the real facts, tell them about contraception, but remind them "Money can be saved and trouble avoided by abstaining." Also, kids should have the option to opt out if they so chose.

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.

Which is kind of Ironic when you think about it, because keeping it secret will get him harmed WORSE by daddy. Then again, around here it is a commenly held view that daddy is the dictator of his house, and his wife is the queen dictator with just as much power (my dads actual analagy). If you are under the age of 18, you get NO privacy unless you have fricking EARNED it. For example, my parents totally trust me being alone with my girlfriend, having my bedroom door lock, and driving around on my own when I go to town....because I have been bending over backward and jumping thourgh countless hoops so I could show them I can be trusted. And even then, my parents prefer that one of her family members is home when I go over to her house. (isnt too hard, her brother and mom are usually home)

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.

Which, again, I am ok with steps like those being taken, namely making it easier to test for pregnancy and what not. That said, there should still be a stigma attached too it, IMO.

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.

Except........that is basically what they tell you around here when you are a teen driver. If you get in an accident, and its your fault, you better hope the cops find you first. If you crash your car or parents car, you are covering the damages yourself. Cant do that? Kiss your summer goodby, because your mowing lawns and getting any job that pays. Damage someone elses car? Same thing. Most parents will not bail your ass out. Heck, my parents, it is a "Not at all" deal. My dad, with a straight face, said "If you ever end up in jail for any reason, you will be staying ther for however long they want you, because I aint paying your bail."


Also, Side note, I did some looking....apparently, the midwest is below average on teen pregnancy rates...dispite having the same basic policys as the south. This tells me that what matters is socio-economic status and race (cold hard statistics say minorities are more likely to give birth in teen years.)

Good to know. I generally support abstinence and school shouldn't be encouraging students any more as they are under enough temptation to have sex. It's all a matter of moderation. The important thing is the option of abstinence shouldn't devoid education of where there isn't abstinence, otherwise it isn't sex-education, it's celibacy-education.

What I meant by the Car-crash analogy is they will just be left in a smoking crumpled wreck while people drive by. No information to call 911 to get help from paramedics or cut out from a car by the fire department, they weren't even advices to wear a seatbelt (condom equivalent). So people taught to drive are told to be careful, but things go wrong and they aren't they should have been taking protection (seatbelt/condoms) and know who to call when they land in a bad situation (Crash/Preggers/STI). You obviously don't dial 911 if you think you are pregnant, so where do you go?

This car analogy works only that far. It doesn't work the same as simple "just don't drive a car". The analogy is we know that you should take basic safety precautions and never hesitate to call for help when in need, because driving isn't sexual, we can talk about it and frankly depict it in the media. I don't know anywhere where teens on a huge scale don't understand how seatbelts save-lives, or don't know what to do if in a car accident. This is the importance of FORMAL sex-education, because it is such a touchy subject the full unadulterated facts don't get disseminated.

Well, the benevolent father dictator model is nice in principal, but a curious thing is how in general humans are better at lying than detecting lies. The father can't be checking EVERY MONTH if his teenage daughter has had a full menstrual cycle or other girly stuff that only the girl herself would reasonably know. There must be incentive to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and tell it soon as possible. I was the one who supported that dad shooting his impertinent daughter's laptop, though not the fast of Hollow-point ammo.

I think the "shotgun cleaning" would be good for a show to prevent date rape (especially how many states give only parole sentences for killing in anger such as a father shooting dead his daughter's rapist) but the father needs to have a talk with his daughter (or son as well, I suppose) that if things simply go wrong with no malice on the other person's part Daddy won't be mad if his son or daughter asks for help and no one else will be hurt.

Well abstinence only education makes no fucking sense

Literally.

 

[Mariakko]

My high school taught us about contraception and didn't even really bother with abstinence because in the words of our health teacher "You're going to do it regardless"

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Well abstinence only education makes no fucking sense because I think its an incomplete education.

Abstinence is the single, sure fire way to avoid pregnancy and STDs etc but its also a write off if you want to have sex. So, give a full education.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Good to know. I generally support abstinence and school shouldn't be encouraging students any more as they are under enough temptation to have sex. It's all a matter of moderation.

I can agree to that. My biggest problem with some people who teach for birth control basically make it "Oh, asking teens to not have sex is like asking the sun not to rise, so whats the point. Here, have free condoms." Which I personally find insulting because I know PLENTY of people who are 18 and virgin, meaning, yes, it can be control. Some weak-willed people just choose not to and say they cant.

You obviously don't dial 911 if you think you are pregnant, so where do you go?

You could fess up before things get worse and heads (maybe literally) start rolling.

This car analogy works only that far. It doesn't work the same as simple "just don't drive a car".

Try telling that to afew of the members on here. I actually had someone on here once tell me that abstainace is a stupid stance to have because "That is like telling someone to not drive a car to avoid risk." -_-

Well, the benevolent father dictator model is nice in principal, but a curious thing is how in general humans are better at lying than detecting lies. The father can't be checking EVERY MONTH if his teenage daughter has had a full menstrual cycle or other girly stuff that only the girl herself would reasonably know.

Which is were mamma bear comes in. She could pick up on stuff like that that daddy cant because he doesnt have to deal with it.

There must be incentive to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and tell it soon as possible.

Which is part of the reason my parents punishments were so harsh. To keep me from doing things they didnt want. For instance: If I swore, even something as light as "Damn it."? I would loss any and all videogames and movies containing even one swear word. Guess what I didnt do when I was younger?

But yes, some incentive, what ever that may be, is what is needed.

I think the "shotgun cleaning" would be good for a show to prevent date rape (especially how many states give only parole sentences for killing in anger such as a father shooting dead his daughter's rapist) but the father needs to have a talk with his daughter (or son as well, I suppose) that if things simply go wrong with no malice on the other person's part Daddy won't be mad if his son or daughter asks for help and no one else will be hurt.

Id have thought that went without saying. Or at least, if the parents are any good, they will have a talk. My girlfriends parents did that to her. My parents did it to me. Our reactions:

Her: *twitch, sweatdrops* But I am not interested in that stuff and I dont want to have sex until I am married.
Me: Ughhh X( *translation, unheard by parents* Ok, I get it, sometimes I may feel like 'doing it' and if I do, use a condom....blah, blah, blah, not 100% successful. There! It doesnt always work. So I am just not going to have sex until I am married, it is safer that way. NOW CAN WE PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS!?! I skipped sex ed for a reason!

Oh, and one more thing....

They don't seem to get how "virgin" is the most soul crushingly demeaning term that can be heaped on a young person.

On what fricking planet?! I have never once heard of "virgin" being used as an insult, and it is a badge worn with pride around here.