Abstinence only vs Sex Education

idsunki · Post by **idsunki** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:22 am

Oh wow. That's just ... that's just perfect. It's what I was trying to say, but a lot wittier!

Thanks, Bamfette.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:24 pm

>That's how you end up with miserable repressed adults with terrible relationships and a high chance of divorce.

Funny thing, the divorce rate wasn't as high before the so-called sexual revolution. And it hasn't really declined substantially since.

I don't see how practically eliminating the risk of AIDS or chronic diseases, some of which can go undetected in women until they've already done permanent damage, is by any stretch unhealthy.

No, pregnancy doesn't ruin a life. But crisis pregnancy does factor into a host of sociological problems. If it's risky enough to warrant something that's 85% successful at preventing it, it's risky enough to warrant prevention along the lines of 100% effective. You may wonder what the big deal is about 15-16 year olds having sex. How many kids that age these days do you know of that are ready, willing, and able to raise a child? How many boys that age are willing to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood beyond sending a check every month or trusting that the government will care for the consequences of their actions?

Something similar can be said for gay teens. Because the closest thing anyone can get to really safe sex is within a strictly monogamous relationship. If a kid, gay, straight, or just plain defiant of labels, is not ready for a solid lifelong committment, best to simply not have sex.

My analogy does make sense. We do not teach kids how to minimize the risk of behavior we know for a fact to be dangerous (ie, deliberate reckless driving). We don't teach kids about needle exchanges just in case they decide to shoot heroin or meth, do we? No. We teach them to avoid illicit drug use, and maybe bring in an addict to say, "Listen to your teachers. Don't make the same mistakes I made."

And pay a visit to sub-Saharan Africa before telling me again that driving these days kills more people than AIDS.

Reproduction is not the most important biological drive. Thirst, hunger, and self-preservation take priority over reproduction.

And finally, anyone besides myself notice that I haven't mentioned religion at all here?

[Edited on 20/3/06 by Angelique]

The Drastic Spastic · Post by **The Drastic Spastic** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:08 pm

I like how Angelique ignores main points to pick at inconsequentials.

Originally posted by Angelique
>That's how you end up with miserable repressed adults with terrible relationships and a high chance of divorce.

Funny thing, the divorce rate wasn't as high before the so-called sexual revolution. And it hasn't really declined substantially since.

Not being able to divorce means people are happy! Stop arguing unless you can come up with something that a five year old couldn't poke holes in.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:16 pm

You may wish to consider that then, because I intended to point out based on historical record that the divorce rate has nothing to do with what we've discussed.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:26 pm

Did Angelique just tell another poster to stay on topic?

Pot, meet kettle....

And pay a visit to sub-Saharan Africa before telling me again that driving these days kills more people than AIDS.

Who here said driving kills more than AIDs? I don't recall seeing that...

Reproduction is not the most important biological drive. Thirst, hunger, and self-preservation take priority over reproduction.

So, then why not starve our kids? Then they won't have sex! Brilliant!

And finally, anyone besides myself notice that I haven't mentioned religion at all here?

*sigh* It's not all about you, darling. Basically, the abstinence education is a RELIGIOUS movement, because the belief that waiting for sex before marriage is steepled in religion. I don't think anyone here has tried to make you sound uber religious in this argument, but the religious ties cannot be denied.

Ange, I don't know what world you live in, but it's certainly not ours. I'm glad where you come from, children will listen to every single thing an adult tells them to do, regardless of how glamorous/exciting it is. Children must surely NEVER have sex before marriage where you're from. And drugs? Oh my goodness no! Never had a sip of alcohol before 21 I'm sure.

The more we all close our eyes and ears to what children are REALLY doing, the more dangerous it becomes for THEM.

Answer this question (although, if this is anything like the christmas argument, we'll get no straight answers, just nit picks on tiny points made by us. Learn to intelligently argue, and we'll take your point seriously): What is so wrong about teaching children how to handle sex responsibly? Why should we, in essense, promote ignorance over education?

[Edited on 20/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:29 pm

Nothing wrong with teaching children how to handle sex responsibly. When it comes down to it, abstinence outside of a lifelong monogamous committment is more responsible than depending on a piece of rubber and some chemicals to keep one "safe."

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:30 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
Funny thing, the divorce rate wasn't as high before the so-called sexual revolution. And it hasn't really declined substantially since.

I don't see how practically eliminating the risk of AIDS or chronic diseases, some of which can go undetected in women until they've already done permanent damage, is by any stretch unhealthy.

I personally think that the resulting higher divorce rates have less to do with socieites higher tolerance for sex out of marriage, and more to do with a multitude of factors - such as woman being able to sustain themselves (therefore they aren't "stuck" in marriages like a woman of the 50's would have been) and the fact that we are a generation that expects more "instant" gratification.

As for the AIDS epidemic in africa - that is a whole nother cookie. It isn't a bunch of teens that are going around and catching it - it is everyone, and due to multiple reasons - not just sex. Many married couples have it. Vigins and even babies are being raped daily because men are being told that this will cure them. Huge big issues there - not just a matter of teen sex. And you know what the biggest problem is?? Lack of education, and lack of things like condoms. If the people could be educated in how this disease, and sex in general, works - and be provided with the tools for safer sex (and be persauded to use them) the result would be a lowering in transmission of AIDS. No condom is fool proof - but it certainly adds to the safety.

Men (or sometimes women) fooling around outside of their marriage is a big thing, and always has been a big thing throughout history. They tend to drag all sorts of lovely things home to their partner. This isn't a new trend...its happened for centuries. However, until we went rummaging around in the rainforests, AIDS didn't exist. If AIDS had happened 200 years ago then I have no doubt that it would have run even more rampant through society than it is nowadays. It is our technology that is damning us, and saving us in the same breath.

paws

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:36 pm

Well, marital infidelity and rape count as sex.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:38 pm

Angelique, you can save the world. You have an answer for everything.

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:39 pm

Well, as rape and extramarital sex have always existed throughout time, in non religious societies, and in extrodinarily strictly religious ones, I don't know how you suggest that we can change that. I would love to see a world with no rape, murder or other crap, but nothing that we have ever tried has ever gotten us a world like that.

Still - its a whole different conversation than teen sex...

Paws

and edited to add that from the brief foray that I had with jogging around the internet - it looks like Abstinence only classes have more to do with miselading and lying to teens (a sure fire way of earning their respect and compliance) than it does with educating them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Dec1.html
and it obviously makes a huge difference in thier behaviour
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=19531
ahh...and another lovely example... http://www.alternet.org/story/15744/
Yeah...abstinence only works...

Paws

[Edited on 20/3/06 by fourpawsonthefloor]

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:50 pm

Well, it does tie in with teen sex, as abstinence outside of marriage does preclude other behaviors such as rape and extramarital sex.

And these things don't exist as part of some inevitable reality. They exist because certain people choose these things.

I think perpetuating the myth that sex just happens and that the only thing we can hope to control is how "safe" we keep it.

Is it a lie to say that we can choose not to have sex, and that it would be wisest for teenagers to put that off until they're settled in life and in a permanent relationship?

[Edited on 20/3/06 by Angelique]

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:57 pm

The wisest decision for a teenage to make is to put off sex, yes. We're not here promoting teen sex. But since when do 100% of teens make wise decisions? Regardless of how capable they are of making these decisions? So whats so wrong with teaching them ways to keep their sexual escapades responsible when they choose to have sex over abstaining?

And when did sex become such a bad thing again?

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:01 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
Well, it does tie in with teen sex, as abstinence outside of marriage does preclude other behaviors such as rape and extramarital sex.
[Edited on 20/3/06 by Angelique]

HOLD THE PHONE. Correct me if I am reading this wrong. Do you mean to say that of course we have rapists and extramartital affairs because of teen sex?? Because rapists and cheaters come from people that had sex as teens and the people that waited for marriage wouldn't rape or have affairs??

or did I read that wrong...

Paws

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:13 pm

Allow me to clarify. Nobody who refrains from sex outside of marriage is going to cheat. And someone who can take no for an answer isn't going to committ rape.

Basically, all these things, like teen sex, wouldn't be an issue if people simply chose not to do them.

[Edited on 20/3/06 by Angelique]

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:20 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
Allow me to clarify. Nobody who refrains from sex outside of marriage is going to cheat. And someone who can take no for an answer isn't going to committ rape.

Thats a very very nice little world you live in there Ange. But can we get back on topic? We're talking about teens and sex. And as much as you twiddle around the topic, this is OT.

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:27 pm

Actually, as I'd been taking a non-religious angle in favor of abstinence education, and this is the religion thread rather than the teen sex thread....

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:41 pm

Well - if you are going to favor absitience ONLY on the merits of health safety, then you should be fine with people who regularily get screened and have sex with other screened people then, right?

Paws

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:42 pm

Oh, then I guess the rest of us are wrong then.

Angelique, stay on topic. Consider this a request from a mod. If you cannot show a direct connection between what is being discussed and what you are telling us, then do not post it. The topic is abstinence education and how it effects youth today. Rape, cheating on spouses, etc is OT no matter how well it fits with whatever point you are trying to make...

Stay on topic. Consider this a warning...

Angelique · Post by **Angelique** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:58 pm

>Well - if you are going to favor absitience ONLY on the merits of health safety, then you should be fine with people who regularily get screened and have sex with other screened people then, right?

I never said it was my only reason. But you have to consider that some diseases can go undetected- or get picked up between regular screenings.

Post by **fourpawsonthefloor** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:06 pm

Originally posted by Angelique
I never said it was my only reason. But you have to consider that some diseases can go undetected- or get picked up between regular screenings.

Well yes, some can slip through, but its pretty rare if you would only be having sex with other "safe" people.

I could have gotten hepatitis or any number of awful illnesses by wading in the new orleans waters, and by handling animals. I was very aware of this and therefore took every precaution. What was great is that the group that I went with had thoroughly trained us on the methods to best keep us safe. My parents would have rather I not have gone down at all, period, and therefore would have totally avoided the health risk (and trust me, they did everything in their power to keep me from going, including threatening me). I however, being the lady that I am, said "f" that and did it anyway.

Now - turn that over into teen sex. It would read just the same, but if I hadn't had the training, I would have been much more likely to have ended up with a nasty bug from new orleans. I would have still gone, no matter what my parents or anyone else said, because I wanted to. Yes some friends supported my immensly, just like a teens friends will probabally do on a lower scale when the teen is ready to have sex.

I don't like kids having kids, or teens having sex when they are not ready for it. But do I expect any amount of pissing in the wind, trying to freak them out with lies, or purposly keeping them ignorant to keep them safe? Hardly. And expecially when they become adults, I realize that they are individuals, and have a right to do with their body what they will, provided they do not intend to bring harm onto others.

You cannot control a teen lock, stock and barrel. Screwing with their head will just cause them to further distrust you and then just how likely do you think that they will come to you with a problem.

That's the reason we hear of kids throwing their babies in dumpsters or going on with diseases till its too late...they are too scared to go to anyone "cause their parents would kill them if they knew they had sex". Not what I want my kid to grow up feeling, thank you, and if any educator attempts to screw up my kid that way, I will certainly have something to say about it.

Paws

(paws will go sit off in the corner now until she stops frothing at the mouth like a rabid coyote)

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:14 pm

I went ahead and split the thread....

Keep it OT

And Ange, please use the quote tags. You've been wanred about that before...

[Edited on 20/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

chicory · Post by **chicory** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:39 pm

Since religion often seems to be directions on the 'right' way for a person to live their life - I think that sex, divorce, and adultry are all on topic.

angelique>I don't get your arguement! Life's dangerous! I don't not go snowboarding despite all the people I know who have broken bones and torn ligaments. I continue to drive a car even though I got in an accident last December. Even if I locked myself up in my room and never ventured outside I could still eat tainted food or die of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Sex is overrated. Sure, it's a big deal. But, it reminds me of alcohol - blown out of proportion because it's hidden and secretive and a source of fear for people who aren't educated about how things work.

It also is a basic drive - maybe it is reserved for healthy, well-hydrated bodies that don't feel they are in any immediate danger - but it's still important. People should make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives (and have the tools and knowledge to do so).

And it's so unrealistic to think that if everyone obeyed the law there wouldn't be extramarital sex (or rape). But, the ting is that those laws exist because those behaviors exist in the first place. And telling people not to do something doesn't change human nature. It works better to plan what to do when teen pregnancy or rape happens because as nice as it would be to prevent both altogether - it just can't be done (at least not in a free society).

And I do advocate for teen sex. Because 18 is still a teenager and there are plenty of people that age who have their own apartments and serious SO's and jobs even. Some 18 years olds are seriously immature. But, others aren't. And 14 is a great age for a comprehensive Health class where no one is lied to. Since in four years time marriage is legal (and sooner in other places.)

I also think people should have a right to intimacy with a partner without fear of unplanned pregnancies. Because we do have the technology where people can have absolute control over their bodies, and the only reasons that (women especially) are denied that is because of uncompromising and static religious philosophies.

paws -

your avatar!

idsunki - You're girlfriend has good taste then

- bonobos are kinda special, I'm falling in love with them too (also not literally)

chicory goes off to imagine what Planet of the Apes would have looked like if bonobos had inherited the earth instead of chimpazees. And what a bible written by an evolved bonobo society would look like.

Post by **HoodedMan** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:45 pm

Here. I'm going to do what Angelique can not: Back up my arguments with cited FACTS.

In the field, condoms have up to a 15% failure rate. Is it less dangerous than unprotected sex? Statistically, yes, of course. But all it takes is one condom failure to mess up someone's life. And it's never as if our only choices are condoms or unprotected sex.

Bullshit. I have never seen such a bullshit number. The Center for Disease Control's official position is that use of a latex condom is recommended as a preventive strategy against HIV infection [1]. And for good reason; when used correctly, the failure rate is about 3% [2]. What's more, abstinence-only programs don't teach teens how to use condoms properly, leading to a much higher failure rate. Which do you think is easier to break? A latex condom or a vow of abstinence?

Funny thing, the divorce rate wasn't as high before the so-called sexual revolution. And it hasn't really declined substantially since.

People who pledge abstinence, especially females, marry earlier [4] and it leads to further problems such as higher divorce rates [6]. Why do you think teens are being pressured to marry? It's not the "sexual revolution"; it doesn't have anything to do with marriage.

I don't see how practically eliminating the risk of AIDS or chronic diseases, some of which can go undetected in women until they've already done permanent damage, is by any stretch unhealthy.

People who pledge abstinence have no significant differences in STD infection rates as compared to non-pledgers [5]. What's more, they are less likely to know their STD status and less likely to be tested for STDs [4].

If it's risky enough to warrant something that's 85% successful at preventing it, it's risky enough to warrant prevention along the lines of 100% effective.

Stop using that number. As I said, it's bullshit. And if you think everyone who takes a vow of abstinence stays abstinent, you're batshit crazy. And proven wrong; the only significant difference between pledgers and non-pledgers is that pledgers have sex later in life, or they think anal or oral sex is better when they can still get diseases. [5]

Something similar can be said for gay teens. Because the closest thing anyone can get to really safe sex is within a strictly monogamous relationship. If a kid, gay, straight, or just plain defiant of labels, is not ready for a solid lifelong committment, best to simply not have sex.

Your acceptance is surprising, since abstinence-only programs show open hostility to or are ignorant of the needs of sexual minorities. [9]

Here's my summing up:

Abstinence pledgers:
Are significantly less likely to make informed choices about precautions when they do have sex [3].
Are less likely to know their STD status [4].
Are less likely to be tested for STDs [4].
Have no significant differences in STD infection rates as compared to nonpledgers [5].
Abstinence pledgers marry earlier [4], which leads to further problems such as higher divorce rates [6].

Abstinence-only programs:
Promote ignorance of the risk of STD transmission through non-coital sexual activity [7].
Fail to meet the needs of those who have premarital sex by not teaching prevention [8].
Discriminate against sexually minority youth by ignoring their sexual health needs altogether. [9]
Espouse negative and fear-based messages about human sexuality [10]

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Guidelines for Effective School Health Education to Prevent the Spread of AIDS, 37 [S-2] MORBIDITY &: MORTALITY WKLY. REP., Jan. 29, 1988, at 1-14.
2. http://www.contraception.net/resource_c ... arrier.asp
3. Waxman Report, supra note 2, at ii.
4. Bruckner & Bearman, After the promise, supra note 8, at 276-277
5. ld. at 277.
6. CAROLYN E. COCCA, JAILBAIT: THE POLITICS OF STATUTORY RAPE LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES 134 [2004].
7. Nicoletti, supra note 137, at 58; Mosher et al., supra note 52, at 5-6.
8. Bearman & Bruckner, Promising the Future, supra note 19, at 902.
9. See James McGrath, Abstinence-Only Adolescent Education: Ineffective, Unpopular, and Unconstitutional, 38 U.S.F.L. REV, 665, 681-84 [2004].
10. McGrath, supra note 122, at 682-84; Seller, supra note 85, at 35-36.

Total treatment of the subject:

Beh, Hazel Glenn, and Milton Diamond. "The failure of abstinence-only education: minors have a right to honest talk about sex.(Sexuality and the Law)." Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 15.1 (Wntr 2006): 12(51). LegalTrac. Thomson Gale. 20 March 2006
.

Note: Please look this up at your local library. You can't access Thomson Gale without a subscription.

NachtcGleiskette · Post by **NachtcGleiskette** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:51 pm

Amazing Northstar. Amazing.

You too chic!! I hope you don't mind, I moved your post over here since I split the thread before you posted....

[Edited on 21/3/06 by NachtcGleiskette]

LadyErin · Post by **LadyErin** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:10 am

Ok...I want to clear something up before I post this. Yes, I did have standard sex ed - at age 16. I got the abstinence only from age ten to then. No, on to:

Originally posted by HoodedMan
Here's my summing up:

Abstinence pledgers:
Are significantly less likely to make informed choices about precautions when they do have sex [3].
Are less likely to know their STD status [4].
Are less likely to be tested for STDs [4].
Have no significant differences in STD infection rates as compared to nonpledgers [5].
Abstinence pledgers marry earlier [4], which leads to further problems such as higher divorce rates [6].

Abstinence-only programs:
Promote ignorance of the risk of STD transmission through non-coital sexual activity [7].
Fail to meet the needs of those who have premarital sex by not teaching prevention [8].
Discriminate against sexually minority youth by ignoring their sexual health needs altogether. [9]
Espouse negative and fear-based messages about human sexuality [10]

Just a personal note on that...I took and signed that pleage after I had already broken it, and did so, twice more. Now...the first and second time...same guy...someone I'm still close to, but there was no safer sex practised - why? I was too ashamed (yes, ashamed) to bring it up, and he didn't want to use them. We were damned lucky. But I didn't want to get caught with anything releated to sex because I was too afraid. Period. Terrified of being caught doing something I wasn't supposed to think about much less do.

And you know what? I was the good kid. Always did homework on time (or Early!), home right after school, never back talked my parents, never disobeyed, never lied (save to call my French class DT's a 'study lesson' - which they were, but that's a different story...) (Sidenote: Any one see a problem with a 17 year old kid acting like that?)

And if I didn't stick to it...I have very very little reason to think anyone else would either. Maybe short term...but long term? Nope. And I wish that at 13 or 14 some one would have given me a straight talk. No tried to scare me, not try to guilt me, not make me feel like a horrible person for having feelings that were pefectly normal!

Because of what I didn't know...wasn't allowed to know...I put myself at a *big* risk. I was lucky...so many aren't. And also...people I *could* go to for advice...I'm far to shy around to do so. And I'm not a kid anymore.

What I do feel is cheated. Tricked. Betrayed.

And at sixteen when I did get a sex-ed class not a sex-bad class...I felt singled out. I would *blush* scarlet over the talk of birth control - left the room in tears once, becuase of being so naive compared to my peers, I was haressed over it - and I probably knew more about the 'real world' end than they did, including one pregnacy scare and I didn't even know who to buy a test to check and find out! Took months for me to breath easier, all because someone thought I didn't need to know this stuff because I was after all, a good kid.

Gah...that's not something I have ever talked about either, save the other person and a now, very very dear friend.