View Full Version : Shock News: Abstinence-Only Education Doesn't Work
Looks like even Texas (http://www.statesman.com/services/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/27/0927abstinence.html) is figuring this out:
More government money has been spent on the cause of sexual abstinence in Texas than any other state, but it still has the third-highest teen birth rate in the country and the highest percentage of teen mothers giving birth more than once.
The rate of student pregnancies in Austin high schools has increased 57 percent since the 2005-06 school year, and rates of sexually transmitted diseases are rising among Travis County teens. [...]
The abstinence-only approach to sex education, which has cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1.3 billion since 1996, has fallen out of favor in many parts of the country. Half the states had withdrawn from Title V by the time it ended in June. In other recent developments:
The American Medical Association adopted a report that found that sex education programs based on promoting abstinence produced "no delay of initiating sexual activity, no reduction in the number of sexual partners and no increase in abstinence." The AMA recommended schools use comprehensive sex education instead.
A study released by Columbia University found that earlier progress in increasing contraceptive use among teens has stalled. Another troubling trend: The CDC reported that birth rates among adolescents ages 15-19 are continuing to increase after years of decline; so are rates of gonorrhea and syphilis infection.
Raise your hand if you're surprised.
Aemilius Paulus
09-29-2009, 16:38
I am not...
Abstinence is farce. How many teen males wish to be celibate??
Never mess with the way of things.
More wonderful throwbacks to the Puritan fools that settled on these shores centuries ago.
I will say this much though. Two major fears kept me from doing the deed until early in college; pregnancy and disease. Pregnancy carries the obvious problems with it, like cutting your life short so you have to go to work to support the child. There were more than a few teen pregnancies in my high school, quite a few of which were due to broken prophylactics too. Disease is a lot more insidious, there was also a lot of it going around my high school. Some of that crap is just nasty, and can stay with you for life. No thanks.
Aemilius Paulus
09-29-2009, 18:39
I will say this much though. Two major fears kept me from doing the deed until early in college; pregnancy and disease. Pregnancy carries the obvious problems with it, like cutting your life short so you have to go to work to support the child. There were more than a few teen pregnancies in my high school, quite a few of which were due to broken prophylactics too. Disease is a lot more insidious, there was also a lot of it going around my high school. Some of that crap is just nasty, and can stay with you for life. No thanks.
Yeah, same here. If I was actually attracted to women that is.
Those religious fundamentalists should instead cite the exorbitant contraception failure rates as well as the horrors of STIs. That is the only effective advertising IMHO.
AlexanderSextus
09-29-2009, 22:19
Contraceptives can work quite well as long as you dont use them like "HURRDURR s4f3s3ckz".
Kadagar_AV
09-30-2009, 05:21
maybe if the kids were taught to put on the condoms right instead of abstinence there would be fewer cases?
also, in sweden girls start using pills when they are around 15, so teenage pregnancy is rare there.
abstinence never worked, never will (never should).
I think our first sex ed class was when I was about 10, can't remember what was discussed but I remember a lot of giggling and there were 2 kids who sat in the hall because their parents didn't want them hearing about it. Then we had a few more in depth classes when I was about 14 that went more into contraception and safe sex, and they showed us the disgusting STD pictures. Despite the fact that there were a lot of kids trying sex, I never heard about any girls getting pregnant in my school, so they must have done something right.
aimlesswanderer
09-30-2009, 07:08
From memory there has been plenty of evidence for this for years, but certain groups of people don't like pesky thing like evidence and facts, so the failure continues.....
Aemilius Paulus
09-30-2009, 08:19
From memory there has been plenty of evidence for this for years, but certain groups of people don't like pesky thing like evidence and facts, so the failure continues.....
Aww, c'mon - everyone hates facts when they do not go their way. Do not blame the Republicans. I am no Republican, but still, there is no need to slander them - they have already screwed up enough without this additional allegation.
But yes, the facts were always there. In that respect, you are correct.
Meneldil
09-30-2009, 09:31
It's quite crazy that some US states prefer to teach abstinence rather than how to use a condom and have sex safely. Once again, I'm speechless.
Aemilius Paulus
09-30-2009, 09:33
It's quite crazy that some US states prefer to teach abstinence rather than how to use a condom and have sex safely. Once again, I'm speechless.
Then you must be mute :grin:, as this is but one of the minor illogical transgressions the human governments decree... Even now, in developed nations such as US.
KukriKhan
09-30-2009, 13:42
Raise your hand if you're surprised.
I'm shocked - shocked, I say. We tell teens the bad things that can happen, and they do it anyway?
Next you'll tell me the earth is round.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-30-2009, 14:11
From memory there has been plenty of evidence for this for years, but certain groups of people don't like pesky thing like evidence and facts, so the failure continues.....
I agree with AP, look at the post above you where miotas concludes that sex ed "must have" worked because he never heard about any girls getting pregnant at his school.
Louis VI the Fat
09-30-2009, 14:21
I should hope Abstinence-Only Education will become a thing of the past. This child abuse ought to stop.
I'm fine with adults eschewing whatever essence of life they want. For whatever reason. But it is plain child abuse to scare young adolescents into doing too.
Tell adults not to have sex if you must. But don't take your sexual frustrations out on children.
KukriKhan
09-30-2009, 14:48
I should hope Abstinence-Only Education will become a thing of the past. This child abuse ought to stop.
I'm fine with adults eschewing whatever essence of life they want. For whatever reason. But it is plain child abuse to scare young adolescents into doing too.
Tell adults not to have sex if you must. But don't take your sexual frustrations out on children.
And while we're at it, drop the age of majority to 13, eliminate child-labor laws and mandatory education beyond age 12. Free the children.
Louis VI the Fat
09-30-2009, 14:55
And while we're at it, drop the age of majority to 13, eliminate child-labor laws and mandatory education beyond age 12. Free the children.I'd say the more proper analogy would be to scare adolescents into thinking learning and personal development are bad and filthy. That adolescents must abstain from experimenting with education until 18.
KukriKhan
09-30-2009, 15:06
I'd say the more proper analogy would be to scare adolescents into thinking learning and personal development are bad and filthy. That adolescents must abstain from experimenting with education until 18.
Brilliant!
Aemilius Paulus
09-30-2009, 19:09
If there was actually any success at any time of our history in restraining our youth... I would like to hear about it. Contrary to popular opinion, the Mediaeval Ages were in many ways, even more promiscuous than our times. The difference is, they were in denial about it, or more accurately, they accepted it, but kept an official silence about it.
I say, advocate abstinence and frighten the kids with tales of pregnancies and STIs. But at the same time teach safe-sex methods. Call it a contradiction, a hypocrisy, but if a child has to choose between having sex or not, I doubt he/she will consider his/her sex education as a factor. The child will not be influenced by his/her sex ed., as such things do not get into the way of sex.
When have you heard or read about a teenager who was about to have sex and then thought "Oh, I have not received sex education - I am not having sex because of this!" Never, that is the answer. Sex education will not make the teens any more licentious or confident in their despite to engage in coitus. There is pornography for that.
Now I am interested to hear a rebuttal. Forget statistics for now, as they are overtly contradictory in this case, although the latest and most accurate ones do generally show the lack of effectiveness of abstinence-only education. Let us simply use logic and models of common behaviour here.
I say, advocate abstinence and frighten the kids with tales of pregnancies and STIs. But at the same time teach safe-sex methods.
:yes: Those sex ed classes put the fear in all the blokes I knew, they wouldn't even consider for a second the possibility of sex without a few frangers in their wallet.
Do not blame the Republicans.
Nobody but you has even mentioned them in this thread. Texas, for example, trends Republican, but the Austin are is solidly Dem. Abstinence-only edumucation is a sufficient exercise in stupidity without dragging any political parties into it.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-30-2009, 19:34
And for my next thread, I'll talk about global warming and how "certain groups of people hate evidence and facts", without bringing the republicans into it at all.
Ah, I see what you mean. Fair enough. And I guess it's patently obvious that abstinence-only education was championed by certain elements of the GOP.
I wuz wrong.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-30-2009, 20:10
Abstinence-only isn't a very bright educational model. :no:
It is valid to teach abstinence as the only method approved by most Christian denominations (actually most of the religions hew to this if I recall correctly) and as a method which virtually guarantees you cannot become pregnant, impregnate someone, or contract a STD.
However, denying other information is simply poor education. :yes:
I loathe Marxism and believe it to be moribund intellectually, but wouldn't advocate removing it from the curriculum.
Kadagar:
Your tone with issues in this vein always makes me think that your version of Sex Education would involve instruction and demonstration in proper foreplay techniques etc. :inquisitive:
I'm probably reading too much into this.
The US has a really messed up view of s3x. The biggest producer and consumer of pr0n in the world and yet you tell your children that s3x is bad and dangerous and dirty.
I don't think s3x is bad and dangerous and dirty, so why on earth would I tell my children that?
Kadagar:
Your tone with issues in this vein always makes me think that your version of Sex Education would involve instruction and demonstration in proper foreplay techniques etc. :inquisitive:
I'm probably reading too much into this.
Why not? For the right age group, in the right setting. Why not?
rory_20_uk
10-01-2009, 14:37
And while we're at it, drop the age of majority to 13, eliminate child-labor laws and mandatory education beyond age 12. Free the children.
I'd be OK with the last 2 of those.
Certainly in the UK education isn't valued. If a 8 hour shift was the alternative, chances are the students would apply themselves more to it.
~:smoking:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-01-2009, 16:24
The US has a really messed up view of s3x. The biggest producer and consumer of pr0n in the world and yet you tell your children that s3x is bad and dangerous and dirty.
I don't think s3x is bad and dangerous and dirty, so why on earth would I tell my children that?
Anything associated with disease is historically considered dirty, we evolved an innate psychological mechanism for such purpose. Soil, feces, urine, spit, vomit. Teaching kids about std's feeds into that.
I'm sure in England there is nothing taboo about it. You all probably chit chat about the details with your grandmother, hmm? :book:
Can't think of a single taboo here. My grandmother admitted to me that she sometimes watches soft-porn on tv with her new boyfriend by the way. And no she's everything you would expect from a granny a real granny granny.
Rhyfelwyr
10-01-2009, 16:55
Well it's not like the alternative works either, look no further than the UK and it's hordes of chavs for proof.
Maybe education can't really make much of a difference when it comes to this. :shrug:
Banquo's Ghost
10-02-2009, 11:30
It is valid to teach abstinence as the only method approved by most Christian denominations (actually most of the religions hew to this if I recall correctly) and as a method which virtually guarantees you cannot become pregnant, impregnate someone, or contract a STD.
Only a good Catholic could write that in the sure knowledge there is a precedent. :beam:
HoreTore
10-02-2009, 11:31
I hate people who wants to rob other people of their happiness.
Because that's what sex really is. It's good and healthy for both your mind and body. Learn to use the condom correctly, and it's 100% safe. My ex of 2,5 years was allergic to the pill, so I used a condom. If the condom was only 99% safe, I would be a father right now. I am not.
Also, abortion is legal. No problems.
Instead of highlighting the "risks" and "dangerous" sides, we should be talking about the healthy side of sex, and yes, we should encourage it. A healthy view on sex isn't that we shouldn't be doing it, it's that we should be doing it well.
damn straight. Tell them what it is, and tell them they don't have to if they don't want to, no obligations, no rules.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-02-2009, 19:40
Kadagar:
Your tone with issues in this vein always makes me think that your version of Sex Education would involve instruction and demonstration in proper foreplay techniques etc. :inquisitive:
I'm probably reading too much into this.
It's a Scandanavian thing, see:
I hate people who wants to rob other people of their happiness.
Because that's what sex really is. It's good and healthy for both your mind and body. Learn to use the condom correctly, and it's 100% safe. My ex of 2,5 years was allergic to the pill, so I used a condom. If the condom was only 99% safe, I would be a father right now. I am not.
Also, abortion is legal. No problems.
Instead of highlighting the "risks" and "dangerous" sides, we should be talking about the healthy side of sex, and yes, we should encourage it. A healthy view on sex isn't that we shouldn't be doing it, it's that we should be doing it well.
Abortion is not a "quick fix" to these things. Most women who go through it are quite traumatised, and it can lead to infertility if done repeatedly, not to mention other complications.
Such things should not be entered into lightly.
Most women who go through it are quite traumatised[...]
Most? Are they? Source?
AlexanderSextus
10-02-2009, 20:42
I hate people who wants to rob other people of their happiness.
Because that's what sex really is. It's good and healthy for both your mind and body.
^^^^This.
...it can lead to infertility if done repeatedly, not to mention other complications.
My mom had 5, count em 5, before I was born. I'm here arent I?
(Yeah, My mom got busy a lot; THERE I SAID IT. So what. Not a big deal to me.)
Kadagar_AV
10-02-2009, 22:18
Kadagar:
Your tone with issues in this vein always makes me think that your version of Sex Education would involve instruction and demonstration in proper foreplay techniques etc. :inquisitive:
I'm probably reading too much into this.
Interesting... What I wrote was: maybe if the kids were taught to put on the condoms right instead of abstinence there would be fewer cases [of teenage pregnancies]?
also, in sweden girls start using pills when they are around 15, so teenage pregnancy is rare there.
abstinence never worked, never will (never should).
Yeah, I'd say you might have read too much into what I wrote. It's not like I suggested we'd let a bartender / ski instructor girl (or a gay) show the kids how to properly put on a condom using their mouth only, is it?
You are not all wrong though, proper foreplay techniques is part of European sex education (at least scandinavian ones). Covered in biology classes... Might be good for young boys to know that there are other "buttons" than those found on a keyboard.
Might also be a good thing to explain that girls need some warm up before you go, for it to feel good for her. No. 1 complaint about american males is that they are rubbish at foreplays. This they have together with arabic males, and males from other countries who basicly have no idea how a females body works.
So instruction, yeah. Demonstration though... Dont involve me in your fantasies. :thumbsdown:
Azathoth
10-03-2009, 01:15
Abortion is not a "quick fix" to these things. Most women who go through it are quite traumatised, and it can lead to infertility if done repeatedly, not to mention other complications.
Such things should not be entered into lightly.
My grandma had 3 abortions between 2 kids.
Gregoshi
10-03-2009, 04:34
You are not all wrong though, proper foreplay techniques is part of European sex education (at least scandinavian ones)...
Well, in the World's Worst Lovers thread, the Swedes ranked in the bottom 10 due to being "too quick". Seems there is some room for improvement in your sex education program. A quickie course on sex just won't due. :laugh4:
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 05:11
I'm only half swede...
I got my looks from Sweden, my skiing abilities from Austria and my way with women from Italy.
Truly I am blessed :yes:
In all fairness though... Either you guys complain I've been with too many, and now you complain that there still are unsatisfied girls left out there. There is only so much one man can do :shame:
:juggle2:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2009, 09:52
Wow, ok you guys were born after abortions, so obviously there are never complications! Having your insides vacumned out is not small thing, really. It can, and does, go wrong.
As to women being traumatised, seems to me quite a lot are. Just because a few women aparently aren't, doesn't make it an easy option for every woman. Stop pushing this, "one size fits all" sexuality.
As to women being traumatised, seems to me quite a lot are. Just because a few women aparently aren't, doesn't make it an easy option for every woman. Stop pushing this, "one size fits all" sexuality.
Vice versa; just because some women become traumatized, doesn't mean most are.
AlexanderSextus
10-03-2009, 10:05
No. 1 complaint about american males is that they are rubbish at foreplays.
Anything an american wants to know about sex can be found out easily. if americans suck at foreplay, then it's because they're lazy.
whatever. i know the gun's not pointed at me anyway.:wink3:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2009, 10:38
Vice versa; just because some women become traumatized, doesn't mean most are.
I have yet to hear of one who is not marked by the experience in some way. That includes the artist Tracy Emin: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/tracey-emin/tracey-emin-i-felt-that-in-return-for-my-childrens-souls-i-had-been-given-my-success-1518934.html
Tellos Athenaios
10-03-2009, 10:38
Why did abortion enter into this? Anyways over here it's fairly simple: name it, talk about it in groups (not with the teacher just students), and of course the push towards contraceptives (birth control)?
Btw, condoms aren't as reliable for avoiding pregnancy as they are made out to be (mainly because they may be damaged during intercourse); it's the pill that really works. Condoms are, of course, excellent protection against STD.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2009, 10:48
Why did abortion enter into this? Anyways over here it's fairly simple: name it, talk about it in groups (not with the teacher just students), and of course the push towards contraceptives (birth control)?
Btw, condoms aren't as reliable for avoiding pregnancy as they are made out to be (mainly because they may be damaged during intercourse); it's the pill that really works. Condoms are, of course, excellent protection against STD.
Well, a Condom is just a barrier; and the pill is just a hormonal thing. All the pill does is mess with her hormonal levels, if her progesterone levels are high enough the pill flat out won't work. Of course, she'd normally need to be on a supplament to get her progesterone levels that high to begin with.
Tellos Athenaios
10-03-2009, 11:03
The pill ‘messes with her hormone levels’ sufficiently it typically takes a few days before her hormone levels are back to ‘normal’: which is to say the pill she took yesterday is still effective enough to prevent her pregnancy today.
HoreTore
10-03-2009, 11:35
I have yet to hear of one who is not marked by the experience in some way. That includes the artist Tracy Emin: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/tracey-emin/tracey-emin-i-felt-that-in-return-for-my-childrens-souls-i-had-been-given-my-success-1518934.html
Name one experience in life that does not mark you one way or the other.
Tellos Athenaios
10-03-2009, 12:23
Sleeping. Usually. Seriously though, getting an abortion is pretty rough: I mean it's not exactly brushing your teeth.
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 13:53
Sleeping. Usually. Seriously though, getting an abortion is pretty rough: I mean it's not exactly brushing your teeth.
That's why the pill is good...
Contrary to popular belief, I am def not a fan of abortions. It should be a last resort thing, not a mean of birth control!
However, my solution would be to stop the pregnancy before it happened, not after.
Guys, make sure to use a condom, girls (are there any here?) eat your pills.
But then again, both of the girls who have had an abortion because of me are perfectly fine, and both now has kids. So it's not like it's the end of the world. I am glad they choose the way they did!
BUT, and this is a serious "but", I would SO much have prefered if they would have been taking pills, so that this had never happened in the first place. Not just for their sake, but also for mine.
HoreTore
10-03-2009, 14:18
Sleeping. Usually. Seriously though, getting an abortion is pretty rough: I mean it's not exactly brushing your teeth.
Never said it was.
But it's an option in the incredibly unlikely event that birth control fails. Or to fix a drunken mistake for the more reckless ones.
And it's not like having a child or giving one up for adoption won't mark you for life either. Nobody who gets an abortion wanted to get pregnant in the first place.
And just to let you know, I never, ever have sex without a condom. I just can't do it without a condom or if I've personally seen the woman eat their pill. I'm terrified of pregnancies, and it scares away my boner. I'm simply unable to do it.
LittleGrizzly
10-03-2009, 15:23
I now one or two friends that have had abortions and one that had two... apart from the one not wishing to listen to the song happy brithday (a man singing about his aborted child) which is fairly understandable they all seemed to handle it fairly well...
ICantSpellDawg
10-03-2009, 19:13
Looks like even Texas (http://www.statesman.com/services/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/27/0927abstinence.html) is figuring this out:
More government money has been spent on the cause of sexual abstinence in Texas than any other state, but it still has the third-highest teen birth rate in the country and the highest percentage of teen mothers giving birth more than once.
The rate of student pregnancies in Austin high schools has increased 57 percent since the 2005-06 school year, and rates of sexually transmitted diseases are rising among Travis County teens. [...]
The abstinence-only approach to sex education, which has cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1.3 billion since 1996, has fallen out of favor in many parts of the country. Half the states had withdrawn from Title V by the time it ended in June. In other recent developments:
The American Medical Association adopted a report that found that sex education programs based on promoting abstinence produced "no delay of initiating sexual activity, no reduction in the number of sexual partners and no increase in abstinence." The AMA recommended schools use comprehensive sex education instead.
A study released by Columbia University found that earlier progress in increasing contraceptive use among teens has stalled. Another troubling trend: The CDC reported that birth rates among adolescents ages 15-19 are continuing to increase after years of decline; so are rates of gonorrhea and syphilis infection.
Raise your hand if you're surprised.
The government telling people not to have sex won't do it. Churches and Media have to take up the flag. Churches should have an easier time of discussing it than they do and Media directors need to resist the easy sell.
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 19:30
The government telling people not to have sex won't do it. Churches and Media have to take up the flag. Churches should have an easier time of discussing it than they do and Media directors need to resist the easy sell.
Just what centuray are you living in?
"Churches" should be the ones responcible to educate? Wouldn't your post belong on the Medieval or Medieval II part of the forum?
My point being, schools should be what is educating...
if you want faith, you can go to church. "Faith" meaning you believe in some very edited old book, not "faith" as in "I have a great faith that the sun will rise tomorrow".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2009, 20:38
The pill ‘messes with her hormone levels’ sufficiently it typically takes a few days before her hormone levels are back to ‘normal’: which is to say the pill she took yesterday is still effective enough to prevent her pregnancy today.
Not the sort of thing you should be relying upon though.
Name one experience in life that does not mark you one way or the other.
Can't. Here's a counter question, name one experience that leaves a negative mark that you'd like to repeat, or would recomend to another. Actually, name two.
Nobody who gets an abortion wanted to get pregnant in the first place.
I'm sorry, but this is FAR AND AWAY the most ignorant thing I've ever seen you write.
"Churches" should be the ones responcible to educate?
Yeah, absolutely. I think you're misunderstanding what TSM was saying. He's not advocating that churches offer sex ed, rather that the moral element can only come from family, church, books, etc. It isn't the government's place to offer a spiritual or moral solution to a problem. That's a different job.
At the end of the day, if people are amoral, they cannot be governed. And one of the places morality can be imprinted is church. Not saying it's the only place, but it's an important one.
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 20:42
I'm sorry, but this is FAR AND AWAY the most ignorant thing I've ever seen you write.
Sorry, but how was that part ignorant?
It's kind of granted that someone who has an abortion obviosly didn't want to have a child at that time...
Here's a counter question, name one experience that leaves a negative mark that you'd like to repeat, or would recomend to another. Actually, name two.
Amateur boxing
Mountaineering
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 20:47
Yeah, absolutely. I think you're misunderstanding what TSM was saying. He's not advocating that churches offer sex ed, rather that the moral element can only come from family, church, books, etc. It isn't the government's place to offer a spiritual or moral solution to a problem. That's a different job.
At the end of the day, if people are amoral, they cannot be governed. And one of the places morality can be imprinted is church. Not saying it's the only place, but it's an important one.
If you go to church to get a moral base, you have to agree on everything the church has done the last couple of hundred years or so...
And if you agree on that, I rate you at the same level as... Hmmm... I cant come up with an example.
Suffice to say, I would rate your moral lower than the lowest.
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 20:48
Amateur boxing
Mountaineering
SKIING!!!!!!!
dont let this de-rail the thread though :(
If you go to church to get a moral base, you have to agree on everything the church has done the last couple of hundred years or so...
Who told you that? How on earth did you draw such a conclusion?
I know many people who attend church and don't buy into every last aspect of theology or doctrine. Note that American Catholics are famously divergent from orthodoxy, a point of pain for the Roman Church. Heck, me and my kids attend the Episcopal Church, and I can guarantee you we don't agree with everything said or advocated.
You seem to have this image of church-going people as mindless zombies who follow every dictum and sacrifice their free will or something. It's both insulting and false.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2009, 21:30
Amateur boxing
Mountaineering
Overall negative?
If you go to church to get a moral base, you have to agree on everything the church has done the last couple of hundred years or so...
And if you agree on that, I rate you at the same level as... Hmmm... I cant come up with an example.
Suffice to say, I would rate your moral lower than the lowest.
Please, not even our Bishops over here can agree. If you took an interest in the ructins of the Anglican Church you'd know that.
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 23:13
Please, not even our Bishops over here can agree. If you took an interest in the ructins of the Anglican Church you'd know that.
Oh, my bad.
I did not know a true christian faith was more of a "pick and choose".
If even bishops cant propelrly explain the doings of the church, how could you expect a modern person to do so?
Lemur, Honestly I do not mean to insult. I am very serious about this!
However, if you do believe in the christian "god", you also have to acknoweledge the history of this god, no?
Or do you believe religion is like a CD album of "best of the last 2000 years", with all your favourite tracks?
ON TOPIC: Is there anyone in here who actually advocates abstinence as something good? If so, state the arguments :)
*I know some people have, however, I would like the arguments to have some sort of scientifical and logical claim, not just "if you never have sex you will never get a STD"*
EDIT: Ok, above is both scientifical and logical. I am, however, looking for something you can adapt in the real world. Basicly, the "world" where people want to have sex.
I believe they used to stone people for sex before marriage, bring that back?
Kadagar_AV
10-03-2009, 23:33
I believe they used to stone people for sex before marriage, bring that back?
The "church" removed that as even they realised it wasnt realistic.
*side note: why would you marry someone before you know you are sexually compatible or not???*
Overall negative?
You didn't ask about "overall" negative, just things that had a negative "mark" which I would advocate. Boxing hurts. It leaves both physical and mental marks. Worth it, though.
High-altitude mountaineering hurts worse. (Every time I get above 14,000 feet, I ask myself how I could have possibly forgotten how much it sucks. Then I finish the climb and forget all about the hurt, and just remember the good stuff. Probably a lot like childbirth in that way.)
Or do you believe religion is like a CD album of "best of the last 2000 years", with all your favourite tracks?
Kadgar, it's not my job to explain why there might be options besides "greatest hits" religion and mindless orthodoxy. Topic for another thread, methinks.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2009, 23:52
Oh, my bad.
I did not know a true christian faith was more of a "pick and choose".
If even bishops cant propelrly explain the doings of the church, how could you expect a modern person to do so?
Erm, the Bishops are "modern" people, mine has Grandchildren. One of my good friends is the daughter of a priest (and no, she is not the steriotypical "wild child" either).
Lemur, Honestly I do not mean to insult. I am very serious about this!
However, if you do believe in the christian "god", you also have to acknoweledge the history of this god, no?
Or do you believe religion is like a CD album of "best of the last 2000 years", with all your favourite tracks?
The history of worship of God. It's not the history of God, or his doings, because it isn't right. The Bible is a collection of different books grouped together by Augustine and Jerome around 400 AD. It isn't direct from God.
To assume our ancestors were better than us is as bad as assuming we are better than them.
ON TOPIC: Is there anyone in here who actually advocates abstinence as something good? If so, state the arguments :)
Sure I do. I don't have sex because I don't need to. Sure it'd be fun, but I can wait until I find someone I like, rather than just a girl with nice breasts.
Banquo's Ghost
10-04-2009, 09:33
ON TOPIC: Is there anyone in here who actually advocates abstinence as something good? If so, state the arguments :)
*I know some people have, however, I would like the arguments to have some sort of scientifical and logical claim, not just "if you never have sex you will never get a STD"*
EDIT: Ok, above is both scientifical and logical. I am, however, looking for something you can adapt in the real world. Basicly, the "world" where people want to have sex.
Your last sentence betrays your bias. You are assuming a world that mirrors your own desires.
People have divergent needs and desires. Many people "want" sex, but care little for the relationship that usually underpins the act. Some of these may feel that this is an unfulfilling desire and thus choose to abstain as a way of respecting others.
Many relationships experience periods of abstention for all sorts of reasons. One's wife, for example, may have had a difficult childbirth, or prolonged post-natal depression, and having sex may not be the best option at the time. I know a couple who have had a sexless marriage for over twenty years. They love each other very devotedly, but neither has a high sex drive (you may be surprised to note that this applies to many people) and the arrangement suits them very well. There is much more to a good relationship than sex.
Abstinence is a perfectly sensible proposition within a comprehensive sex education programme. You cannot discount the advantages so easily, as your edit showed; it is safe. However, just as with any other strategy, there are downsides - not least, it is not at all easy to maintain for most people. Therefore, other options should be taught. But so should abstinence.
There are enormous societal pressures, particularly on young girls, to conform to the expectations of young men. Sex is a very good thing, but it also carries risks. The modern world sexualises women to an appalling degree, and aims much of this at very young girls. Many face huge pressures to give in to the demands of boyfriends.
HoreTore at least, is a feminist and would recognise that young women need to be able to choose in all aspects of their lives, and when to have sex is perhaps the most important of these choices given the consequences to the woman. Knowing that they can choose to abstain, and why this is also a good thing - until they are ready and in control is an important part of empowering young girls. Teaching young men that this is a valid choice, no matter how horny they feel, and that they should respect a girl who makes the choice (and respect a man who takes the same choice for his own reasons) is also important.
Respect for women is not a big part of your stories here, so I don't expect you to grasp the last paragraph, but there are other moralities than yours, trust me.
HoreTore
10-04-2009, 10:35
HoreTore at least, is a feminist
Indeed I am!
Contrary to popular belief, feminism isn't about having women live a particular way. Feminism is about people being able to choose whatever life they want. That people are free to live a reactionary life if they so please, as long as they choose that life for themselves, and that they did have other options for their lives.
This also applies to the sexual arena. Peoples needs and urges are different, there is no doubt about that. Some people want lots of sex, some people want less. Some people are perfectly fine with one night stands, others want to keep it within a relationship. That's all good, they should all feel free to choose what they want for themselves. Peoples boundaries are different, and we need to respect those boundaries. Having sex without really wanting it is dreadful, it will cause all kinds of problems.
However, I do not believe that we should teach abstinence. I do not believe that less sex among teenagers is a goal at all, I believe sex is healthy and good for you, period. I believe we should teach the positives. And, we should teach people about respect for other peoples boundaries. The two go hand in hand IMO, sex is only good when it's done with respect for each other. Nobody should force, and nobody should feel forced.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-04-2009, 10:42
Indeed I am!
Contrary to popular belief, feminism isn't about having women live a particular way. Feminism is about people being able to choose whatever life they want. That people are free to live a reactionary life if they so please, as long as they choose that life for themselves, and that they did have other options for their lives.
This also applies to the sexual arena. Peoples needs and urges are different, there is no doubt about that. Some people want lots of sex, some people want less. Some people are perfectly fine with one night stands, others want to keep it within a relationship. That's all good, they should all feel free to choose what they want for themselves. Peoples boundaries are different, and we need to respect those boundaries. Having sex without really wanting it is dreadful, it will cause all kinds of problems.
However, I do not believe that we should teach abstinence. I do not believe that less sex among teenagers is a goal at all, I believe sex is healthy and good for you, period. I believe we should teach the positives. And, we should teach people about respect for other peoples boundaries. The two go hand in hand IMO, sex is only good when it's done with respect for each other. Nobody should force, and nobody should feel forced.
I think your second and third paragraphs contradict each other fundamentally. Teens should be taught about abstinence, because it is a perfectly good thing. They should not be taught it is the only option.
What they definately should be taught is caution because for a lot of people sex is a big thing at least the first time.
HoreTore
10-04-2009, 10:57
I think your second and third paragraphs contradict each other fundamentally. Teens should be taught about abstinence, because it is a perfectly good thing. They should not be taught it is the only option.
What they definately should be taught is caution because for a lot of people sex is a big thing at least the first time.
"Respect for other peoples boundaries" covers that perfectly.
I do not see much sense in teaching people who wants to have sex that they shouldn't have it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-04-2009, 12:30
"Respect for other peoples boundaries" covers that perfectly.
I do not see much sense in teaching people who wants to have sex that they shouldn't have it.
Abstinence is merely the exercising of the choice not to. Also, the difference between Scandanavia and the rest of Europe and America demonstrates the level of conditioning people go through. You assume that, generally speaking, every teenager wants to have sex and is emotionally equipped to make that choice.
Over here, we chalk it up to hormone levels that peter off after a few years and generally advise people to wait until they are in a relationship.
It's rather like the assumption that all children of Christian parents are either repressed or extremely promiscuoius. Either way, people assume that because a minority of hardline denominations have an unhealthy attitude to physicality we all do. In fact, my experience is that those young people who choose not to have sex do so because it is normal for them, and not becasuse they feel pressured.
HoreTore
10-04-2009, 15:36
You assume that, generally speaking, every teenager wants to have sex and is emotionally equipped to make that choice.
No, I'm talking about making them able to make that choice easily.
It's still just sex, it's not the end of the world. It's not that hard.
*side note: why would you marry someone before you know you are sexually compatible or not???*
Sexually compatibility isn't in my top ten things I look for in some one. Sex is sex, it is pretty hard not to be sexually compatible with some one unless they they are on the fringe.
I believe sex is healthy and good for you, period.
I just thought of some amusing statisitics to show this, perhaps Lemur can find it as he is very good at getting sources like these (thats a compliment), but I think you will find, that the prevalence of Abstinence-Only Education increased in-line with Obesity. :shock:
To counter the trend, teach kids to have safe sex and good fun, so they get more exercise, leading to lower obesity rates.
HoreTore
10-04-2009, 18:40
I just thought of some amusing statisitics to show this, perhaps Lemur can find it as he is very good at getting sources like these (thats a compliment), but I think you will find, that the prevalence of Abstinence-Only Education increased in-line with Obesity. :shock:
To counter the trend, teach kids to have safe sex and good fun, so they get more exercise, leading to lower obesity rates.
It's pretty common knowledge that a round in the hay is pretty much the same exercise as running for half an hour.
An active sex life is just good, period. The exercise it represents will help against all sorts of lifestyle diseases, like heart problems and overweight. In addition, having an orgasm will release a nice cocktail of chemicals which will please the brain, making you happier. Finally, the fact that you're able to get intimate with someone, that you get a confirmation that you are attractive to other people, will do wonders for your confidence.
So in conclusion, sex is good. The risk of STD's and pregnancies pale in comparison to the positive aspects of sex. And that'¨s what we should be teaching teh kidz.
[P]erhaps Lemur can find it as he is very good at getting sources like these (thats a compliment), but I think you will find, that the prevalence of Abstinence-Only Education increased in-line with Obesity.
I couldn't find exactly what you're looking for, but here's a close-enough version. The first map is of teen pregnancy in the US, which strongly corresponds with abstinence-only education:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/TeenBirthRate.jpg
This the most recent obesity map I could find (2007):
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Obesity_Map_7-11-08.gif
I think the moral of the story is that fat kids who don't know how to use birth control are most likely to be found in Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. The outliers to your theory would be Nevada and New Mexico, which have high teen birth rates but only average obesity.
Hah, good find nevertheless.
The first graph is always disturbing though.
Wouldn't hypothetically teach sex as a "tool" be the convincing solution? While it is in the sense, real sex education in regards to condoms and pregnancy understanding, possibly combined with lets say a moral code of abstinence (until marriage). Then if anyone tries to argue, you can simply say "we are preparing them for the future".
AlexanderSextus
10-05-2009, 01:28
It's pretty common knowledge that a round in the hay is pretty much the same exercise as running for half an hour.
An active sex life is just good, period. The exercise it represents will help against all sorts of lifestyle diseases, like heart problems and overweight. In addition, having an orgasm will release a nice cocktail of chemicals which will please the brain, making you happier. Finally, the fact that you're able to get intimate with someone, that you get a confirmation that you are attractive to other people, will do wonders for your confidence.
So in conclusion, sex is good. The risk of STD's and pregnancies pale in comparison to the positive aspects of sex. And that'¨s what we should be teaching teh kidz.
My name is AlexanderSextus and I approve of this message! :beam: :yes:
ajaxfetish
10-05-2009, 05:25
I think the moral of the story is that fat kids who don't know how to use birth control are most likely to be found in Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. The outliers to your theory would be Nevada and New Mexico, which have high teen birth rates but only average obesity.
Not connected to Beskar's theory, but it looks like Utah's managing to outlie, too. At least I'm fairly sure we'd be on the abstinence-only program, and still with below-average teen pregnancies. Still trailing behind New England, though.
However, I do not believe that we should teach abstinence. I do not believe that less sex among teenagers is a goal at all, I believe sex is healthy and good for you, period. I believe we should teach the positives. And, we should teach people about respect for other peoples boundaries. The two go hand in hand IMO, sex is only good when it's done with respect for each other. Nobody should force, and nobody should feel forced.
There's a difference between teaching abstinence and abstinence-only education. Teaching abstinence as an option, along with its benefits and its drawbacks, would seem to go right along with your values of empowerment and choice. It should only be teaching that abstinence is the only option, or the only *right option, that would be a problem.
Ajax
welp
http://washingtonindependent.com/61415/senate-finance-committee-approves-amendment-providing-millions-for-abstinence-education
Strike For The South
10-05-2009, 16:25
Abstinence only=Teen pregnancy and the Herp.
Now should we be teaching girls how to put condoms on with there mouths? No, but a sensible sex-ed program is what we need. Teaching about the risks and consequences of sex but also teaching that sex is a wonderful natrual part of life.
FWIW my public schools in Texas taught pretty comprhensive sex-ed. Then again I lived in South Texas and we're just a bunch of dumb Mexicans and even dumber German catholics. It's the baptists in the North who got it right.
(I am a baptist I just hate how they stick there noes down at mah catholic peeps.)
HoreTore
10-09-2009, 17:59
There's a difference between teaching abstinence and abstinence-only education. Teaching abstinence as an option, along with its benefits and its drawbacks, would seem to go right along with your values of empowerment and choice. It should only be teaching that abstinence is the only option, or the only *right option, that would be a problem.
Ajax
Religious education belongs at home, not at school.
Religious education belongs at home, not at school.
In all honesty, teaching morality (of whatever variety) is the parents' job. I vaguely remember sex-ed from my high school days. It was mainly about VDs and pregnancy, with a little birth control thrown in. Abstinence was one part of that discussion, because it is really the only guaranteed method of preventing pregnancy and STDs. But it was followed up with other methods of contraception.
It's all down to shirking parental duties. It's uncomfortable to discuss sex with your kids, so why not make the school to do it? The only problem there is that you are stuck with whatever agenda (one way or another) gets imposed onto the school board. The school should teach the facts, and the parents should be responsible for shoving their views (one way or another) down their kids throats.
ajaxfetish
10-10-2009, 04:13
Religious education belongs at home, not at school.
Agreed 100%. Did I give you the impression I think otherwise?
Ajax
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-10-2009, 04:22
Religious education belongs at home, not at school.
You can teach abstinence as an option among other options without it being a religious one. :inquisitive:
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2009, 05:18
Sexually compatibility isn't in my top ten things I look for in some one. Sex is sex, it is pretty hard not to be sexually compatible with some one unless they they are on the fringe.
Well, first of all it is the physical aspect. Some guys have big.... Some girls are not very deep (not talking about intellect here).
It's pretty irritating not to be able to push it all in, specially since you often end up hurting the girl when you get a bit too enthusiastic.
Then there is of course sexual preference...
So yeah, I'd def want to have some test runs before I sign any paper.
And bad sex CAN destroy relationships... And is a big factor as to why people cheat on their partner.
As to abstinence-only education... As stated above, it doesn't work.
With that said, I myself practised abstinence in my younger years... Not by choice though :thumbsdown:
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 07:11
You can teach abstinence as an option among other options without it being a religious one. :inquisitive:
When you teach people about finding their own borders and respecting others, you already teach abstinence. In that those who do not wish to have sex will be taught how to deal with it, and other people will be taught to respect it. So I don't really see your point...
Unless, of course, you're proposing that we should teach people who want to have sex that they shouldn't have it. In that case, you get a big :thumbsdown: from me.
Well, first of all it is the physical aspect. Some guys have big.... Some girls are not very deep (not talking about intellect here).
It's pretty irritating not to be able to push it all in, specially since you often end up hurting the girl when you get a bit too enthusiastic.
Then there is of course sexual preference...
So yeah, I'd def want to have some test runs before I sign any paper.
And bad sex CAN destroy relationships... And is a big factor as to why people cheat on their partner.
As to abstinence-only education... As stated above, it doesn't work.
With that said, I myself practised abstinence in my younger years... Not by choice though :thumbsdown:
Depends on the person, isn't that important to everybody. Some people want a buddy, some a lover. How long can good sex keep a bad relationship together, works both ways. About size, it matters but not so much. I do sometimes wonder what caused my headaches though
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-10-2009, 09:43
Religious education belongs at home, not at school.
It has nothing to do with RELIGION. For pity's sake Horetore, get over it.
The point is simple, you have to introduce the idea that not having sex is as healthy as having it. Otherwise, teens WILL feel pressured.
It has nothing to do with RELIGION. For pity's sake Horetore, get over it.
The point is simple, you have to introduce the idea that not having sex is as healthy as having it. Otherwise, teens WILL feel pressured.
But is that true, imho we should teach selfrespect, not so much about the sex but peer pressure and the abuse that can come from it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-10-2009, 10:31
But is that true, imho we should teach selfrespect, not so much about the sex but peer pressure and the abuse that can come from it.
It's not just about peer pressure, it's also about group pressure. If society teaches that something is abnormal, even by ommission, then people are unlikely to do it. For example, drinking culture varies from country to country, and though we all teach the "know your limits" philosophy today, still some countries have more problems than others.
It's the same with sex, in Scandanavia the last fifty years have established a relatively high level of activity and and relaxed attitude as normative. As a result, you will find it hard to find a Scandanavian who will admit to taking sex very seriously. However, that doesn't mean there aren't Scandanavian girls traumatised by bad experiences at the hands of emotionally immature boys. I know because I have met a couple over here in England.
On the other hand, English girls seem much more open to admitting that they wish they had waited, after having had the experience.
Further, some people have very low or no sex drive, and we must not alienate them either.
That is why I stress selfrespect, you see a dutch girl will never dress as inviting as an UK girl for example, they feel they are worth more then a quik shag in the restroom.
Kadagar_AV
10-10-2009, 12:51
That is why I stress selfrespect, you see a dutch girl will never dress as inviting as an UK girl for example, they feel they are worth more then a quik shag in the restroom.
Oh frags, there are girls who dont mind a quick shag in the restroom in all countries. And no, good sex can not keep a bad relationship together, and should not. However, for a relationship to be truly functional, it requires both parts imho. It's not like you can't have a good relationship with good sex.
Oh frags, there are girls who dont mind a quick shag in the restroom in all countries.
sure, but it's frowned upon here. Won't get you any kudo's
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 13:51
It has nothing to do with RELIGION. For pity's sake Horetore, get over it.
The point is simple, you have to introduce the idea that not having sex is as healthy as having it. Otherwise, teens WILL feel pressured.
Yes, we all know that abstinence isn't a religious(christian) ideal :dizzy2:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-10-2009, 17:45
When you teach people about finding their own borders and respecting others, you already teach abstinence. In that those who do not wish to have sex will be taught how to deal with it, and other people will be taught to respect it. So I don't really see your point...
Unless, of course, you're proposing that we should teach people who want to have sex that they shouldn't have it. In that case, you get a big :thumbsdown: from me.
Like I said, teach abstinence as an option. You can give them condoms, tell them the theories and about infections and diseases and so on, but at the same time you need to say that abstinence is an option, and if you don't want to have sex you shouldn't consider yourself to be forced by anyone, including society or your peers. Just teach it as another option.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 18:29
Like I said, teach abstinence as an option. You can give them condoms, tell them the theories and about infections and diseases and so on, but at the same time you need to say that abstinence is an option, and if you don't want to have sex you shouldn't consider yourself to be forced by anyone, including society or your peers. Just teach it as another option.
Just what is it that you don't understand when I say "teach people to find out about their own boundaries, and to respect others"?
If people want to have sex, they should. If they want to have sex, then they should not be "abstinent". And if they don't feel like it, they shouldn't have any.
STD's and other such small and irrelevant issues shouldn't impact on peoples decision to have sex or not.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-10-2009, 18:40
Just what is it that you don't understand when I say "teach people to find out about their own boundaries, and to respect others"?
If people want to have sex, they should. If they want to have sex, then they should not be "abstinent". And if they don't feel like it, they shouldn't have any.
...which is exactly what I said in my first post.
HoreTore
10-10-2009, 18:49
...which is exactly what I said in my first post.
So.... What is it we're arguing about again? :inquisitive:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2009, 01:40
Yes, we all know that abstinence isn't a religious(christian) ideal :dizzy2:
No, it's a pragmatic one. Like I said, get over it.
Kadagar_AV
10-11-2009, 04:37
Like I said, teach abstinence as an option. You can give them condoms, tell them the theories and about infections and diseases and so on, but at the same time you need to say that abstinence is an option, and if you don't want to have sex you shouldn't consider yourself to be forced by anyone, including society or your peers. Just teach it as another option.
Abstinence implies that you avoid something cause it is harmful, or because of religious reasons.
So no, schools should not teach abstinence. They should however teach that you have to be ready and willing, and that you should not fall for peer pressure, and so on...
However, the word abstinence shouldn't be used, as it has way other subtler meanings hidden in it.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-11-2009, 04:57
Abstinence implies that you avoid something cause it is harmful, or because of religious reasons.
Only in the manner in which it is sometimes used. Even if this was entirely true though, there is no reason a school shouldn't say that it is perfectly right and OK for a student to choose abstinence if the student prefers it, whatever the personal reasons of the student may be.
Kadagar_AV
10-11-2009, 05:08
Abstinence implies the willful avoidance of pleasures, thought to be harmful or self-indulgent.
Sexual abstention, abstaining from sexual relations (as because of religious vows)
So, no, the schools should not imply that sex is self-indulgent or harmful (if done right).
Nor should schools dwell in religious beliefs, except in religion classes of course. Schools should be about science.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-11-2009, 05:37
So, no, the schools should not imply that sex is self-indulgent or harmful (if done right).
Sexual abstinence is the practice of voluntarily refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity. Common reasons for practicing sexual abstinence include:
religious or philosophical reasons
material reasons (to prevent conception [undesired pregnancy] or sexually transmitted disease [STD] transmission);
psycho-sociological reasons (e.g., clinical depression, social anxiety disorder, increasing testosterone in males, or negative past experiences); or,
legal injunctions requiring conformity.
You need to tell the student that it's OK not to have sex. If that is because of their religion, so be it. All they need to do is say that if your religion mandates that you don't have sex, and you take that commitment seriously, there is no reason that anyone should be able to pressure you into it. Not having sex is just as OK as having sex.
Nor should schools dwell in religious beliefs, except in religion classes of course. Schools should be about science.
We teach history, so we might as well teach theology, being as important as it is.
Kadagar_AV
10-11-2009, 05:50
Of course school should teach theology... In theology class.
Theology should, however, have nothing to do with other classes, like biology, where sexual education belongs :)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-11-2009, 05:51
Theology should, however, have nothing to do with other classes, like biology, where sexual education belongs :)
I would personally put sexual education in the health and physical education classes, as they should also talk about the emotional and practical aspects of having sex or preparing to have it, whereas biology should teach about the role of reproduction in nature.
Azathoth
10-11-2009, 05:58
Technically, sexual education belongs in Health Class.
And I'm pretty sure you're all just arguing about semantics right now.
Gym Teacher teaching Sex Ed?
That would make things worse.
Gym Teacher teaching Sex Ed?
That would make things worse.
Actually, thats we do it over here. (at least in my state)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2009, 15:59
Abstinence implies the willful avoidance of pleasures, thought to be harmful or self-indulgent.
Sexual abstention, abstaining from sexual relations (as because of religious vows)
So, no, the schools should not imply that sex is self-indulgent or harmful (if done right).
Nor should schools dwell in religious beliefs, except in religion classes of course. Schools should be about science.
Well, there are possible negative consequences for sex, aren't there? Abstention is restraint because you do not want a particular outcome. Generally speaking people abstain from sex because they do not want the (potentially) negative emotional fallout, less so the STDs.
Noncommunist
10-11-2009, 17:09
Gym Teacher teaching Sex Ed?
That would make things worse.
We had that as well, he generally taught us what all was down there(like the epididymus and cowpers gland) and he encouraged abstinence. While he didn't teach us how to put on a condom or use birth control pills, I think most of us were intelligent or knowledgeable enough to do it on our own. And I can't think of many pregnancies that were had.
Aemilius Paulus
10-11-2009, 21:15
Yeah, same here. We never had sex ed, well not the proper course. We had a state-mandated semester long course "Health Ed", but the only thing taught there related to sex was STIs. Then we had out Gym teacher, our Physical Ed coach as his official title was, teach us semi-sex ed. "Semi" because frankly, I do not remember him telling anything about what sex was or the female/male reproductive systems. I honestly do not remember what else he could have taught/did teach...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2009, 22:19
Yeah, same here. We never had sex ed, well not the proper course. We had a state-mandated semester long course "Health Ed", but the only thing taught there related to sex was STIs. Then we had out Gym teacher, our Physical Ed coach as his official title was, teach us semi-sex ed. "Semi" because frankly, I do not remember him telling anything about what sex was or the female/male reproductive systems. I honestly do nto remember what else he could have taught/did teach...
We were showed how to put a condom on a carrot (because someone forgot the fake phallus) and all the other bumpth that goes wuith contraception. We were also told that no form of contracpetion is bulletproof and that the only sure way not to get pregnant is not to do it. We were also warned that heavy petting is sex.
Azathoth
10-11-2009, 22:31
We were also warned that heavy petting is sex.
But it's not.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-12-2009, 01:14
But it's not.
Maybe the term means something different to you, but here it includes "things" that can have all the consequences of "full intercourse".
Do I need to draw you a diagram?
Aemilius Paulus
10-12-2009, 01:38
What exactly is defined as "heavy petting"? I know what is petting, but "heavy"? And why would the school official warn PVC about it, as I see little possibility of STI transmission or pregnancy occurring in this manner.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-12-2009, 02:06
What exactly is defined as "heavy petting"? I know what is petting, but "heavy"? And why would the school official warn PVC about it, as I see little possibility of STI transmission or pregnancy occurring in this manner.
Um, I can't tell you on these forums, I'd probably get warning points. Let's just say it doesn't include full intercourse, and leave it at that. It's not just kissing and cuddling.
a completely inoffensive name
10-12-2009, 07:11
Um, I can't tell you on these forums, I'd probably get warning points. Let's just say it doesn't include full intercourse, and leave it at that. It's not just kissing and cuddling.
I am guessing it is when a guy rubs his Twinkie on the womans fish taco but doesn't actually put the Twinkie in the taco.
LittleGrizzly
10-12-2009, 15:25
When I hear 'heavy petting' I think foreplay... all the same consequences apart from pregnancy... (although uncut hands could be used safely...)
Azathoth
10-12-2009, 17:17
I'd always thought heavy petting was literally "heavy petting". :oops:
Strike For The South
10-12-2009, 17:25
What exactly is defined as "heavy petting"? I know what is petting, but "heavy"? And why would the school official warn PVC about it, as I see little possibility of STI transmission or pregnancy occurring in this manner.
Skin Dj?
HoreTore
10-12-2009, 21:01
Well, there are possible negative consequences for sex, aren't there? Abstention is restraint because you do not want a particular outcome. Generally speaking people abstain from sex because they do not want the (potentially) negative emotional fallout, less so the STDs.
The possible negative consequences of sex are negligible and irrelevant, and they're miles away from outweighing the positive sides of it.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-12-2009, 21:09
The possible negative consequences of sex are negligible and irrelevant, and they're miles away from outweighing the positive sides of it.
This is your opinion, and therefore you choose to have sex. Others may not share this opinion, and therefore may choose not to have sex. Both sides should be told that their viewpoint is OK, and taught how to conduct themselves if they want to have sex and if they don't want to have sex.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-12-2009, 21:20
When I hear 'heavy petting' I think foreplay... all the same consequences apart from pregnancy... (although uncut hands could be used safely...)
Actually, when a woman ovulating her body sort of "encourages" your little soldiers, and they'll go to surprising lengths to form a beachhead. In other words, she can still get pregnant.
The possible negative consequences of sex are negligible and irrelevant, and they're miles away from outweighing the positive sides of it.
AIDs remains 100% lethal and screws up your life, as does Hepatitus. Then, if she does get pregnant, it's either keep the baby, get it adopted or get it aborted.
None of that is "irrelevant".
This is your opinion, and therefore you choose to have sex. Others may not share this opinion, and therefore may choose not to have sex. Both sides should be told that their viewpoint is OK, and taught how to conduct themselves if they want to have sex and if they don't want to have sex.
Thankyou, exactly my point.
Kadagar_AV
10-12-2009, 23:29
This is your opinion, and therefore you choose to have sex. Others may not share this opinion, and therefore may choose not to have sex. Both sides should be told that their viewpoint is OK, and taught how to conduct themselves if they want to have sex and if they don't want to have sex.
Agreed, it should be a decision made by the individual.
However, it should be an enlighted decision.
People on here (I guess from the US?) have testified how their sexual information was more about the negative aspects, while ignoring the positive aspects completely.
Let's use 2 examples...
A) this is the STDs you can get from sex, best way to avoid it is to not have sex.
B) these are the positive aspects of sex, these are the negative aspects. This is how birthcontrol pills, condoms and other things work. The odds and consequences of malfunctioning are these. Make your own decision.
I, for one, very much prefer scenario B rather than scenario A. I didn't even know scenario A existed (in the western world) before I read this thread.
ajaxfetish
10-13-2009, 06:27
Agreed, it should be a decision made by the individual.
However, it should be an enlighted decision.
People on here (I guess from the US?) have testified how their sexual information was more about the negative aspects, while ignoring the positive aspects completely.
Let's use 2 examples...
A) this is the STDs you can get from sex, best way to avoid it is to not have sex.
B) these are the positive aspects of sex, these are the negative aspects. This is how birthcontrol pills, condoms and other things work. The odds and consequences of malfunctioning are these. Make your own decision.
I, for one, very much prefer scenario B rather than scenario A. I didn't even know scenario A existed (in the western world) before I read this thread.
I don't know how it is in the rest of the US, but in Utah it's definitely a scenario A type of education. I agree with you that scenario B would be much better. The problem is that parents in my society would go ballistic if anyone tried to introduce scenario B. When I was in Jr High Health class, we needed parental permission slips to get the version that included discussing human sexuality, and a number of my friends' parents wouldn't allow their kids into such classes (as in, you needed parental permission to get scenario A; scenario B was not available, and many kids not getting even scenario A).
For much of the Utah population there's a particularly strong societal pressure against premarital sex, but I worry about how many of those who do choose to be sexually active know how to use contraceptives or even what the possible consequences of sex are. We definitely have room for improvement in our sexual education program, but parental attitudes are a huge barrier in at least some parts of the country.
Ajax
Aemilius Paulus
10-13-2009, 07:30
AIDs remains 100% lethal
To be fair there is a rare genetic mutation that can prevent it (http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/May-Jul/msg00026.html)...
And it is far from the only example. I have read news of other mutations found with same effect. If HIV/AIDS was to turn into another Black Death, mainly the individuals with the mutations would survive, guaranteeing general future immunity. Not any different from the process the apes, carriers of a similar strand had to go through.
HoreTore
10-13-2009, 08:58
AIDs remains 100% lethal and screws up your life, as does Hepatitus. Then, if she does get pregnant, it's either keep the baby, get it adopted or get it aborted.
None of that is "irrelevant".
Of course they are. A simple condom solves all of that. And as you said, a simple abortion takes care of the pregnancy, while there are what, 100 cases of aids in this country? Like I could care.
That is why I stress selfrespect, you see a dutch girl will never dress as inviting as an UK girl for example, they feel they are worth more then a quik shag in the restroom.
You do talk some nonsense Fraggles. What are you basing that on?
I recall being kept awake one night in a beach hut in Indonesia by two dutch girls banging away in the next door huts with that night's 'friends'. Therefore all Dutch women go on holiday to have noisy s3x with strangers?
Cute Wolf
10-15-2009, 15:26
It is no spam, but I tought Aemilius Paulus allready had his own effective sex-abstience program.... heheh.... This thing is that one that keep me, and some of my friends here virgin, really, honestly (more specifically, games did get your mind occupied, so you didn't think as much in *** matters)..... even if I want, I can do anything to my GF.... (because I was too busy playing EB when idle)
Tribute for Aemilius Paulus on his EB demotivator thread:
https://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss49/Aemilius_Paulus/Album%202%20-%20Misc/EB-demotivational2.jpg?t=1246047956
Cute Wolf
10-15-2009, 15:28
You do talk some nonsense Fraggles. What are you basing that on?
I recall being kept awake one night in a beach hut in Indonesia by two dutch girls banging away in the next door huts with that night's 'friends'. Therefore all Dutch women go on holiday to have noisy s3x with strangers?
It was Illegal anyway if they demand payments (prostitution was technically forbidden here), but note that that law was very - very rarely used......
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.