Shock News: Abstinence-Only Education Doesn't Work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

1. Amateur boxing
2. Mountaineering

---

Overall negative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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???*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

*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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

[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/v...nBirthRate.jpg

This the most recent obesity map I could find (2007):

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ap_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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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/614...ence-education

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Religious education belongs at home, not at school.

---

Agreed 100%. Did I give you the impression I think otherwise?

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.