Abstinence only sex-ed

Let's restart this discussion.

Abstinence programs do not work, a study says.

As a continuation of gwaernardel's thread since it's locked.

Since this study is incomplete I'm looking at this cautiously, but so far it looks like the naysayers are correct. More as the study develops.

I personally disagree with abstinence only sex-ed and consider it harmful to teenagers and lacking any sense of reality. We're sexual creatures, most of us any way. Humans either think about sex and perform self-pleasuring acts on themselves or they go out and have sex. Abstinence teaches you to deny your feelings and your hormones. Which is nearly impossible. Unless you're sexually repressed. Some people that are that way act out violently against other people.

To sum up, I find abstinence not only sex-ed fatally flawed, but harmful to those that it's supposed to 'teach'.

 

That is a nicely worded way to say, "Stupid virgins! Go get some nookie!"

 

Sort of. I feel it's a shame that Americans continue to bury their heads in the sand and support these type of programs when they've never been proven to work. Why keep going? What will it take for the US to stop making these kind of asinine policies? Will it take a completely AIDS infected USA to prove that these don't work?

 

I'm against the abstinance only sex-ed because of the religious motives behind it: "God says no sex, so that's all we're going to teach."

Yet there's a large part of the population that believes that sex is a healthy activity and if handled responsibly should not be something that's frowned upon.

 

Ok ok... it's not that God said, "No sex." If he did, well... we'd all be fried by lightening. After all, he did tell Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars. I hate it when really prudish people say that it's bad... I think that's where the stupid notions of "sex is bad" comes from. I used to think like that... and I'm getting over it quite well I think.

I blame those videos that I was forced to watch in school that say that so many teens have STDs and that there are so few left who are clean. That's where I get my fear of sex from.

 

Abstinence only sex ed is stupid. If schools want to make there primary theme of sex ed abstinace that's fine, but they do need to teach about contaceptives also. First of all no can convince a room of 20 to 30 people to not have sex untill they are married, especialy since some of those people in the room are probably sexualy active. Secondly what about when the people do get maried? Unless they want to have a ton of kids then they need to know about contraceptives also.

 

This is pretty much old news. Oh, sex is bad-don't do it!

Whatever. And people wonder why the US has such a high rate of teen pregnancy and STDs compared to other industrial nations. (Surprise, surprise, their "naughty" sex ed programs actually seem to WORK!)

I was lucky-my school was pretty decent. Basically, we learned about the various methods of birth control, how they work, the failure rates, STDs, etc.

 

Abstinace only education is like having odd-numbers only math. It's just stupid.

Like having a seminar on world governments and teaching that military dictatorships is the only way to go.

It's like Vanilla only Ice Cream Education.

It's like teaching male-only sex education, where you learn all about the man parts but are FORBIDDAN from leaerning about the female parts.

It's like saying we are going to provide you with a spelling only primary education. Forget reading, writing, history, math, social studies, all you are going to learn is SPELLING.

 

I fail to understand why both abstinence and birth control methods of sex-ed can't be used together. I don't think they need to contradict each other at all.

Mainly the message (imho) should be...

"The only way to be 100 percent safe from unwanted pregnancy and STDs is to not have sex. However, if you so desire to have sex, here is what you need to know..."

Really, if I were a parent, I would want whatever produced the best results for my kids. It would seem abstinence only isn't the answer.

 

I'm with OWM.

I don't think it's the place of the school system to encourage or discourage behaviors of any sort, but rather to impart knowleddge and encourage and promote critical thought. Therefore, I would take a very different approach to teaching sex ed than any programs usually forwarded as superior, be they abstinence only, something The West Wing dubs "abstinence plus" (I'm not sure if that's a real term or not), protected sex, etc. courses. I think the thing to do is begin by teaching about sex. This means teaching (in scientific detail) the biology of reproduction and sexual pleasure, as well as various things like diseases. Also, we should teach the psychology of sexuality (and probably of gender as well), so students can learn about the mental and emotional aspets involved. We should teach about the different types of sexual practices, so students understand the sorts of things involved. And, we should teach about cultural approaches to sexuality, including the different moral opinions on the issue. Students should be exposed to and made to think about all of this.

The school should take no position on whether sex is permissible or to be avoided, on whether it should be protected or not, etc. The school ought to let students know about the wide range of opinions on these topics and the reasons behind them, and it's obviously good to teach relevant statistics (condom success rates, STD rates, etc.), but ultimately, the goal should be to make the student consider and think deeply on the issue for himself.

It's unfair to students and an unethical weighting of the education system to teach only about certain aspects of sexuality, or to encourage or discourage various behaviors. The goal of sex ed should be to teach about sexuality and leave students competent and informed to make their own decisions; then, we don't need to have programs that promote specific behaviors like abstinence, because the students have the knowledge and power to discern and decide for themselves.

-Paul

 

Abstinence programs do not work, a study says.

"a study"?

they needed "a study"?



The failure of abstinence is a forgone conclusion.

 

Qui-Gon-Jinn2, I'm with you, but unfortunately there is a huge puritan hang up in our society when it comes to sex.

Nooo!!! Don't mention sex-then the kids will want to do it!!! Well hey, guess what-they're gonna do it anyways-let's at least make sure they're safe.

Gee, they told us about WWII-doesn't mean I want to invade freaking Poland.

 

Wait till teh conservatives and the right-wing Christians get in this thread.

They have this strange belief that they have a right to keep their children ignorant.

 

the same could be said about drug education.

Even If you tell kids to not do druge, they'll still do it anyways.

I'll concede the fact that drugs do not equal sex.

But the point is that most kids will do something (if its fun) even if it is "forbidden" to them.

 

beajedi - I fully agree with you on your point about drugs. I'd favor a different approach to Health education that doesn't tell ids not to do drugs, but rather teaches them about the drugs, their effects (both good and bad), and such thtings as how tot take them safely, as well as the dangers of taking them. If drugs are to be mentioned at all in the classroom, we should see both sides of theh issue.

So long as we're dealing with behaviors that don't harm anyone non-consensually, I believe I'm fairly consistent on this one.

-Paul

 

Do you know what sex-ed is failing?

Because it is not the responsibility of the goverment/schools to teach kids morals. This responsibility falls upon the PARENTS.

Schools can teach about the parts and how they work, but the issue of abstinence itself falls on the parents' shoulders.

So all this education about drugs and sex and stuff should be done at home before kids learn it at school. It doesn't have to an all out lesson (you would freak out your kid), but you can be open and teach your kid as much as he needs to know. And forgo all the stupid stork stories, too.

 

Well, it's better that the kids know what's really going on, instead of finding out by trial and error. (the drug and sex ed classes at my old school made everything quite clear)

Incidentally, what should be the ideal age for sex ed?

 

I disagreee about drugs.

Sex is a natural human act that most all of us will take part in, and it's essential to the continued existance of the human race, and a lack of education poses grave health risks to society (STD's, etc.)

Drugs are bad. Seriously. I am all about decrminilization and what not, but you can't have a class that teaches abotu the positive aspects of drugs, because, really, there aren't any.

We can teach classes about responsible alcohol or drug use, but drugs are illegal and so is alcohol for minors, so we should teach them to not do drugs, but I agree we should tell the truth about drugs. Saying Pot is as evil as Heroin does damage to society. But we shouldn't be saying "go ahead and smoke pot."

In a way, I see the point now. We shouldn't be teaching kids that sex is ok, but we SHOULD be teaching them about abstinance AND safer sex.

 

Incidentally, what should be the ideal age for sex ed

Good question. I took my class when I was in 6th grade. That seems like a good age, since in my experience, Junior High (7th grade) is about the time when sexual activity becomes a possible reality for most kids.

 

As far as I'm concerned abstinence-only sex education doesn't even qualify as 'education'. It's more preaching a personal ideology for some supposed greater good. If I took driving lessons where the instructor says nothing but "don't drive", I wouldn't honestly call that a 'driving lesson'.

 

I think this is stupid.If you dont tell kids how to protect themelves its just asking for trouble.Teens are having sex and not giving them information on birth control and STDs is like giving a loaded wepon to someone and walking away.

Look at the movie "saved".The charecter in it had no idea what could happen with sex and she got pregnant.

 

Sex-ed's not failing, birth rates among teens is the lowest it's been in years. Of course there could be other factors so


Because it is not the responsibility of the goverment/schools to teach kids morals. This responsibility falls upon the PARENTS.

Parents whom are quite incapable of teaching their kids about sex because it's an embarrassing subject for them, those parents? We see how effectively parents are raising their kids with school shootings, drugs in high school, etc. etc. Yes, these parents are the ones I want teaching their little nitwits about sex.

 

beajedi

Because it is not the responsibility of the goverment/schools to teach kids morals. This responsibility falls upon the PARENTS.

Ideally, that would be the case, but the problem is that enough parents clearly are not teaching their kids about this. Now, I agree steps should be taken to make parents more responsible, but until that happens, what should be done? It is more important to get kids educated in this sense than it is to make the situation perfect.

 

Enforcer - If schools are to step in and offer moral lessons in parents' places, what morals are they to teach? How could we possibly agree on what sorts of behaviors schools should be promoting and discouraging?

-Paul

 

Basic sexual education should be taught starting at the junior high school level.

Stressing abstinence as the only surefire way to prevent the risks of sexual activity (both physical and emotional) is appropriate, but failing to include birth control methods is dangerous and stupid, especially when kids become teenagers.

Teenagers will experiment. While we can try and teach them the "rights" and "wrongs" about sex (which should be up to the parents, not the schools), the nuts-and-bolts of disease prevention should be at least touched upon, because if not, the kids will learn by experimenting, and the cost to public health will be much, much higher than we've bargained for.

My $0.02.

Peace,

V-03