Abstinence-only Sex Ed

TreeCave, that is disgusting. I've heard such tales about women getting internal damage from sex, but I didn't know that this idea was so prevalent.

One problem that I have with sexual education, again with the female part of it, is the hymen. I've never understood why we have this strange little membrane, but I do remember detesting it at a fairly young age. I wanted that thing gone. I remember hearing horror stories about women in pain and bleeding their first time. I also assumed that the man was always on top, since that's all I had seen in movies. Sexual education (and my parents) did nothing to clear this up. I was completely turned-off by the idea of sex. Then one day I stumbled across a copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" in the library. That book opened up a whole new world for me. It had actual stories from actual women about their sexual experiences. It had detailed and illustrated facts about birth control. It described an abortion in perfect detail. It spoke of homosexuality and marriage. It told what an orgasm actually was. And the drawings actually had the woman on top sometimes!!

Okay, sorry, that was a bit off-topic. But all I mean to say is that the sexual education I got in school was so focused on abstinence and anatomy that they never got around to the fact that people do it, and they do it for a reason. They don't always do it to procreate. They don't always do it because they're horrible depraved individuals. Often times, they do it because it can create an intense emotional bond between two people. They do it because it can feel really good. They do it because it's actually a lot of fun. I think this is a huge thing that's lacking in our current system. They teach why not to have sex, but they never really teach why you would want to have sex in the first place. I know it's pretty much a given for guys, but with girls it isn't always so simple.

 

They teach why not to have sex, but they never really teach why you would want to have sex in the first place. I know it's pretty much a given for guys, but with girls it isn't always so simple.

My husband and I have dicussed this. I don't trust that our schools to teach everything. My husband will teach our boys how to be good lovers. That the girls pleasure should come before theirs. My daughter will be taught what she needs to know too. She's only 5 months old, but I think I will get that book to pack away for her already. I think reading a book will make them fill more comfortable and then they can come to us with questions.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night about this book that was banned from the library (can't remember the title). It was an advice book for teenagers. There was a chapter about sex and it gave intructions on sexual technics. And thats why it was banned.

All and all I think its mostly a parents responsiblity, but sadly many parents are not up to it and so it falls to the schools. The schools should then teach all aspects.

 

Hehe, I'm reminded of the movie Outside Providence, and Alec Baldwin's big sex talk with his son:
"Making sex is like a Chinese dinner. It ain't over 'til you both get your cookies. Remember I said that."

 

"My husband will teach our boys how to be good lovers. That the girls pleasure should come before theirs."

Please forgive my ignorance, but I'd like a bit more explanation about this line. You make it sound like an irrefutable rule that the male should not seek pleasure before the female is satisfied. I'm not suggesting anything like TreeCave's example of hasty or premature penetration, but why do you say that a guy is not a good lover unless he makes sure the girl's pleasure comes before his own? Shouldn't it be more of a mutual satisfaction?

Thanks,

IA

 

Shouldn't it be more of a mutual satisfaction?

Of course it should be mutual, but for a man I think its a very easy thing for him to reach orgasim. This is hard to explain, because I don't want to go to far in detail. My goal is never to be banned For a women it takes longer to become aroused so a man have to spend more time with her so its an equally satifing experience. A woman has a responsiblity to know what she wants and what arouses her. I want my daughter to know what pleases her so she can tell a potential lover what she wants. I want my son's to think of their lovers needs before their own. I find the idea of my children having sex someday distrubing, but I want them to be well-rounded individuals that have happy productive lives. I want them to have all the tools they need.

 

I've heard such tales about women getting internal damage from sex, but I didn't know that this idea was so prevalent.

I think it's improved since the 80's - shock value was so prevalent in both entertainment AND news after that, that they started hearing about women who did enjoy sex, and I suspect removing the ignorance was all that was required for any sane person in that situation.

Idiots Array, Jedi_Master_Mom answered this well. I think the idea of the male putting the female's pleasure first also comes from the simple biological fact that in coitus, once the man has finished, the session ends and the woman doesn't have a chance to finish - during that act, anyway. Of course, there are other things to do afterwards or whatever.... but this is relatively recent thinking in our Puritanical society. If statistics are at all right, oral sex (for one example) was rather unusual before the 1960's, and all couples did was coitus. Especially Anglo-Saxon couples - ah, the race of hang-ups.

I think to an extent both partners have to put the other's pleasure ahead of theirs. But even in cases less extreme than the type I mentioned earlier, it used to be considered the woman's responsibility to please the man - that was the whole point of sex for both partners. Or at least that's what my relatives who were old enough to know about or be having sex in the 50's have described to me.

I think we as a culture are still adjusting from viewing women as nothing but givers.

 

I see what you're saying, JMM (EDIT: and TreeCAve). I think everyone should know what pleases them and what doesn't. And I see it as my job to make sure whoever I have sex with is...//ahem// well taken care of. At the same time, though, I think it's just as much the job of the woman to please the man. Again, it's a mutual thing. It's important to find the right balance between selfish and selfless.

Hmmm, I suppose we're getting off topic a bit here.

If there is anything you would like to expand upon without fear of banning Jedi_Master_Mom please feel free to send me a PM.

 

You have another boyfriend?

 

TheWraith, what are you talking about?

 

As a teenager I wanna say that I have learned nothing about sex in my school. We learned about the organs, pueberty, and babies, but never the actual act. Everything I know I've leared from my parents, tv-movies, and peers. The best information I have gotten has been from my parents. They've taught me how to protect myself should I ever have sex. I am proud to say I am a 16 year-old virgin and will remain that way until my wedding night. Teens need to know that while sex may be fun it comes with great consequences. I'm lucky to have people who were willing to teach me.

I also want to say that I feel no pressure from peers. My friends and I are all virgins and we've never expressed any desire to go out and jump anyone. We know what would happen. Oddly enough we talk about it. That's right Folks! Teenagers have mature conversations about sex! [face_shocked] Adults seem to think we're all stupid, but the teen moms and druggies who make the news are only a small percentage of us. And at least in my state the teen pregnancy rates have gone down. That has to say something about my generation. -Sky

 

If a school is going to teach about birth control they should teach all forms of birth control. I mean we go to school for an education, and in some cases that includes education about sex.

Now I got lucky living where I do (Massachusetts). This state prides itself on education, even if it's on hot topics like sex (and religon,etc). Which IMO is good. While many parents are willing to educate their children of such issues others are not. Teenagers need to be aware of such things, because frankly by the time a person goes into highschool they've already made up their mind on what they are and aren't going to do. Now because of this teens need to be aware of the consequences and the options that are avalible(sp) to them.

What my point is that to 'fix' a problem people need to confront it, not stay quite about it.

That's just my 2 cents.

 

I think it's fantastic when a young person can make a mature decision like that, to say they are not going to have sex until they get married. Innocence is lost after that first time. The growth of a human being in his/her teenage years is so complicated. In the late eighties, I was 16 years old and often told myself that I wasn't going to have sex until I graduated High School, or at least not until I got married (I was going to follow the rules of society and be a good person). Sometimes things happen, however, and in such a way that you don't usually expect it to. Sadly enough, the first time was when I was 16! Looking back on it now, I can see that a lot of innocence was lost. There is some regret, because of that. You begin to question your own morality, and how you see things definitely changes. However, on the good side, I had been involved in sex-ed courses in the past, so I knew what a condom was, etc. But to hold back is a good thing. Especially for teenagers. Cherish the teen years and don't put it in jerporady. You got your whole life to discover the rest of that stuff.

 

So, do parents have a right to control whether their teens have sex, or do teens have a right to make their own decisions about it?

 

Well, I've already said this. I think they have that right until their kids are legal adults. Parents can stop their kids from doing other things and sex shouldn't be any different, even if it is a touchy subject. If you're going to allow underage kids to make all their own decisions about sex, you have to let them completely decide everything else for their own, too.

 

So, do parents have a right to control whether their teens have sex, or do teens have a right to make their own decisions about it?

Being their child's legal guardian, I would say that they have an obligation to do what is necessary within the law to protect their children from situations that could endanger them either physically or emotionally. That being said, it is a well known fact that a teenager will more than likely seek to do that which has been expressly forbidden, especially if their peers will/have done so.

I think it comes down to the example that is set for child by the parents. I was never subjected to "the talk" by my parents, but the question of when sexual contact was appropriate was never in doubt -- exemplified by both my parent's actions and words.

I also see the importance placed on sex by society as a reason for the high rate of failure of marriages and high rate of teen pregnancies. Instead of an end in and of itself, sex should be the byproduct of a strong emotional and spiritual bond. Those who marry primarily for sex find soon enough that their lust wears off once the other's true personality emerges.

As far as sex education in school, I see no need for explanations beyond the scientific purposes and consequenses related to sexual actions. This includes the scientific purposes for both male and female orgasms, however I believe that to teach a student how to induce them is giving implicit approval to the act at too early an age. I wish I had the stats in front of me of a small town (I believe in Texas) that changed over to an abstinence/consequences based sex education program -- much like the Swedish program described above -- and reduced teen pregnancies by 80% over a 5 year period.

 

In case any one is interested, here is the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior. It's long, but interesting. A couple quotes:

"To date, there are only a few published evaluations of abstinence-only programs (Christopher and Roosa, 1990; St Pierre et al, 1995; Kirby et al, 1997; Kirby, 2001). Due to this limited number of studies it is too early to draw definite conclusions about this approach. Similarly, the value of these programs for adolescents who have initiated sexual activity is not yet understood. More research is clearly needed."

"Programs that typically emphasize abstinence, but also cover condoms and other methods of contraception, have a larger body of evaluation evidence that indicates either no effect on initiation of sexual activity or, in some cases, a delay in the initiation of sexual activity (Kirby, 1999; Kirby, 2001). This evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity, either by hastening the onset of sexual intercourse, increasing the frequency of sexual intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners. In addition, some of these evaluated programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally for adolescents who were sexually."

"Despite the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of school-based sexuality education, it remains a controversial issue for many- in terms of whether schools are the most appropriate venue for such education, as well as curriculum content. Few would disagree that parents should be the primary sexuality educators of their children or that sexual abstinence until engaged in a committed and mutually monogamous relationship is an important component in any sexuality education program. It does seem clear, however, that providing sexuality education in the schools is a useful mechanism to ensure that this Nation's youth have a basic understanding of sexuality. Traditionally, schools have had a role in ensuring equity of access to information that is perhaps greater than most other institutions. In addition, given that one-half of adolescents in the United States are already sexually active-and at risk of unintended pregnancy and STD/HIV infection-it also seems clear that adolescents need accurate information about contraceptive methods so that they can reduce those risks."

"Simply being affiliated with a religion does not appear to have great effect on sexual behavior; however, the extent of an individual's commitment to a religion or affiliation with certain religious denominations does (Brewster et al, 1998). For example, an adolescent's frequent attendance at religious services is associated with less permissive attitudes about premarital sexual activity and a greater likelihood of abstinence (Ku et al, 1993; Billy et al, 1994; Werner-Wilson, 1998). On the other hand, for adolescents who are sexually active, frequency of attendance is also associated with decreased use of contraceptive methods among girls and increased use by boys (DuRant and Sanders, 1989; Ku et al, 1993)."

"Education should...assure awareness of optimal protection from sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy, for those who are sexually active, while also stressing that there are no infallible methods of protection, except abstinence, and that condoms cannot protect against some forms of STDs."

So it seems even our Surgeon General doesn't think abstinence-ony sexual education is a good idea.

 

So, do parents have a right to control whether their teens have sex, or do teens have a right to make their own decisions about it?

I think a parent is responsible for teaching a teenager to make informed decisions...that includes making informed decisions about sex. I don't think a parent can stop a teenager from having sex, but they can teach them to be responsible, let them know that there are always consequences, and teach them to have self-confidence so they don't have sex for the wrong reasons.

 

So, do parents have a right to control whether their teens have sex, or do teens have a right to make their own decisions about it?

Do you mean morally, or legally? Morally, I guess if you're paying someone's upkeep, you have a certain leeway to control their behavior. Obviously, some parents (very few, I hope) are just domineering neurotics who would just use this to make their kids afraid of them - which will not inspire good morals. This may sound like an extreme case, but honestly, I grew up in the 80's (a decade I think will be remembered for bad, bad parenting), and I knew of people who tossed their kids in mental hospitals for sneaking out of the house once or twice.

Anyway, I suppose it's morally acceptable for a parent to tell a kid they can't have sex till they're on their own or something. But what then? If the parent hasn't set an example or talked to the kid, the kid may treat sex like bouncing on the bed - "Now I'm free to do it, so I must". Who didn't bounce all over the first mattress that was truly theirs to ruin even though it just wasn't as fun as when you were 6?

 

"If you're going to allow underage kids to make all their own decisions about sex, you have to let them completely decide everything else for their own, too. "

Rebecca191, I read your arguments about this in the feminist thread, and I think you're right on.

If a person is unwilling or unable to secure their own living space, and accept any and all consequences to their actions, they must yield to the judgement of the people that provide those things for them.

Yeah there's bad parents. There's bad kids, too. The statement still stands.

 

Exactly. I think if we lets kids do whatever they want... well I think they should have to work, and pay for their food and shelter. I mean, since they're so responsible and all.

And since we're going to let kids do that... I mean, I realllly think we should let them vote, make their own decision when to quit school, own property, etc. And pay their own bills!

 

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other?

Why not a moderation?

 

Because teenagers should accept the decisions of the people who are providing everything for them: you know, food, shelter, plus those nice clothes and that fancy car.

 

I guess I missed the part where that means teenagers have no common sense or right to their own lives to some extent.

The mere idea that someone could be forbidden to have sex and do what they wish with their minds and bodies (I'm not talking going out on the streets here, I'm talking about being within a solid relationship with someone) strikes me as something from 1984.

 

It may seem like the end of the world to them now, but when they're adults, and they have the nice job, and the big house, they'll be happy a baby didn't come along to mess all that up.

 

Yet, unfortunately, those that are given everything on that list tend to be the ones most resistant to parental authority and influence.