Abstinence or Safe Sex?

[JustMeSee]

Abstinence Only!
People shouldn't be taught about sex until after they are married.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Winging it is always.. nice.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Why do we teach harm minimisation (as opposed to abstinence) for sex and drugs, but never for Drivers ed?

“Hey kids, we were going to teach you not to speed, but we know that you’ll just go out and do it anyway. So, we’ve replaced your regular driver’s ed film with a half-hour video of Jeremy Clarkson powersliding a Mercedes CLK Black series”

 

[JustMeSee]

Since Cain and Abel, teens at puberty have had a natural desire to drive an automobile.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Abstinence Only!
People shouldn't be taught about sex until after they are married.

Who said they have to taught? A lot of them learn about at school and friends [and I am not talking about thru the teachers]
We could always go back to the "Beaver" days

YouTube - Leave it to Beaver

 

[lawtonfogle]

Why do we teach harm minimisation (as opposed to abstinence) for sex and drugs, but never for Drivers ed?

“Hey kids, we were going to teach you not to speed, but we know that you’ll just go out and do it anyway. So, we’ve replaced your regular driver’s ed film with a half-hour video of Jeremy Clarkson powersliding a Mercedes CLK Black series”

Hmmm... my dad actually taught me how to speed. In some circumstances (when the traffic around you is traveling speed limit +5 or so), you should as well to minimize danger to yourself (going to slow increases chance of accidents, and the +5 mph does not make the wrecks significantly more dangerous). He also taught me that cops don't pull for going +5 on high ways and +10 on interstates, but never go +15 unless you got a really good reason (wife is having a baby but is having problems with birth and will die from blood loss in mere minutes).

I was also taught by a cop how to avoid one of the most common causes of flipping a vehicle, overcorrection. This have avoided me at least one major and one minor accident.

I wish I was taught the proper way to safely control a vehicle hydroplaining and a few other dangerous things that you rarely need to know, but is always good to know.

 

[Fantine]

At my youngest's high school, abstinence education was taught in 11th grade, and by the time it was taught, a significant percentage of students were already sexually active.

I met a teacher from the school recently, and she told me that there are usually 50 pregnant girls in the school in any given year (out of a total female population of perhaps 700.)

That means that by the time girls go through three years of this school they have more than a 20% chance of getting pregnant.

So much for the success of abstinence education

 

[Billnew]

The problem with teaching abstinence only is that many kids are going to have sex anyhow. We need to accept that fact and give them the knowledge to avoid STDs. To only teach abstinence is to put a great many kids in danger of terrible diseases for the sake of some vague ideal.

How do we know?

Our great goverment spends $12 for sex ed, while spending $1 for abstinence teaching.

Government Spends $12 on Safe Sex and​

Contraceptives for Every $1 Spent on Abstinence

http://www.projectreality.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Heritage_Analysis_on_Sex_Ed_Dollars_vs_Abst.pdf


STDS: condoms protect against stds 50% of the time, except for AIDs, which is 85% of the time. Half the time you won't get stds if you use a condem, and 15% of the time you might get a terminal disease.
Would you fly on a discount airline if they guaranteed you make it to your destination 85% of the time?
This is if the condom was treated in ideal conditions. Not kept in the wallet, car or transported in a piping hot trailer from the factory. If the condom is exposed to heat or moisture prior to use, it is questionable as to what protection it offers.
I also read UV rays can damage the condom, I don't think this would be a big problem since most condoms are individually wrapped in a container that blocks UV light.

I support teaching sex ed, but include abstinence teaching too.

**Silver ring thing**

Aids-85% effective:Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users. 2001 NIH report.
I could not find the 50% referece, so I must assume ti depends on who you ask.

How many condoms are handled perfectly to manufacturer's specifications?
How many people wear medical gloves when removing a condem. The fluid on the outside can have the disease on it, that you get on your hands when removing. You can get Std's on the hands from contact(more likely the virus) or to mouth or other tissue transfered from hand to that area.


I have read so many times in researching this information, that human nature won't allow for abstinence to be effective. Abstinence won't work if people don't offer it.

Safe sex crowd always claims the abstinence crowd is trying to get abstinence only teaching, when only some church groups push this.

Reminder to safe sex believers:
1.check the expiration dates- out of date condoms aren't as liekly to provide protection as well as ones in date.
2.check for proper consistancy, brittle, discolored, or hardened areas of a condom show the condom has not been stored properly, or are too old.
3.Don't freeze or heat the condom. Room temp is the proper storage temp. The car glove box gets to cold and to hot to store condoms.
4. don't forget latex allergies.

I believe we should teach our kids to respect themselves, teach them the morales that we have been brought up in, and that typically the older you are to have sex, the better you handle it, and handle the responsibility.
We should teach how to have sex as safe as possible, but we should not dismiss abstinence as being unrealistic. People will rise to the level they are expected to reach. If we say try to "be abstinant, but when that fails do this." We have told them that only freaks can wait to have sex. Encourage abstinence, and when you are ready for sex this is what you need to know. Education is never harmful, but educate about abstinence as well as safe sex.

Sex for school age children should always be discouraged. Waiting for sex until after HS graduation is a better goal, then waiting for marriage. The more responsible the person is the better they can decide on this issue. If they wait until after HS graduation, they might decide to wait until they are married. But at least they will be adults deciding about sex, and teen pregnancy would be less likely.

Not been to suppportive of Catholic doctrine on sex.

 

[lawtonfogle]

How do we know?

Our great goverment spends $12 for sex ed, while spending $1 for abstinence teaching.

http://www.projectreality.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Heritage_Analysis_on_Sex_Ed_Dollars_vs_Abst.pdf

Because we should obviously count the amount of money spent by the government on helping women (adults and teenagers) prevent pregnancies and the use of contraceptives IN GENERAL with the amount spent to teach ONLY TEENS to abstain.

First off, lets compare dollars spent on teens with dollars spent on teens. That brings us to

More than a third of that money ($653 million) was spent specifically to fund contraceptive programs for teens.

So now we are looking at a rate of about $4.50 to $1.

Now, how much of that $653 millions was spent on helping prevent pregnancies and use of contraception that was not in the form of teaching? If it is any sizable amount (and it likely is), the ratio becomes even more even. Also, programs that taught abstinence and sex-ed were counted as being in the former group. In other words, if $400 millions was spent on programs that encouraged by abstinence and safe sex (which is what many people, even those who see sex outside of marriage as immoral, believe in teaching), that is $400 million that this report says was spent on sex ed and contraception.

Basically, the report is comparing two completely different things, and the subtitle (which you quoted) is an outright lie they tried to disguise.

STDS: condoms protect against stds 50% of the time, except for AIDs, which is 85% of the time. Half the time you won't get stds if you use a condem, and 15% of the time you might get a terminal disease.
Would you fly on a discount airline if they guaranteed you make it to your destination 85% of the time?

Source? Also, are we counting only the STDs they claim to protect from (genital area contact STDs are not protected against, and it should be taught they do not protect from those).

This is if the condom was treated in ideal conditions. Not kept in the wallet, car or transported in a piping hot trailer from the factory. If the condom is exposed to heat or moisture prior to use, it is questionable as to what protection it offers.
I also read UV rays can damage the condom, I don't think this would be a big problem since most condoms are individually wrapped in a container that blocks UV light.

This is why you teach them to not use a condom, but a good condom. For example, don't use a condom with a little bow stabled to it.
http://www.epicfail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/condom-fail-anti-aids.jpg

I support teaching sex ed, but include abstinence teaching too.

Which many of us do support.

**Silver ring thing**

Aids-85% effective:Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users. 2001 NIH report.

This is far different than saying that condoms are 85% effective. A, there are numerous ways to get AIDs. For example, you could be born with it. In which case you would be likely to use condoms every time. Not to mention people who skipped once or twice, caught an STD, and then decided to start using condoms every time. They would have likely answered every time as well.

I could not find the 50% referece, so I must assume ti depends on who you ask.

How many condoms are handled perfectly to manufacturer's specifications?
How many people wear medical gloves when removing a condem. The fluid on the outside can have the disease on it, that you get on your hands when removing. You can get Std's on the hands from contact(more likely the virus) or to mouth or other tissue transfered from hand to that area.

And you can get an STD by shakings someones hand. Very unlikely, but they use the restroom, by some small miracle some contaminated skin cells are not washed away. You shake hands. You hands get the contaminated skin cells. You go to the restroom, these contaminate skin cells get on your skin.

Yeah, so this would only work with some STDs, but it is still possible.

I have read so many times in researching this information, that human nature won't allow for abstinence to be effective. Abstinence won't work if people don't offer it.

Some people choose abstinence without ever having been taught it in school.

Safe sex crowd always claims the abstinence crowd is trying to get abstinence only teaching, when only some church groups push this.

Which is why you need to break up the abstinence only crowd and the sex ed with abstinence crowd. Of course, some people claim to be in the latter, but are really in the former, and their 'sex ed' only consist of (often times dubious if not outright false) 'facts' about sex.

Reminder to safe sex believers:
1.check the expiration dates- out of date condoms aren't as liekly to provide protection as well as ones in date.
2.check for proper consistancy, brittle, discolored, or hardened areas of a condom show the condom has not been stored properly, or are too old.
3.Don't freeze or heat the condom. Room temp is the proper storage temp. The car glove box gets to cold and to hot to store condoms.
4. don't forget latex allergies.

And this is stuff that should be taught.

I believe we should teach our kids to respect themselves, teach them the morales that we have been brought up in, and that typically the older you are to have sex, the better you handle it, and handle the responsibility.
We should teach how to have sex as safe as possible, but we should not dismiss abstinence as being unrealistic. People will rise to the level they are expected to reach. If we say try to "be abstinant, but when that fails do this." We have told them that only freaks can wait to have sex. Encourage abstinence, and when you are ready for sex this is what you need to know. Education is never harmful, but educate about abstinence as well as safe sex.

The problem is not that abstinence is unreasonable, but actually two lesser problems.
First, one mistake, and you are no longer abstinence. Many people forget to teach the point of abstaining after you have sex, and so some people thinkg 'Well, I did it once, so what does it matter if I keep doing it?'
Second, culture looks down on those who abstain past a certain point. Our society, at least young Americans in the South (the part of society I have experience with) glorifies sex, especially for males. Abstinence is only for prudes, or so the idea seems to go.

Sex for school age children should always be discouraged. Waiting for sex until after HS graduation is a better goal, then waiting for marriage. The more responsible the person is the better they can decide on this issue. If they wait until after HS graduation, they might decide to wait until they are married. But at least they will be adults deciding about sex, and teen pregnancy would be less likely.

Not been to suppportive of Catholic doctrine on sex.

Sex for school age children is a much stickier issue. In some places, it is illegal and the children can end up on the sex offender list. In other places, it is legal, but with so many restrictions, and parents can possibly get in trouble for not stopping their children from having sex. Society itself has yet made up its mind if school age children (well, teenagers, though they are technically still children, at least under SC law) should be allowed to have sex, and to what extent. Even the church is not sure. They say sex only after marriage, but should their be an age limit of marriage? For example, I know one teenager who was married, and many people disproved of her marrying young (and by young, I mean 19).

 

[lawtonfogle]

At my youngest's high school, abstinence education was taught in 11th grade, and by the time it was taught, a significant percentage of students were already sexually active.

I met a teacher from the school recently, and she told me that there are usually 50 pregnant girls in the school in any given year (out of a total female population of perhaps 700.)

That means that by the time girls go through three years of this school they have more than a 20% chance of getting pregnant.

So much for the success of abstinence education

I think a lot of people forget that puberty is mainly the body preparing for sex, including a very built in desire to have it. If only we could push puberty back till you hit 18 (or at least the 'want to have sex' part of it).

 

[trunks2k]

Aids-85% effective:Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users. 2001 NIH report.
I could not find the 50% referece, so I must assume ti depends on who you ask.

Odd, I've seen studies that shown a 0% transmission rate on couples who used condoms consistently and correctly. I can't find those studies at the moment but they studied two groups of couples wherein one partner was HIV partner. One group reported using condoms all the time and never failing to use them the other did not. The group that used condoms all the time had no transmission the other group had some. I've posted the study multiple times on these boards, possibly earlier in this thread.

This study suggest a 95% decrease in transmission in heterosexual couples ScienceDirect - Social Science & Medicine : Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission

 

[QuakerOats]

Children should be taught both. They should be taught that abstinence is the only way to guarantee against pregnancy and disease, but they should also be taught about the various forms of birth control because as others have already mentioned, there will be those who will have sex, and to not provide them with the information to help keep their bodies healthy I feel is deeply irresponsible.

 

[Nooj]

Abstinence Only!
People shouldn't be taught about sex until after they are married.

What world do you live in? It's scary that you want people to be ignorant of sex until they're married.

 

[craigerNY]

Abstinence only.

Congratulations, you successfully resuscitated a six year old thread........oh, I guess if I am going to stay on topic I vote both.

 

[JustMeSee]

What world do you live in? It's scary that you want people to be ignorant of sex until they're married.

Sadly, that is when many people learn about it.

In my opinion, parents should urge their teens not to have sex, but also provide them with information regarding contraception (how to put on condoms), the emotional aspect, and potential other risks.

Teens will learn about some aspects of sex from their peers. Often, this information will be wrong or incomplete.

Saying G-d doesn't want you to do it until you are married does not work for all teens. Teenagers are often hormonal, impulsive, and rebellious.

Teaching them precautions, in my opinion, will not encourage them to have sex.

 

[Hisbygrace]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved to the
Ethics & Morality area of the Society forums.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[emilybeingemily]

Definitely both.

 

[TheNihilodeterminist]

There only thing you need to know about abstinence is what parts of society condemns you for having sex, and what parts do not, so that school kids can find reasonable and sane people to mingle with, and avoid being emotionally traumatized by zealots.

Apart from that, kids benefit from learning as much as possible about the risks of sex, sociology of early pregnancies, and so on. They would also probably benefit from watching inappropriate content and reading books on pick up artistry. And for kids who have no girlfriend&boyfriend, and are likely to remain single for extended periods, it is important that they learn scientific facts about masturbation.

Penetration correlates with happiness. Sex education would be best if it increases the amount of penetration in a society while decreasing the amount of STD risk per penetration.

 

[Im_A]

Sex ed:
Abstinence or Safe Sex? And why?

Both.

I believe teenagers should be taught both ways of trying to figure the issue out of sex. I would prefer that parents do their job instead of relying on the public school or the private school to RAISE their children up, yet since the reality we live in, some parents actually stink on this issue, I believe that both should be taught fairly and equally.

If one is overcompensated over the other, I worry about how that will affect the child's ability to make choices in their teenage/puberty years because those years are precious to be able to teach a teenager to weigh all possible options and make the best choice they can perceive for themselves with the help of their family, education and even peers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ah yes, another fine case of society creating another social taboo that doesn't need to exist...

Anything in this life can be potentially dangerous if you don't use common sense or get instructed on the precautions.

Skateboarding and wood-tech class have more potential dangers than sex, yet we don't have anyone lashing out when someone suggests that we teach kids to wear helmets or safety goggles and try to suggest that we also teach kids to abstain from taking wood-tech.