Abstinence

The Seeker · Dec 2, 2005

cameronw said:
It is good to show the symptoms of STD's. It should be carefully done though we don't want to scare people so that they are totally afraid of sex and then when they get married they remain scared.

I think the aim was to scare us to be honest. I'm not condemning it outright, mind, a little fear can be a good thing, as long as its rational and based on factual information.

butterfoot · Dec 2, 2005

MJ421 said:
What's wrong with discussing all the facts? Why do you feel the need to kep students ignorant of vital information?

HUH!!!!!!

MJ421 · Dec 2, 2005

nevermind.

The Seeker · Dec 2, 2005

MJ421 said:
A comprehensive sex-ed cirriculum would include condoms, BC pills, emergency contraceptives and everything in between.

You've stated you don't favor having BC, or at least condoms, taught in a sex-ed class.

That's like teaching history and leaving out the bronze age. It just isn't intellectually honest, and it puts an ideology above the health of the students.

cameronw said:
Maybe you didn't read my entire post or understand. I said I do tell the about condoms

butterfoot · Dec 2, 2005

MJ421 said:
A comprehensive sex-ed cirriculum would include condoms, BC pills, emergency contraceptives and everything in between.

You've stated you don't favor have BC, or at least condoms, taught in a sex-ed class.

That's like teach history and leaving out the bronze age. It just isn't intellectually honest, and it puts an ideology above the health of the students.

You might want to go read all of my posts again. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I would like you to quote my posts that I said I didn't wnat BC or Condoms taught in Sex-Ed Class.

You know it helps if you read the entire post and not just the first line of it. Of course you might not see this because to this point I don't think you have read all of my statement in each post.

-cw

MJ421 · Dec 2, 2005

Oops. My bad man, I misread the first post I quoted. I read to "do" as a "don't". Sorry man.

butterfoot · Dec 2, 2005

MJ421 said:
Oops. My bad man, I misread the first post I quoted. I read to "do" as a "don't". Sorry man.

No prob

Tangnefedd · Dec 2, 2005

I think sex should be saved for a steady committed relationship. I advocate masturbation as a way of pleasuring oneself, and getting rid of the frustration one naturally feels when not in a sexual relationship.

butterfoot · Dec 2, 2005

Tangnefedd said:
I think sex should be saved for a steady committed relationship. I advocate masturbation as a way of pleasuring oneself, and getting rid of the frustration one naturally feels when not in a sexual relationship.

Wow to be Christian and to make a statement such as this. Just wow. *shakes head*

flicka · Dec 2, 2005

cameronw said:
Wow to be Christian and to make a statement such as this. Just wow. *shakes head*

There are many christians who think this way...or act this way privately whilst publically saying otherwise . Guilt only goes so far in supressing our natural urges.

Moros · Dec 2, 2005

Abstinence doesn't work.

If you repress a biological imperative, it just finds other (usually unhealthy) ways to express itself. We're hardwired to want to screw for a reason. Just because birth control and prophylactics stop us procreating, doesn't repress the natural urge to have sex anyways.

Tangnefedd · Dec 2, 2005

Moros · Dec 2, 2005

Tangnefedd said:
So?

So... don't send your kids to Catholic school.

loriersea · Dec 2, 2005

cameronw said:
I would try to find some updated data. Six years is a long time to hold data like that. No one I think is saying to not include sex education but to teach abstinance along with it. Not just mention it once but to really teach the benefits of it. Not just from a religious stand point but from a human emotional stand point as well.

I agree with that, but I think it's important to realize that comprehensive sex ed curricula DO promote abstinence. Just because a program isn't "abstinence only" doesn't mean it doesn't encourage abstinence. Every comprehensive sex ed curricula I'm aware of very much promotes abstinence, along with providing information about STDs and STD prevention, pregnancy and pregnancy prevention, and responsible sexual decision making.

Unfortunately, if a school actually implements one of those programs, they will lose federal funding.

Tangnefedd · Dec 2, 2005

It is far better for kids of all ages to be encouraged touch in the privacy of their own room than have sex from the age of 11 or 12 as many do now children mature earlier.

butterfoot · Dec 2, 2005

Tangnefedd said:
It is far better for kids of all ages to be encouraged touch in the privacy of their own room than have sex from the age of 11 or 12 as many do now children mature earlier.

You make Liberals look conservative. I am not teaching my 12 year old about masturbation.

Thirst_For_Knowledge · Dec 2, 2005

cameronw said:
You make Liberals look conservative. I am not teaching my 12 year old about masturbation.

12? He found out about it a long time ago.

Phylogeny · Dec 2, 2005

Sex ed rocks!

When I was in school, we were taught that abstainance was best, but that if we had sex, to use condoms to protect ourselves, and to limit our sex partners. Gee, I ddin't become a sex-maniac! In fact, almost everyone I knew had the safe sex lecture and were better for it. Some decided to wait, others who did not had safe sex.

In my opinion, to teach kids abstainance is to put our children's "purity" above their that of their health.

Given a 100 kids, there is absolute a guarantee that at significant number of them will have sex before they leave their teens----there is no way around that in this country. SOME teens WILL have sex.

Now, suppose that by teaching sex ed, 10 more kids will also now be tempted to have sex instead of resorting to masturbation and/or heavy petting.

However, without sex ed, two girls from that group will have an abortion, another 8 will get get STDS: herpes, AIDS, syphiliis etc---maybe one will have health problems due to preganancy at a younger age.

The real question becomes: which is better? Letting a bunch of kids have health issues due to sex because they didn't know how to protect themselves or keeping everyone healthy and seeing a small increase in teen sex?

I thought with our 'culture of life', we would rather see to it that our teens get the sex ed they need to ensure that all stay healthy and no lives are lost, even at the cost of someone's sexual 'purity' ---or is this new "culture of life" our president is trying to jam down our throat only reserved for those that act in a narrowly prescribed path?

As for masturbation...what's wrong with it? How is this immoral? More importantly, why would it be detrimental to your health? Physicians and child psychologists have said for years it's a healthy sexual outlet. As a friend of mine once said, 'Sometimes, a guy's right hand is his best friend'.

butterfoot · Dec 2, 2005

Phylogeny said:
However, without sex ed, two girls from that group will have an abortion, another 8 will get get STDS: herpes, AIDS, syphiliis etc---maybe one will have health problems due to preganancy at a younger age.

Can please provide a link to where you got this information?

Tangnefedd · Dec 2, 2005

Cameron at 12 I would be surprised if your child wasn't masturbating as it is a normal human activity, the only thing that isn't normal is telling kids and anyone else it is wrong!

Abstinence

The Seeker

Guest

Formerly Known as cameronw

MJ421

Guest

The Seeker

Guest

Formerly Known as cameronw

MJ421

Guest

Formerly Known as cameronw

A Liberal Christian

Formerly Known as cameronw

Contributor

Well-Known Member

A Liberal Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A Liberal Christian

Formerly Known as cameronw

I Am A New Title

Veteran

Formerly Known as cameronw

A Liberal Christian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency