This Silver Ring Thing.

[seebs]

How about you get to wear a silver ring when you've passed a test showing you know actual facts about STDs and pregnancy, and the various forms of contraception available.

They could fund the program by selling tickets, for pay-per-view, to the debate over what the "real" statistics are.

 

[Mistyfogg]

I wish there was a way to meet in the middle. A program that can be developed where there is full education of everything: STD knowledge, prevention, and treatment; all birth control methods with their effectiveness, how to use them, how to get them; and promoting abstinence as a 100% effective way to be disease and pregnancy free. In a realistic world, we cannot turn the cheek and pretend that if we just say to teens "Sex is bad, don't do it or bad things will happen unless you are married" that they will all stay devout virgins until marriage. The average age for people getting married is rising to the late twenties. When young people are overcome with images of a sex-obsessed media and hitting their sexual peak, the hormones will flow. Not every kid is going to last in the elite Silver Ring club. It seems funny that the same Conservatives that are pushing for Abstinence only education ironically are the same conservatives who always get upset over women who want to have abortions, berating them for having sex or not using protection. Maybe conservatives should adopt a REAL sex education plan, and abortion rates (along with STD and pregnancy rates in general) will go down because they will be informed!

 

[Zoot]

Well, I know personally a number of young Christians who have become pregnant because they committed to chastity, didn't carry any contraception, were unprepared for the kinds of urges their bodies were going to submit them to, and had unprotected sex.

Meanwhile, if they'd been taught safe sex and had access to contraception, they would have avoided pregnancy.

 

[StainedClassKing]

Well, I know personally a number of young Christians who have become pregnant because they committed to chastity, didn't carry any contraception, were unprepared for the kinds of urges their bodies were going to submit them to, and had unprotected sex.

Meanwhile, if they'd been taught safe sex and had access to contraception, they would have avoided pregnancy.

They're everywhere where I live. The Texas panhandle is has one of the strongest abstinance programs in the USA and is promoted heavily in all the schools here. We have the one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the entire United States. We also have an alarmingly high rate of STDs. At one time back in the early 90's, we had the highest number of cases of AIDS per capita in the entire US. That's no longer the case but we're not far down the list.

I said I committed to abstinance because of my Christian beliefs but truth be told, it was also because this is one of the most dangerous places in the USA to be promiscuous.

 

[Zoot]

When I was Christian, I was chaste for religious reasons in a negative sense, then later adopted celibacy in a positive sense (as a kind of fasting). It wasn't until my later teens that women found me unbearably attractive, and by then I was so stubbo... I mean, spiritual... that they didn't have much of a chance at breaking my pants rules.

I prefer Thich Nhat Hanh's emphasis on responsible sexual relationships rather than simply out and out "sex before marriage is bad and wrong".

I saw the 11-year-old daughter of some founding member of that Silver Ring thing interviewed, and she was chatting away about the horrible things that sex does to people, and all the horrible diseases you catch if you have sex. That girl will be messed up. It's sad. It also reminds me of The Onion tips for keeping your kids off internet porn:

"Explain to your child that a woman's vagina has sharp teeth that can tear a boy's hand off."

For all the good things people can put forward about the theory of chastity and celibacy, in practice, with teenagers, it often ends up being conditioning and repression.

 

[Mr.Pious]

Seriously, would anyone like to discuss how they dealt with the premarital sex issue with their own children?

I don't have kids my step-dad gave me a box of condoms and said be careful...

I think Sex Education should be completlly focused on how bad having a kid would suck. I think that would get more people to either not have sex or use protection. You would be suprised as to how many people I know thought it would be cool to have a kid before they had one.

 

[Zoot]

I think Sex Education should be completlly focused on how bad having a kid would suck. I think that would get more people to either not have sex or use protection. You would be suprised as to how many people I know thought it would be cool to have a kid before they had one.

How bad having a kid would suck might end up being interpreted as an argument for abortion as a form of contraception.

 

[seebs]

Well, I know personally a number of young Christians who have become pregnant because they committed to chastity, didn't carry any contraception, were unprepared for the kinds of urges their bodies were going to submit them to, and had unprotected sex.

Meanwhile, if they'd been taught safe sex and had access to contraception, they would have avoided pregnancy.

I'm not sure this is necessarily an improvement; some people believe that contraception is worse than pregnancy.

 

[Zoot]

I'm not sure this is necessarily an improvement; some people believe that contraception is worse than pregnancy.

Yes, well.

With regards to those people, best I say nothing at all.

 

[seebs]

Yes, well.

With regards to those people, best I say nothing at all.

Well, to be fair... Is pregnancy that bad a thing? We all generally agree that teenagers probably shouldn't be pregnant... But is it the worst possible outcome? Some people here are probably the result of kids who got pregnant when they "shouldn't have".

I don't necessarily disagree with you; I just don't like seeing the assumption that contraception is universally better than pregnancy made so casually without consideration.

 

[Jet Black]

I just had better things to do when I was a teenager.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Well, to be fair... Is pregnancy that bad a thing? We all generally agree that teenagers probably shouldn't be pregnant... But is it the worst possible outcome? Some people here are probably the result of kids who got pregnant when they "shouldn't have".

I don't necessarily disagree with you; I just don't like seeing the assumption that contraception is universally better than pregnancy made so casually without consideration.

Speaking as a former pregnant teenager, somehow it worked out well for me.

 

[seebs]

Speaking as a former pregnant teenager, somehow it worked out well for me.

From the stories you've occasionally told about your children, I think it worked out for everybody in your case. Perhaps we should adopt a new social policy; "women as cool as Annabel Lee should avoid contraception".

 

[Annabel Lee]

From the stories you've occasionally told about your children, I think it worked out for everybody in your case. Perhaps we should adopt a new social policy; "women as cool as Annabel Lee should avoid contraception".

LOL! Thank you, Seebs

But no...I'm done procreating!

 

[justaman]

Uh-oh. My wife gave me a silver ring for our third anniversary. Perhaps she was trying to tell me something?

False.

And yet in your previous post you said as much...

The one contribution I'm willing to grant in principle is that it reduces the incidence of "getting married so you can have sex", which is an admitted and serious problem.

The point I'm getting across is that abstinence and ignorance of the rigours of a serious, long-term relationship go hand in hand. The people advocating this program are envisioning an unrealistic world. In the old days, when divorce was simply unheard of, sure, abstinence could work because nobody would ever complain about the mess they got themselves into.

Now, if you want it to work, you need to be a little more intelligent. And the olympics analogy is the perfect illustration of this. There is nothing, I'd argue, more difficult to pull off than a long-term marriage in this day and age. Yet these pre-20 year olds all expect that it will all work out because they've been so 'virtuous'. Ridiculous.

In case I haven't been passionate enough to pick up on, I was engaged for over a year when I was one of these pre-20 year olds to the first girl I ever slept with! And didn't I just know it all


P.S. Why are people so freaking scared of STD's? Yeah some can be bad, but there aren't too many STDs any worse than many diseases of other types of transmission. Do we avoid the snow at all costs because we may get pneumonia and die?! Or frost bite, and lose our toes? We don't stay away from the snow, we go to the snow and protect ourselves. Do we never drive because we might crash and need something amputated?? Life's just a little too short, for mine, to be avoiding everything possibly dangerous. Protect yourself and knock yourself out.

 

[seebs]

And yet in your previous post you said as much...

Nope.

and that is all that abstinance achieves.

False.

I am objecting to the "all".

The point I'm getting across is that abstinence and ignorance of the rigours of a serious, long-term relationship go hand in hand.

Not particularly. There are people who have serious relationships without sex, and that seems to work.

The people advocating this program are envisioning an unrealistic world. In the old days, when divorce was simply unheard of, sure, abstinence could work because nobody would ever complain about the mess they got themselves into.

This is a gross oversimplification. The biggest change, I think, is the promotion of hilariously unrealistic notions of romance. It's people who get divorced for reasons like "I love you, but I'm not in love with you", or who are looking for "the one".

And the olympics analogy is the perfect illustration of this.

You're mistaking sex for a serious committed relationship. Experience with sex does not help you work out a serious relationship. Furthermore, it is not necessary to try a half-dozen or more relationships to make one work; what's necessary is some clue of what you're doing, and some support networks.

But... My main objection was to the claim that the only outcome of abstinence is people getting married too quickly. This is not the case, and it's not very much like the case. Differences in prior experience change a lot of the ways in which we experience our relationships, and some of those changes may favor abstinence. There are many people who have varying degrees of regret about prior sexual history, and the effect it's had on their current relationships. To pretend that these effects don't exist is ludicrous.

Many "abstinence programs" are indeed awful, but the underlying idea is not nearly as hopeless as you're painting it as being. The problems involved can, for the most part, be addressed adequately without any need to resort to lots of kids having sex. The tradeoffs are complicated enough that I don't think a simplistic view of social policy will work.

 

[justaman]

I am objecting to the "all".

What else does it acheive?

Not particularly. There are people who have serious relationships without sex, and that seems to work.

Yes, I'm sure these couples practically grow on trees.

This is a gross oversimplification. The biggest change, I think, is the promotion of hilariously unrealistic notions of romance. It's people who get divorced for reasons like "I love you, but I'm not in love with you", or who are looking for "the one".

This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Have a few serious relationships first and you aren't likely to go into marriage expecting something so ridiculous.

You're mistaking sex for a serious committed relationship. Experience with sex does not help you work out a serious relationship. Furthermore, it is not necessary to try a half-dozen or more relationships to make one work; what's necessary is some clue of what you're doing, and some support networks.

My second post clarified my point a bit better. I'm not saying sex = a serious relationship, I'm saying that a relationship without sex is not mature and will be markedly different to your second relationship, where you now have a bit of experience to draw upon.

There are many people who have varying degrees of regret about prior sexual history, and the effect it's had on their current relationships. To pretend that these effects don't exist is ludicrous.

To pretend that these people are not stupid for having such 'regrets' is equally ludicrous. A sexual history is research into the most important partnership you ever enter into. Anyone regretting their experiences have issues.

The most ridiculous argument I've ever heard is the one most often used "I want it to be special".

Sex with someone you love is always special, no amount of 'regretable experience' changes that.

Many "abstinence programs" are indeed awful, but the underlying idea is not nearly as hopeless as you're painting it as being. The problems involved can, for the most part, be addressed adequately without any need to resort to lots of kids having sex. The tradeoffs are complicated enough that I don't think a simplistic view of social policy will work.

If any kind of social policy is the answer, what is the question? I'm not saying "kids, go out and make like bunnies!", I'm saying don't view sex as being in any way something to be avoided or scared of. Just protect yourselves.

 

[transientlife]

I wish there was a way to meet in the middle. A program that can be developed where there is full education of everything: STD knowledge, prevention, and treatment; all birth control methods with their effectiveness, how to use them, how to get them; and promoting abstinence as a 100% effective way to be disease and pregnancy free. In a realistic world, we cannot turn the cheek and pretend that if we just say to teens "Sex is bad, don't do it or bad things will happen unless you are married" that they will all stay devout virgins until marriage. The average age for people getting married is rising to the late twenties. When young people are overcome with images of a sex-obsessed media and hitting their sexual peak, the hormones will flow. Not every kid is going to last in the elite Silver Ring club. It seems funny that the same Conservatives that are pushing for Abstinence only education ironically are the same conservatives who always get upset over women who want to have abortions, berating them for having sex or not using protection. Maybe conservatives should adopt a REAL sex education plan, and abortion rates (along with STD and pregnancy rates in general) will go down because they will be informed!

I agree as well, Misty! Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is dangerous when it comes to a topic such as this. It's better to be completely, thoroughly educated and never have to use that education, than to not have it and wish you'd used it because of some STD, unplanned pregnancy or emotional issues.

 

[StainedClassKing]

My second post clarified my point a bit better. I'm not saying sex = a serious relationship, I'm saying that a relationship without sex is not mature and will be markedly different to your second relationship, where you now have a bit of experience to draw upon.

Speaking from the point of view of someone that actually practiced abstinance successfully, I would disagree that a relationship without sex cannot be serious. I think it's more accurate to say that a relationship where sexual tension is an issue is going to be considerably less mature or serious than a relationship where sexual tension isn't an issue. And it's considerably more difficult to have a relationship while keeping sexual tension from being an issue while practicing abstinance.

Sexual tension clouds one's judgement often leads people to making poor decisions. As mentioned early, abstinance often leads people to think less about whether the person is a good life partner and more about how good it would be to be in the sack with them. And a person does not always think this on a conscious level. People often convince themselves there motivated by one thing when they are actually motivated by something else and this is rarely more true than when it comes to sex.

Also sexual tension often causes otherwise serious relationships to dissolve into a struggle of power. Although not practicing abstinance does not keep this from happening, if a person is practicing abstinance, they do not recognize that it's a problem until after they are married to a person.

Although it is possible to have a serious and committed relationship while practicing abstinance, it's far from realistic for most people.

I want to make it clear that I'm not necessarily railing against abstinance. Instead, I am saying that a person needs to understand that if they are going to practice abstinance, then they should abstain from relationships completely until they reach a level of maturity that they can be in relationships without sexual tension being an issue.

 

[DemiDee]

[notroll]