abstinence training

[Senor Herbert]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=41769

the first half of the article by jerry falwell is pretty factual and straigthtforward. the second is a problem.

"Many leftists despise absolute values that require personal commitment and, often, dependence on faith. So it really shouldn't be surprising that school-based abstinence education programs are in their crosshairs."

falwell misunderstands what freedom is. almost all leftists respect everyone's choices about this matter, but to teach this method in schools is not an example of respecting all choices. for falwell to force abstinence training on all children is something that we all should resist, whether we believe in abstinence personally or not.

"Rep. Waxman's agenda comes through loud and clear on every page of his latest attempt to discredit the important work being done in our nation's schools to protect teens from the physical and emotional consequences of sex outside of marriage,"

i did not want to be protected from having sex as a teenager, and i do not now. i definately value education about having sex properly and in a safe way, but forcing marraige on top of that is simply not an acceptable program to teach at school. i may not ever get married. many humans are not ready for marraige until decades after they are ready for sex.

"I thank God that we have a president in the Oval Office who understands that school-based abstinence programs that teach personal responsibility and morality can provide a positive alternative to the media's barrage of sexual images and messages."

it's too bad falwell doesn't know that the media is owned by people like george w bush.

it is wrong to teach abstinence-only sex education. that choice cannot be made forcably for someone else. schools must include other forms of sex education as well as abstinence, or they are cheating our youth and our culture.

[Starboy]

I think that real problem with abstinence training is that studies have shown that it is no more effective in the long run in preventing premarital sex and pregnancy than no training at all whereas condom programs and sex education that teaches safe sex have been shown to be more effective. People need to stop supporting programs just because religious zealots endorse them. They need to look at what works and spend their tax dollars wisely if they are actually concerned with reducing unwanted pregnancies.

Starboy

[bishop]

things like aids education does more to promote abstinence than any moral issue you can use.

many kids look at these old pricks telling them what they should/should not do and see them for what they are - assholes that want to control their lives. abstinence only "education" leaves students ignorant about things like pregnancy, std's, etc.. that is not a complete education whatsoever. that is brainwashing - teaching kids only one choice.

and the notion that kids should be taught only to have sex when married is ridiculous. thank god we still have a separation of church and state - although that can go away now that bush is in for a 2nd term.

[Suburbanite]

Kids who have sex in high school are cooler, i say let em

[Osborn F Enready]

Ooops, wrong post in wrong thread... sorry.

I think all methods of sex education should be taught.

If you are dealing with a public school however, good luck in getting your word to mean anything.

[Lava]

Anyone who thinks they can teach all teenagers abstinence has their head somewhere dark. Some do choose it, but the great majority arent remotely interested in the idea, and are never going to take such ideas or teachers seriously. Why some folks never seem to get that I dont know.


Lava

[Suburbanite]

I think they should teach kids to have more sex, there egos would be better if they were getting laid. Lower suicide rates!

[SVMc]

I think I'm addressing this exact issue in the "abortion stance" thread. But just in case you want any stats to back up education on contraception in schools here goes:

The United States not only holds the higest teen pregnancy rate of any developed nation, it has double the teen pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation. (Victor C. Strasburg, MD, New Mexico School of Medicine). One third of teen pregnancies end in abortion (The Alan Guttmacher Institute), teen pregnancy accounts for the highest rate of abortions, 54% of women having an abortion stated that they did use contraception. It has been shown that the majority of these women were not using contraception effectively, or were using contraception tactics like the rythm method that is highly ineffective.

Teenagers in the United States are NOT more sexually acitve and are NOT sexually active at a younger age than teenagers in Canada, Sweeden or Britain (some of the lower teen pregnancy rates), the difference is that in the United States, sex and birth control are not talked about openly in schools resulting in a high amount of teens who do not know how to effectively use birth control.

Education teenagers about contraception does NOT lower the age at which teenagers become sexually active, or increase the amount of teens who choose to become sexually active. Over 250 studies agree on this point (National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, CNN.com, ETR Associates in Scotts Valley, California, National Center for Health Statistics - and there are more).

One more, the effectiveness of having better access to sex-education over the last 10 years has reduces the rate of unwanted teen pregnancies by 28%, the overall abortion rate dropped by 43% in the same time period and the amount of teen pregnancies ending in abortion dropped from 46% to 33%. And targeting at risk youth, in economic emproverished areas dropped the teen pregnancy rate among black teens by 32%. (The Alan Guttmacher Institute)

[Suburbanite]

Britain has low teen pregnancy rates?

[Compugasm]

I propose a twofold approach. Separate training for men and women. The guys training will consist of a 15min video staring Chasey Lain, or Jenna Jameson demonstrating the various female parts, how to reach em, what to do with em, and maybe a few "don'ts" thrown in for good measure. If you've been diagnosed with A.D.D. then your session is broken up into two parts. As a supplimental reminder to the training, posters of Mr T will be placed in appropriate places, like Dr offices and such, which say "Don't be a fool, put your Jim Hat on!" or "I pity da fool who don't wear his Jim Hat!"

For women, the training is similar to a college education with degrees from Associate to Doctorate. Topics covered will be indepth analysis of every position in the Kama Sutra. Plus, supplimental training on which stockings to wear, fashion design sense, and color theory of lipsticks and eyeshadows. The more advanced classes get into regional/cultural differences. Example, how the Japanese have created the perfect schoolgirl porn outfits. Seriously, lets make Magna-cum-laude really mean something important.

[tman_ndsu08]

The only thing I have against abstinence classes or whatever you want to call them is that they claim that abstinence *should be the only choice*.

I say show the kids all the options and let them pick the one that they like the best.

[Lava]

Osborn F Enready:

If you are dealing with a public school however, good luck in getting your word to mean anything.

Kids learn lots of stuff in school, successfully. When they dont take messages to heart is when they perceive them as bullshit. This especially occurs with sex education, which ought to tell us something. All you need do to be taken seriously is to give a message that _can_ be taken seriously.

High school kids are no brain surgeons, but they can understand simple concepts that make sense. Contracpetion is a simple conept that makes sense. Not getting aids is a simple concept that makes sense. Understanding the implications of abortion is simple and makes sense.

The problem is that the adults involved have such a big emotional problem with the subject that theyre unable to carry a sensible message to the kids, or frankly even be sensible half the time.

We must work with the teachers we have, so we need to bypass this problem and provide proper information. The simple way to do that is in books. There is really no need for sex ed to be taught in class if a good quality book provides it all. Kids might not be that into reading, but when it concerns sex they will be, as long as the content is sensible, clear, honest, ie something they will take seriously, and not too dry so they dont get bored to sleep.


Lava

[Morgan_Freeman]

Telling kids to not have sex is hardly the role of schools. Then again, so many irresponsible parents are depending on the nanny state to raise their children.

Also, teaching abstinence is one thing, bringing in the marriage concept is another. Marriage is an outdated custom as far as I'm concerned, no reason to tell kids they should do it.

[Catch 22]

It is the responsibility of schools though because we have no guarantee parents will teach their kid about it or be all too qualified. This isn't nanny state infantilism but basic logic; we don't expect parents to teach their kids anything from wood shop to calculus why should we put sex in a sacred place off to the side?

[Morgan_Freeman]

The fact that it follows a twisted kind of logic doesn't mean that it's not nanny state infantilism.
That's all public schools are, anyway -- a way to remove responsibility from the parents.

[Catch 22]

Public education as a way to remove responsibility from the parents? Dude you need to look up the history of public education a bit. Here in the US people championed it because education could help lift people out of abject poverty. It’s not as if they needed a place to dump off the kids for they could have easily just sent em off to work.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Catch 22 Here in the US people championed it because education could help lift people out of abject poverty.

Of course they did. People are always looking for a free ride.

That wasn't my point. Public education removes parent's responsibility (and right) to decide what kind of schooling their child recieves, and of course to actually *provide* the education rather than just depending on the state for it.

[bugsbunny04]

I dont like abstinence only education because they are basically insulting the kids intelligence, demanding that they engage in behavior that is 100% inconsistent with our biological program, and carries with it various health risks possibly including (according to a shrink I know, these studies are still in the beginning phase, published research may or may not be out already, should be out soon if not) chemical imbalances that can lead to manic depressive and bi-polar behaviors and dis-orders, not to mention the correlation between testicular problems in midlife and infrequency of ejaculation. On top of all this, I have observed that in schools that teach abstinence only or nothing, HS and MS (yeah, I know) pregnancy rates are higher, and condom use is significantly lower.

On the other hand, I have noticed that in schools wear sex ed is more detailed and they are, I guess we could call it honest with the kids, there is less intercourse, more oral sex, more condoms used when intercourse happens, and fewer kids getting pregnant.

Now, my personal observations and research in no way are a representative sample of the entire State of Alabama, much less the nation. Im sure If my data samples came from, for example, tuscaloosa county, and not Mobile County, the results could be effected significantly. Also, if I focused only on public schools, or only on private schools, that could change things. And, for example, samples in a random county in New York could have completely opposing results, or for all I know might prove my point even better. But they do tell you what is going on in one county in the bible belt.

[sim1]

That was true at my school too. I went to boarding school in canada where roughly 2/3s of the student body were coupled up. probably around 1/3 of them were having sex (not to mention the people who were not coupled up and had sex anyway) of all these people, there has not been 1 pregnancy at my school in 17 years. Imagine that..... in a 700 person student body, I think that is quite impresive. The reason for this was, of course, our education. Every year from grade 8 through grade 12 there was a mandatory month long course on sex/drug/alcohol education. Granted, after the first few years it was a bit tedious, in the long run it was benificiary (and not just because it was a month off gym class). None of us wanted to ruin the remaindor of our lives by an early pregnancy. So we used condoms and the pill, big deal right? Well, in 17 years that is at least 11900 children with a future other than daycare.

[Sasha]

The pro-abstinance folks should have a little more confidence in their viewpoint. If you were to educate people about the effects and risks of sex, as happens in a sex ed class, a good many of them would choose to restrain themselves from a few wild nights anyhow