BTW, WB, there is no evidence whatsoever that sex ed increases sexual activity among teens. None, zip, nada.
ZERO.
But learning about sex, and ALL about sex-not just about birth control and abstinence, but maybe about the EMOTIONAL aspects, and how you should definitely think about it-it’s not a decision that should be made lightly, IMHO. I mean, I’m 22 and a virgin “by default” (read: never had the opportunity to have sex yet).
And I’m probably going to be flamed for this, but I post at Smile and Act Nice, and you wouldn’t believe all the young naive girls who post in the sex forums. 13 and asking for advice on blow jobs while saying that they don’t want to get a Pap Smear because that’s “icky”. Hello? And giving some loser in junior high isn’t? It’s scary-I mean these girls are saying I’m ThIrTeEn & I’m SOOOOO HoRnAy…I luv him 4evR…
ARGH!!! I mean, if you’re not mature enough to buy condoms, you’re really not mature enough to have sex, are you?
No, condoms will only reduce the spread of STDs…and this presumes that the number of sexual encounters does not increase. (Personally, I think it’s a little naive to think that children won’t feel more adventurous, especially if they put too much confidence in a condom.)
BTW, herpes can be spread through flesh-to-flesh contact outside the area protected by a condom. So can a few other diseases.
Your computer MIGHT blow up and kill you. Will you therefore stop posting on this message board? Everything poses some risk, but that doesn’t neccessarily mean that you shouldn’t do it. Part of being an adult is deciding for yourself what risks are worth taking. But you don’t want people to do that. You want to decide for everyone else what risks are acceptable and which aren’t. Don’t you understand why people find that offensive?
I happen to like Wildest Bills idea about increasing drug education. I didn’t know how to roll a joint until I was 19, yet I was still smoking the stuff for years before then. Things would have been a lot better for me if there was a class where I could have learned that in high school, I wouldn’t have had to give other kids pinches of it in exchange for rolling it up for me. Kids these days definitely don’t know enough about drugs.
Yes, I understood what you were getting at with your license analogy I was just having fun taking it a little futher with the marriage license thing.
Andros,
I don’t know what your little intro and outro meant before and after your quote but what was inside it was very good. God( I know some of y’all don’t believe in him but just go with this assumption for a minute) is smarter than we are. Since he designed us and our surroundings, wouldn’t you say he knows what is best for us. Because we are his kids(more or less) just like you know what is right for your kids when they are toddlers and we are toddlers in intellect compared to God.
God designed sex to be a wonderful thing among a husband and wife(not just for reproduction as andros said read Psalms for proof of that). (best case scenerio)Admit this if people never had sex before marriage and only in marriage, there would be no STDs now would there? But God gave us free will and ever since Adam and Eve we have been screw ups and we continue to do so and therefore is the reason for all the pain and suffering we go through because of sin(not following God’s plan)
And lets see what happens when we do what we want to do. AIDS and other funky disease came about and are killing off people. Matter of fact 1 and 3 young people by the time they hit 24 years of age that have premarital sex will be infected with some sort of STD. Young women are changing there career paths or lives because of one or several nights of pleasure. Babies are being killed because women and men are irresponsible with there sexuals acts and so and so.
Danimal,
I too apologize. But no need to pity me I am very happy.
WB…sigh. “advocatus diaboli” means andros was playing devil’s advocate, since you were off the board for the evening, I presume. :rolleyes:
Did you read the rest of my post in response? Did you read anything I said? I don’t think abstinence is a bad thing - just not the only thing that should be taught. Not only that, but “scaring” kids about sex is about the least effective thing I can think of. Yes, they need to be aware that there are dangers involved. Yes, they need to be taught that it’s ok to wait, if that’s what they want. But to teach a child that something as natural and wonderful as sex is automatically and always a bad thing…
Yes, I am “thinking of the children.” In fact, I’m thinking that I want to protect them from the sort of narrowminded scaremongering that you appear to believe (in complete contradiction of the evidence) is the “only way” to teach them about sex, and the consequences of sex.
I’m thinking it’s about time to change my sig…maybe I’ll use this gem from Bloom County:
[paraphrasing]
“What do you think is causing the rise in teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse and general outrageous teenage behaviour?”
“I dunno. Maybe the proliferation of narrowminded zealotry masquerading as parenting in this country.”
[/paraphrasing]
There are several other methods of transmitting STDs besides sex, despite the name. One of the things about being an adult, BTW, is balancing risks with benefits. No one would ever die from a skydiving accident if no one ever skydived. But is this reason to blame skydiving and insist that no one ever do it? You can fault irresponsible skydivers, who take stupid risks that increase their chances of death, but even smart skydivers take the chance that something might go wrong. There is a risk they take, no matter how careful they are–but does that make it wrong for them to do so? Many of us see the risks of protected premarital sex as an acceptable risk, and as adults, that’s our choice to make.
I take it you mean “one out of three.” Cite?
This is absolutely true! I was going to be a veternarian, but then I had sex, and it made me decide to be a web designer instead! That sex is powerful stuff. ::snicker::
Yes I heard what you said. And some of it was really good. And sex is “not” dirty. It is killer I would be willing to do it more often if my wife would(kids, schedules, life after 16 years of marriage. . But it can be literary a “killer” if you get the wrong partner.
I mean see y’alls point I rather kids used a condom to if they are going to have sex anyway. But I think we need to give kids more absolutes. And telling them abstinence only is good thing but just in case you are weak and horny make sure you use a rubber seems kinda wishy washy to me.
The reason I say make more scare tactics is because the success the the scared straight program had. And no I don’t have site but I remember that the kids did better after that experience. I am not saying scare the Hell out of em but let em see some the hell that can result of the act. That is all. Do you think it is wrong to take the kids on a field trip to an AIDS hospital? Especially letting them talk to young patients like themselves that are dying. I don’t see that being a “scare” tactic but a reality tactic.
And one more question dogsbody, Do you want the school teaching your kids about condoms or you?
Gaudere
Can I borrow your analogy about sky diving. Lets tell kids sex is awesome like the thrill of skydiving. And your partner is like the person you let pack your chute. Wouldn’t you rather trust somebody that has waited there whole to pack your shoot and willing to pack your chute again for your whole life. Than someone that is just having fun packing your chute with no commitment to you other than this one hump I mean jump. And maybe has packed their chute wrong and don’t care whose chute they screw up now.
Annnddd yes I have a cite Statistics I hope that worked.
Oh and who ever came with computer blowing up in my face analogy. If 1 out of 3 computers blew up in peoples from usage than naaa I wouldn’t use computers.
I think you knew what I meant about the girl changing her career. You know the girl gets pregnant doesn’t want to kill baby and decides to have it. Then she will have a harder time doing what she wanted to in life.
Hold it a second. Change my analogy about the chute. Make the chute the penis and vagina. (the kids would love this huh) Any way would you rather jump(an exilerating experience see telling the kids sex is good) with a newchute or an old used up one that you had no idea where it has been and if it has been taking care of. Well?
Again, I will be teaching my own hypothetical children about sex, about condoms, about dental dams and other forms of necessary protection if one does not want children/STDs. Heck, as I said above, I’m going to be teaching children that are not mine at my church. But, by the same token, I know they will be receiving some form of sex ed at school, and I would much prefer that they received consistent information, and not that they should be frightened about it.
Contrary to what you appear to believe, I have nothing against children seeing what happens to folks who have AIDS. I have nothing against children helping in hospitals. I liked what I heard recently in my church about having a young woman who had a child at fifteen coming in to the class to tell these teenagers what it’s really like being an unwed mother. I have no problem with the realities of the situation.
What I have a problem with is telling them that the only way to avoid these consequences is to avoid having any sex at all! Particularly when such “abstinence only” programs have been (sigh, pulling out clue-by-four) proven ineffective as per Gaudere’s links above.
By the way, the idea isn’t about “do it if you’re feeling horny.” The idea is, “We (as adults) believe you should abstain. However, since we recognize that there are a certain number of you who won’t abstain, no matter what we say, here are the ways you can protect yourself from some of the negative possibilities.” You do see the difference, right?
I dunno, Bill, personally I’d rather have my chute packed by someone who knew what they were doing. And with whom I could discuss the previous location of their chute, and the fact that I’d prefer they wrapped the darn thing in latex the first few times out just in case there were any rips.
See? I can find out where it’s been and how well it has been taken care of just by asking. But then, I believe communication is an important part of the sexual process. JDT notwithstanding, the brain is the most important sexual organ, and I suppose that YMMV :rolleyes:
And would you rather jump with a chute instructor whose done a few jumps before, or one where it’s his very first time? :eek: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, Bill, it’s not like the penis wears out more you use it! (At least not if you’ve done it correctly!). A “used” chute may have a slightly greater chance of having a few holes in it, but you know, you can have a parachute-checker (doctor) check those sorts of things out, and you can have a reserve chute in case the chute does have holes (protection). It is a risk you can make as an adult–if you only want to jump once in your life with a brand-new chute, that’s fine, it’s your choice. Those of us who wish to jump more than once are perfectly capable of evaluating the risks, and I for one won’t think less of someone who likes skydiving enough to want to do it with more than one person at separate times in his whole life.
Here’s a study that was done, and discovered such interesting things as the fact that the participants, far from being the ‘hard core problem teens’ as portrayed, over 70% ranked as having a low probabilty of being a delinquent, the rest of the study shows your assumption about it’s success to be, well, wrong.
I find it difficult, if not impossible, to constantly try and restate the same basic idea over and over, hoping to hit on one that you can understand. My writing style is fairly clear and concise, and I just don’t know how to make things any clearer for you. If you don’t get my posts, read everyone else’s, they all seem very clear also.
I notice that no-one else posting to this thread seems to have any trouble understanding me.
Yes, the cite worked. I have been unable to find confirmation of the study, or find out exactly how they are defining STI though. I’ll poke around. By the way, did you notice that the sites recommended on that website argued against abstinence-only programs? If you really want to decrease teen pregnacy, intercourse and STDs, I really think you should support more comprehensive sex ed programs.
"There is no evidence that abstinence-until-marriage programs delay the onset of intercourse, very few abstinence-only programs have been well evaluated. And, unfortunately, many of these programs have historically used fear, shame, and guilt as techniques for frightening young people into rejecting sex and contraceptives.
However, a more balanced approach to teaching young people to take responsibility for their sexual health is working. Research has shown that:
Prevention programs that include information about delaying intercourse and about contraception can delay the onset of intercourse, reduce the frequency of intercourse, and decrease the number of teens’ sexual partners;
Balanced programs can increase the use of condoms and other contraceptives for those who are sexually active; and,
To be effective, programs must address multiple factors.
In addition, an international study found that the best results occurred when education was given prior to the onset of sexual activity, and when it included information not only about delaying intercourse, but also about contraceptives and STI prevention." http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/compyout.htm
"* There was no evidence of sex education leading to earlier or increased sexual activity in the young people who were exposed to it.
In fact, six studies showed that sex education lead either to a delay in the onset of sexual activity or to a decrease in overall sexual activity.
Ten studies showed that education programs increased safer sex practices among young people who were already sexually active.
In addition to the evaluation of school-based education programs, the WHO report concluded that the two public information programs evaluated showed no effect on age at first intercourse and no increase in sexual activity in young people, despite a large increase in the use of condoms and contraception.
Later in 1993, WHO published a more extensive review of 35 studies dating back to the 1970s. The overwhelming majority of studies over time, despite various methodologies and country of study, found no evidence that sex education encourages sexual experimentation or increased activity. If any effect was observed, it was virtually always delayed sexual intercourse or increased effective use of contraceptives, including condoms. There were two studies with findings that varied from these trends. While neither study can prove cause and effect, one study found that an “abstinence only” program increased the level of sexual activity in young people, and another study reported an association between sex education and increased sexual activity. However, the latter study found that variables other than sex education may have related more strongly to the increase in sexual activity."
this last one’s more interesting in that the State Legislature found that not only did the ‘scared straight’ approach not work, but that specifically, there were better results from a program where former convicts went in the the schools “to address students in a very positive and proactive way, as opposed to the foundation of ‘Scared Straight,’ which is clearly a negative context.”
So, you stated that you believed that an approach that used ‘scare’ tactics would be your preferred method for dealing with sex education, because of the success of the “scared straight” approach. Well, we’ve already shown you specific data that refuted your position regarding the effectiveness of abstinance only programs (which you ignored, based again on your belief in the scared straight approach) and now, we’ve got data backing up that the scared straight programs themselves didn’t work.
Umm. so, not only are your assumptions wrong, but what you based your assumptions on were also wrong.
No, you hold it a second. People have deluged you with hard evidence that you are plain, flat-out wrong and all you can do is come up with analogies that bear as much resemblance to relationships among mature adults as a dirty limmerick does to Delta of Venus. Talk all you want about why abstinence-only education should work, but everyone else is telling you why it doesn’t work. When are you just going to admit that you’re wrong?
And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it a crock to say that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control? After all, even abstinent women can be raped. Now that we have proven that abstinence isn’t magically perfect, let’s make a comparison: how do the pregnancy rates for other forms of birth control and STD control compare to the nonzero pregnancy and STD rate for abstinence? Specifically:
Masturbation. If you want us to teach kids about abstinence because it prevents pregnancy, do we get to teach them how to masturbate?
1b. Watching each other masturbate. How does this compare with abstinence in terms of pregnancy and STDs?
Homosexuality. Objective science says it’s natural, Christian bigots say it isn’t. Compare this to the C/E debate: shall we teach them that homosexuality is natural and evolution is reality, or shall we teach them a bunch of zealotry and lies?
Oral and/or manual sex.
Anal sex.
Condoms (could we see some hard figures comparing properly used condoms and spermicide to abstinence?)
Surgical sterilization.
Frottage.
Wildest Bill, can you really maintain that abstinence is radically safer than all of these?
I was wondering when you were going “wring” in again.
Anyway, that was alot of reading on your cite. What I gathered was that they preaching to the choir so to speak instead of ones that really might go to jail am I understanding that right?
And to everyone else listen I understand that teaching both abstinence and rubber usage can be effective. I was only wondering if kids would get mixed signals that is all. And I being one person am not going to change what is happening in schools.
But answer me this what rights do I have as a parent? What if I don’t think it is the gov’t job to teach my kids about sex. I can tell them I do not one my kids learing from y’all and please excuse them from sex ed? I pay taxes for you to teach them reading, writing and math. Well what are my rights as a parent?
Well, Bill, I know for a fact that if you don’t want the school teaching your kids sex ed in California that you can get that portion of the curriculum waived. They don’t have to participate. I know this for a fact because I know kids who were sent to the library in both elementary school and junior/senior high. Saw them leave, and everything.
Different states may have different requirements, after all. But I think the problem is coming about because (and please, don’t hijack this thread, what I’m about to say is worthy of a thread of its own that I don’t care to start right now) because many parents (not most, and certainly not all) are not involved in their children’s education in any way. They aren’t teaching them the things they need to learn at home. So the government has been forced to step in. Again, YMMV, and I’m glad to hear you’re so involved in your childrens’ (? - I’m presuming you have more than one) lives. I believe that’s a good thing.
