Conservatives aren’t anti-sex. Sex is a gift, but we generally believe it should only be shared between a husband and wife. There are many reasons for this. First of all, you’re in a more stable relationship as a married couple, and are more likely to be prepared to take care of a child. Generally, your finances are better, you don’t have to worry about being a single parent, and the child will have a more stable home life with both parents being there. While some married couples use birth control, if they do get a surprise pregnancy, they’re not likely to get an abortion.
Abstinence until marriage is brith control without needing any pills or condoms, etc. You don’t have to worry about getting pregnant, or if your boyfriend will be there for you if you do. You don’t have to worry about abortions. You don’t have to worry about STDs. There’s also the emotional element that you don’t have to get mixed up in. The concept of saving yourself for your future spouse is also central. The idea that you love your husband or wife so much that you waited for them specifically, and you haven’t shared your body with anyone else sexually is a very powerful thing. It provides the foundation for an even deeper commitment in marriage.
Abstinence isn’t that hard. I did it, and my friends (with the exception of one) waited until marriage to have sex. If you enter into a relationship where you both have decided not to have a physical relationship beyond kissing, holding hands, etc., then you know where you stand. This used to be the accepted norm in society, and now it’s booed as being too goody-goody and unrealistic. Sex should be a fun activity between you and your partner, not just for procreation. But there are a whole lot of built-in protections (physically and emotionally) by practicing abstinence until marriage.
Christians believe that’s the way God designed sex - for a husband/wife relationship. It’s the ideal way to do it, but humans will always screw things up…thus unwanted pregnancies, abortions, STDs, emotional stress, absent fathers, etc. When you follow God’s plan, you avoid those things and still get to enjoy sex.
Therefore, we’re all for you learning about sex and knowing the science of how things work. But handing out condoms in school just encourages teenagers to have sex, because now they have “protection” for it. We also think that discussing sex should be the parent’s domain, and schools don’t need to act like parents in this case. Fine if you want to teach about reproduction in biology class, but “sex education” shouldn’t be about when and how to have sex. That doesn’t belong in schools.
Jezus, that must be one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever read. Your user name is at least partly correct.
It is interesting to me how it seems that people in the US (based on what I read here, mostly) seem to think that sex is this great, important and serious thing. The ammount of posts talking about “responsibility”, “being ready for consequences” and so on… mind blowing. Let’s be clear, most instances of sex occur because it feels nice… and yes, it feels just as nice if you are doing it with someone you hardly know and don’t wish to see anymore afterwards.
Sex really isn’t that big a thing and it is quite possible to make sure that fucking around doesn’t have to change your life. Condoms, the pill and if necessary (as a last resort, in extremely unlucky circumstances) abortion.
The only reason to be this dickish about sex ed, is some “moral” stance in which you ( the conservative) puts his own ideas about what is right above the plight of the people envolved (inclusing unwanted offspring). Congratiulations on your work.
PS if you can only use something in the exact way that is prescribed by others, that have no real role there, but do feel the need to influence the outcome… that is not much of a gift.
(bolding added) This really seems to be one of the major points of conservative views in this area, and I have some difficulties with it. I didn’t start this thread to argue, but I’m going to push back some on these points.
Families - there are a lot of different kinds of families out there, many of which don’t share your values in this area, many where the parents are too embarrassed to talk about sex (like mine were) so that lack of knowledge and perspective is carried forward to another generation. I just think it would be a good idea if teens had other resources in addition to parents (and/or church) to draw on if, for example, their will power is faltering or they are in danger of succumbing to events, and I am hard pressed to think of a better resource than school.
Contents of classes - if you really think that sex ed classes are about when and where to have sex, I challenge you to go see some curricula and see what they are really about.
Really, really unnecessary. We can disagree and still be civil about it. And the rest of your views are just that, your views, and not universal truths.
For any form of birth control, you have to talk about two numbers. There’s the “perfect use success rate”, which is how effective the birth control is when used perfectly. Then there’s the “typical use success rate”, which is how effective it is when used by people.
Let’s say you have a birth control method that’s damn near 100% effective, but only if used correctly - and many people don’t/won’t/can’t use it correctly. This means you have a perfect use success rate of 100%, and a typical use success rate well below that. You know what this describes? Abstinence. A great many people whose sole method of contraception is abstinence fail to use it correctly. They have sex. You know what else this describes? Pulling out.
It’s entirely unfair to judge a birth control method that’s so difficult to go through with (and yes, if people who pledge to apply only that birth control method fail in 88% of cases, it’s clearly fair to call it difficult to go through with) by its perfect use success case. You wouldn’t recommend “just pull out” to someone based on the fact that, when perfectly applied, it’s about as safe as condoms, would you? And that’s leaving aside the question of whether “don’t have sex” even qualifies as birth control.
Are you serious? You think you don’t get unwanted pregnancies, abortions, or the like in marriages? Even STDs are an issue - I got herpes from my father, so even if I had never slept with anyone before my current girlfriend, she’d still be at risk for that. But what if we’re married and just don’t want kids now? Or we’ve had enough kids and we don’t want more kids? (I recall my math teacher in high school had 8, and while I’m glad that worked out well for her, I would never want that.) God’s plan sucks and I want no part of it.
This is a dangerous misconception. You know what happens to teens who really want to have sex but can’t get their hands on condoms in a great many cases?
Pediatricians and other clinicians should actively help raise awareness among parents and communities that making condoms available to adolescents does not increase the onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity and that use of condoms can help decrease rates of unintended pregnancy and acquisition of STIs.
It’s not because they want teenagers fucking, either; from earlier in the same report:
Abstaining from sexual intercourse should be encouraged for adolescents as the most effective way to prevent STIs, including HIV infection, and unintended pregnancy.
That’s a realistic view of birth control, based on actual evidence: “Abstinence is good, but not enough, make sure kids who are gonna fuck do so safely”. Because, like it or not, they are gonna fuck.
See, I’d agree with you… if parents could be relied upon to teach the subject to their children. But they can’t. Because of, well, sorry to say this, people like you, who propagate and further myths about sex, contraception, and the like that simply aren’t true. Given your statements, is it fair to say that you would react negatively to one of your kids owning contraception? How would you react if your son said, “I need to get condoms”? Or your daughter asked to go on the pill? Negative reactions like that push kids away from safe contraception. It doesn’t, however, push them away from sex in any effective way.
Relying on parents like you to give sex ed and health classes is asking for a higher teen pregnancy rate.
Well, depends on what we mean by “values”. I think we need to explicitly call out what constitutes “consent”, and what does not.
Beyond that, you’re correct; “values about sex” have no place in public schools. If Sally Ann and Jim Bob want to wait until marriage for sex, fine. If Debbie Jean and Roscoe want to get it on tonight, fine. If Jim Bob and Roscoe want to have sex with each other, fine. If they want to wait until they’re married, fine. If Sally Ann, Debbie Jean, and Roscoe want to have sex altogether, fine.
This. I have lived my life that way. I used contraceptives and condoms and am a responsible person. It’s a fun thing, but it’s not A HUGE BIG DEAL. Sometimes, people just like screwing.
One big picture thing that I have now repeatedly observed, is that (particularly since the explosion of multimedia) large groups come to be defined, not by what they actually are, but by the people who come to oppose them, and by those who wish to utilize them.
The common defining characteristics of both “Liberals” and “Conservatives” are all actually false. That is, if you look to any published description of what a “Conservative” or a “Liberal” believes, you will almost always find that the real people never match up on all points.
I capitalized both those terms on purpose, because once such terms have been so politicized as those have, the original basic definitions of each are useless or misleading. The word conservative, in it’s basic form, refers to conserving in some way. Tending to try to keep things the same. The word liberal in it’s base form, usually means something like “a lot.” As in “I’d like a liberal amount of cream in my coffee.”
When I was very young, and just beginning to try to label myself (this was during the late sixties and early seventies), I thought that I MUST be a Liberal, because I believed in personal freedom of choice, equality under the law, and true justice for all. I was certain that I wasn’t Conservative, because I was opposed to punishing people for how they looked, forcing people to behave religiously when they were not believers, and so on.
As I experienced more and more of the actual behaviors of everyone around me with whom I interacted, I gradually realized that there were more self-deluded liars than anything else,amongst ALL of the labeled groups. For a while, I wasted time decrying all the hypocrisy and inherent conflicts within each group, until I reached the next stage of understanding, where I am now. That is, I realized that a more DYNAMIC point of view is required to gain any useful understanding of what it is to be Conservative or Liberal, Right or Left.
People form alliances. That is the main insight to utilize and apply to this thread concern. As with all alliances, the individuals don’t necessarily support ALL the goals of the people they ally themselves with, they only agree to keep quite or be low key about areas where they disagree, in all situations where their opponent is being faced. Thus, not all conservative people oppose abortion, sex education and so on; but when they are trying to appear to be united (and therefore to have a powerful democratic voice which must be heard), they will often pretend to be united about such things.
At this stage of my life, I describe myself as a conservative person, but not a Conservative. I have been toying with a newish term, such as Solutionist for myself. This is because I am convinced that it is only rarely necessary to completely overturn the universe in order to solve problems, however, when it is necessary to destroy everything, we should get on with the whamming, in as careful and selective a way as is required to arrive at a real solution.
You’re welcome to your religious views, but obviously they are not universally shared. I don’t believe there is anything morally wrong in sex between consenting people. In that way, I think sex is a lot like food. It’s a basic human need, is unpleasant when forced upon someone without consent, and can be indulged in a healthy or less healthy manner.
Waiting for marriage is fine for some people, but for me it would be arbitrary and silly. It’s making sex into some kind of club that only members get to join. And if you dare indulge without joining the club you’re subject to penalty (sin). Believe that all you like, but don’t for a moment try to impose it on others.
Yes, but if you actually teach kids (explicitly or implicitly) that it’s fine for Debbie Jean and Roscoe to get it on tonight (etc.), you are promoting values about sex, values that go against the ones that many conservatives hold and want their children to adopt—which is what many conservatives fear about sex education.
For values about sex to have no place in public schools would mean that kids are not sent any messages about who, when, how, or why it is or is not fine to have sex.
This would even include teaching that it’s wrong (or not OK, or not fine) to have sex with someone who doesn’t consent. I think this is a value that we should be teaching; but it is teaching values. (Maybe, if you were aiming for value neutrality, you could teach that sex without consent is illegal without saying that it’s Wrong; but it’d be tricky to avoid even implying that it’s Wrong without thereby implying that it’s Not Wrong.)
Regardless of political leanings, I think the far majority of people would like fewer unwanted pregnancies (which directly correlates to fewer abortions btw) and STDs. I am utterly confused that there are very effective tools to prevent those things but there are people who think those tools are bad and shouldn’t be available to the very people (teens) we’re trying to protect.
When I was a teenager, some people came to give a talk at school. The basic message was to make a deal with your parents that if you found yourself in a situation where there was underage drinking, you can call your parents at any time to come and get you. This was to prevent drunk driving.
I thought this sounded like a great idea and brought it up with my mom who got very angry about the whole idea and shot down the suggestion completely, saying “none of you should be drinking anyway!”.
So you know what I did? I drove drunk. My friends drove drunk. A car full of drunk, laughing, teens, speeding down the highway. I look back and am amazed that I survived. Not long later one of the male friends crashed his car and broke his neck.
Teens are idiots. Their brains haven’t even finished forming. There’s nothing wrong with sharing your own belief system with them but give them the tools to not ruin their lives in the meantime.
No, you really didn’t. Apparently you can’t see the moral difference between slavery and teenage sexual experimentation, or you think there isn’t one. I think most would disagree with that view.
No, you didn’t. How can you, in good faith, compare slavery with helping teens make good choices?
Why do you even need an analogy? Can you just admit that you think that teens who end up pregnant or with STDs deserve what they get for “sinning”? That’s what it comes down to. Your pride is more important than helping teens get through the “stupid years” so that they can go on to live their lives.
That’s what my church taught: “be sure your sins will find you out”. So if you’re a bad sinner and end up in trouble - you get what you deserve.
That heartlessness and callousness are the very things that drove me away from the church.
When did I say “Teens are self-destructive idiots with no self-control”? Hint: I didn’t.
What I did say is teens are idiots who need all the help they can get. When I was a stupid teenager I started getting into lots of trouble - vandalism, B&E…I got screamed at, beaten and grounded but all that taught me was “don’t get caught”.
Finally, in a rare moment of clarity, my parents both sat me down and said “We’re wiping your slate clean. No more punishments, you get a fresh start. Here are the reasons why you need to clean up your act…”
That simple act of just talking to me completely changed my life.
They were right to be furious with me and I should not have been doing what I was doing but by talking to me, they gave me the tools to stop my bad choices.
Give teens the tools to make different choices and they’ll be less likely to end up having a baby at 15.
As a parent, you can be “right” or you can do the right thing, even if it goes against your personal belief system. Your adult kids will thank you for it.
Yeah! How dare those crazy secular liberals demand that our kids be taught crazy ideas like that condoms prevent pregnancy, or that the earth isn’t 6000 years old, or that the earth is warming and humans are to blame, or that π is not exactly 3. God forbid those kids be taught something not vetted and tested by their retrograde parents. Why, today, they’re learning that radiometric dating is a thing; tomorrow, they’ll be pledging their souls to secular hipster satan! :rolleyes:
Parents who believe that “secular liberals” are their enemies? The ones who decide to homeschool their kids because the secular liberals insist that public schools exist to serve the public good, and should provide good, valuable, accurate information? They shouldn’t be part of our calculus when we decide what we teach in public schools. They’re already fighting the principles for which public schools exist in the first place, and they’re probably going to pull their kids out of school anyways. With all due respect, those people are terrible parents and shouldn’t have children.
Again: teenagers are stupid. But most teenagers are not so stupid that they’d mostly have unprotected sex when the alternative is easily available. The reason condom programs are so widely touted is because they work.
The values of consent, and of being a certain age, are part of the countrys values because they are defined by law. (Hopefully) children are taught values in school by learning that the law tells them that killing people is not okay, either, for example.
Or it provides an incentive for young teens to get married as soon as they turn legal in order to be finally allowed to have sex, instead of actually finding the partner they fit with. As is documented through much of history, where parents as older and wiser arranged marriages, since young people were too hot-headed to understand the avlue of marrying somebody with money/ land/ connections.
If abstinence isn’t hard for you, good for you. Throughout recorded history, that’s an exception however. Even the apostle Paul writes in one of his letters, regarding whether bishops etc. should be married or celibate, that some people have been made by Heaven to be celibate, good for them, but others have not been made celibate, so it’s better for them to be married and faithful to one single wife instead of sleeping around".
It used to be called frigid and desireable for women if they didn’t enjoy sex. Today we call it ace or asexuality, recognizing the broad spectrum. There’s nothing wrong with people who aren’t excited about sex.
There is a lot wrong if they prescribe how others should behave who feel very differently about it, and thus can’t meet the standard.
Also, your friends: how do you know they really kept their abstinence, instead of breaking it and lying about it? The usual in high school group of boys is to brag about having had sex already (because society thinks a man being a virgin is shameful), regardless or not what happened in reality.
In abstinence-only circles, the lying is the other way around.
You see this when you look at the numbers of abortions taking place: evangelicals with strict anti-abortion stance have the same rate of abortion as other groups - and not only the clichee high-school girls; mothers with several children alreaddy, who feel too old to manage a new baby are a large group, too.
The only difference is that in evangelical circles, women who had an abortion lie to most of their friends about it, thinking they are the only one.
Not all Christians believe that. Many believe that sex is only for procreation, so any birth control is not allowed. Many others believe that sex is enjoyable (a gift) as part of a deep relationship, regardless of children (so sterile couples and birth control are allowed).
Also, abstinence until marriage does not protect against STDs or unwanted pregnancy. If you believe that, your biological knowledge is faulty.
