Originally posted by sithsaber408
Because the millions upon millions with AIDS (and many more with Syphillis, ghonorrea, and herpes) when coupled with those who have unexpected pregnancies are hardly in the category of "slight possibility".It's a fact folks: Abstinence equals no std's or babies, sex equals chance of babies or std's. (protected or unprotected.)
As I said in my first post in here, it's obvious that most people don't practice abstinence.
The study quoted in the first post takes that fact and says: "We shouldn't even teach abstinence as an option anymore."
That's reason for the thread, and the topic that should be discussed.
Whether or not we should teach it. (an obvious "yes" in my view)
The abstinence v.s. pre-marital sex issue is best left in the abstinence thread.
Why would you waste the resources teaching something that has an incredibly high rate of failure though? It is counterproductive and possibly dangerous for the pupils.
Take a class of 50 teenagers and teach them that "abstinence is the best alternative", the majority of them are not going to listen, care or obey. So what you end up with is 80+% of the class having premarital sex and being mostly ignorant on safe sex practices (i.e. using condoms for all forms of sex, keeping partners to a minimal etc.) when if you taught them "Safe Sex", you would have 80+% of the class still having sex, but having it in a safe/safer manner.
Now, which sounds the more logical and safer method?
Originally posted by Robtard
Why would you waste the resources teaching something that has an incredibly high rate of failure though? It is counterproductive and possibly dangerous for the pupils.Take a class of 50 teenagers and teach them that "abstinence is the best alternative", the majority of them are not going to listen, care or obey. So what you end up with is 80+% of the class having premarital sex and being mostly ignorant on safe sex practices (i.e. using condoms for all forms of sex, keeping partners to a minimal etc.) when if you taught them "Safe Sex", you would have 80+% of the class still having sex, but having it in a safe/safer manner.
Now, which sounds the more logical and safer method?
I'm sorry, you lost me when you said that teaching abstinence as part of sex education would be "counter-productive and possibly dangerous."
That's a crock of shit.
You take your 50 kids in the class, you explain the birds and the bees, the semen and ovaries, the penis and the vagina... all of that.
You tell them how sex works, and what it does: Make babies.
Go into social and literary history if you like, and explain sex in all it's aspects including how it's been viewed throughout history and so on.
You can present the obvious fact that many people have sex other than just for babies, but biologically that's its primary function.
Explain childbirth, adoption, and abortion, and the ramifications socially, economically, emotionally, and physically for each.
Explain all STD's including AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and genital warts. Pictures are often helpful.
Then present the sexual options and consequences of each:
Unprotected sex= risk of pregnancy or STD.
Protected sex=lower risk of pregnancy or STD.
(explain all forms: condoms, the pill, ... the dreaded diaphragm)
abstinence=no risk of pregnancy or STD.
^^^^Oh wait, that is how we currently teach sex education.
My bad.
This "study" and it's "recommendations" about not teaching abstinence is just a bunch of liberal bullshit.
I like how it tries to connect the Bush Administration with a "policy of abstinence"..... as if the people who advocate abstinence and it being taught as an option wouldn't be here if Bush wasn't.
Or as if Kerry, Edwards, Clinton or ANY other Democrat would have the balls to remove abstinence from what is taught about sex in schools.
The study is of 36,000 people, yet there are 300 million in the country.
And young people make up what, about a 1/3rd right? (approx. 100mil)
And there are about 4 or 5 million of them who commit to abstinence, to saving sex for marriage.
I agree that percentage wise it's only 4 or 5% of kids that choose abstinence, but when you say that what are you saying?
You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't have to deal with a pregnancy and either keep it, abort it, or give it up. (all of which suck)
You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't contract an STD.
And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."
What a load of horseshit.
*checks first page*
Ahh, 'twas started by Adam_PoE....now I get it.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm sorry, you lost me when you said that teaching abstinence as part of sex education would be "counter-productive and possibly dangerous."That's a crock of shit.
You take your 50 kids in the class, you explain the birds and the bees, the semen and ovaries, the penis and the vagina... all of that.
You tell them how sex works, and what it does: Make babies.
Go into social and literary history if you like, and explain sex in all it's aspects including how it's been viewed throughout history and so on.
You can present the obvious fact that many people have sex other than just for babies, but biologically that's its primary function.
Explain childbirth, adoption, and abortion, and the ramifications socially, economically, emotionally, and physically for each.
Explain all STD's including AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and genital warts. Pictures are often helpful.
Then present the sexual options and consequences of each:
Unprotected sex= risk of pregnancy or STD.
Protected sex=lower risk of pregnancy or STD.
(explain all forms: condoms, the pill, ... the dreaded diaphragm)abstinence=no risk of pregnancy or STD.
I agree, that's how it should be.
And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The study is of 36,000 people, yet there are 300 million in the country.And young people make up what, about a 1/3rd right? (approx. 100mil)
And there are about 4 or 5 million of them who commit to abstinence, to saving sex for marriage.
I agree that percentage wise it's only 4 or 5% of kids that choose abstinence, but when you say that what are you saying?
You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't have to deal with a pregnancy and either keep it, abort it, or give it up. (all of which suck)
You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't contract an STD.
And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."
What a load of horseshit.
*checks first page*
Ahh, 'twas started by Adam_PoE....now I get it.
"What the Research Shows: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Sex Education Does Not Protect Teenagers' Health"There is no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only sex education, which teaches students to abstain from sex until married and generally only teaches about contraceptive failure, reduces the rate of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Moreover, research indicates that many of these programs do not help teens delay having sex. Yet the federal government has funneled well over half a billion dollars since 1997 into abstinence-only programs, steadily increasing funding in recent years to more than $165 million annually.
On the other hand, evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs that provide information about abstinence and contraception can help delay the start of sexual activity in teenagers and increase condom use among sexually active teens. Yet there is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sexuality education.
Studies show that most abstinence-only programs do not help teens delay having sex, and some show evidence that these programs actually deter teens who become sexually active from protecting themselves from unintended pregnancy or STDs.
[list][*]A recent review of program evaluations in 11 states (AZ, CA FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, OR, PA, WA) indicates that after participating in abstinence-only programs, teens are less willing to use contraception, including condoms. And in only one state, did any program demonstrate any success in delaying the initiation of sex.
D. Hauser, Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact, Advocates for Youth, September 2004.
[*]Many abstinence programs include "Virginity Pledges," whereby teens sign cards promising to remain virgins until they are married. While data suggests that under limited circumstances, teens who sign a pledge may delay sexual intercourse, 88 percent still have sex before marriage. Recent research also shows that pledgers' rate of STDs does not differ from the rate of nonpledgers because pledgers are less likely to use condoms at first intercourse or to be tested for STDs.
H. Brückner and P. Bearman, "After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges," Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (2005) 271-278.[/list]
A recent Congressional report found that widely used federally funded abstinence-only curricula distort information, misrepresent the facts, and promote gender stereotypes.
[list][*]More than 80 percent of the abstinence-only curricula reviewed contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.
[*]The curricula reviewed misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing STDs and unintended pregnancy. They also contain false information about the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, promote gender stereotypes, and contain basic scientific errors.
"The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs," Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, December 2004.[/list]
Need I go on?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
The study is of 36,000 people, yet there are 300 million in the country.And young people make up what, about a 1/3rd right? (approx. 100mil)
And there are about 4 or 5 million of them who commit to abstinence, to saving sex for marriage.
I agree that percentage wise it's only 4 or 5% of kids that choose abstinence, but when you say that what are you saying?
You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't have to deal with a pregnancy and either keep it, abort it, or give it up. (all of which suck)
You're saying that's 4 or 5 million kids who won't contract an STD.
And the point of the study is that those kids don't matter, that they are the minority, and that keeping 4 or 5 million kids of this or the next generation from getting of all the facts and them making an informed decision isn't really important now.... because it's "old fashioned."
What a load of horseshit.
*checks first page*
Ahh, 'twas started by Adam_PoE....now I get it.
Furthermore, even if we presume this is correct, the contrapositive of this is that the other 95 or 96 million kids do not matter.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Need I go on?
Studies show that most abstinence-only programs do not help teens delay having sex, and some show evidence that these programs actually deter teens who become sexually active from protecting themselves from unintended pregnancy or STDs.A recent review of program evaluations in 11 states (AZ, CA FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, OR, PA, WA) indicates that after participating in abstinence-only programs, teens are less willing to use contraception, including condoms. And in only one state, did any program demonstrate any success in delaying the initiation of sex.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
are you asking me to leave or to not be biased?I'd rather no leave this is a subject that interests me
In case you didn't realize my post that started this discussin was a joke
I was referring to the bias. Also, not a "you" as in "you, Symmetric Chaos", but a "you" as in "you, one that teaches sexual education". No offense meant.
I'm all for teaching Abstinence as a method of preventing diseases or preventing Child Birth.
I am NOT for Abstinence-Only education. That method will ultamately FAIL. Not to mention, Abstinence only simply promotes Heterosexual Marraige Sex, and completely IGNORES homosexual and bisexual teenagers/adults.
They will have no outlet, no options, nothing to help them in thier daily lives.
Come to think of it, many heterosexuals will not benefit fromAbstinence Only education either ❌
It will never work. Ever....