Abstinence is a crock

[MaRob 0]

I did read it.. It was very interesting... I find it funny that two sources quote two totally different statistics... In the article where I got the 85% stats, the author states that is from the CDCs publishings...

BTW, this is kind of off topic.. from the info you posted i saw this..

"Despite the AIDS epidemic, many people practice risky sexual behavior—even when they know that condoms prevent infections. It is unlikely that all sexually active people will always use condoms when needed. Powerful social norms encourage men to take sexual risks, such as visiting commercial sex workers, and at the same time discourage condom use."

Is that suppose to mean prostitutes? is that politically incorrect to say now?

I don't really know what you mean by waving hands? even outside religion, I think that abstinence is a good thing to teach.. i was taught how to use a condom and all the statistics in school of STDs and birth control and HIV, and it was good for me I'm sure, but I also learned that I didn't HAVE to have sex either. I learned that I could control myself.. that it was ok if i didn't.. and that helped me also...

No one here is upset that abstinence is being taught. Just when its the only thing being taught.

Moreover, why is it that 'abstinence-only' is promoted almost exclusively in the US. I read somewhere that Federal funding of sex education includes a specific percentage that MUST be spent on sexual-abstinence programmes. Those programmes, of course, being tied to the church.

Well then they must have taken it out of schools since I was there.. because we had the whole boys in one class and girls in another.. learning about our periods, sex, STDs.... i graduated in 2001.. so things might have changed since then...

[Dr_LHA 3]

Well then they must have taken it out of schools since I was there.. because we had the whole boys in one class and girls in another.. learning about our periods, sex, STDs.... i graduated in 2001.. so things might have changed since then...

A lot has changed since 2001. Still it depends a lot on where you go to school also.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I did read it.. It was very interesting... I find it funny that two sources quote two totally different statistics... In the article where I got the 85% stats, the author states that is from the CDCs publishings...

BTW, this is kind of off topic.. from the info you posted i saw this..

"Despite the AIDS epidemic, many people practice risky sexual behavior—even when they know that condoms prevent infections. It is unlikely that all sexually active people will always use condoms when needed. Powerful social norms encourage men to take sexual risks, such as visiting commercial sex workers, and at the same time discourage condom use."

Is that suppose to mean prostitutes? is that politically incorrect to say now?

I don't really know what you mean by waving hands? even outside religion, I think that abstinence is a good thing to teach.. i was taught how to use a condom and all the statistics in school of STDs and birth control and HIV, and it was good for me I'm sure, but I also learned that I didn't HAVE to have sex either. I learned that I could control myself.. that it was ok if i didn't.. and that helped me also...

No one here is upset that abstinence is being taught. Just when its the only thing being taught.

Moreover, why is it that 'abstinence-only' is promoted almost exclusively in the US. I read somewhere that Federal funding of sex education includes a specific percentage that MUST be spent on sexual-abstinence programmes. Those programmes, of course, being tied to the church.

Well then they must have taken it out of schools since I was there.. because we had the whole boys in one class and girls in another.. learning about our periods, sex, STDs.... i graduated in 2001.. so things might have changed since then...

What I mean't is that you don't see abstinence-only programmes being pushed outside the US.

The idea seems to be exclusive to this country. That said, you do see abstinence only being imposed in the fine print of US aid funding to Africa.

I think it has a lot to do with the of Christian conservatives and the church.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Number 6

[GeordieWife 1]

Living here in the bible belt, i think has to do with money as well. Here in Texas, there are lots of conservative christian voters, and if the school board promotes anything other than abstinence they lose votes..and money. Money has alot to do with it too...here anyway.

Edited August 8, 2007 by GeordieLover

[Peikko 1,575]

And around and around in circles they go.

There is nothing right about abstinence either. If you take away the religious aspect, sex is just another aspect of life. It's neither good nor bad.

What is wrong, is not teaching children how to handle relationships. Sex isn't a relationship, it's one aspect of a relationship.

Oh well, castigate the 'morally' corrupt who enjoy sex outside of marriage all you want and cast it in the cloak of 'saving' us from STD's if it makes you feel better.

Children are naturally curious about the world they live in...teaching them that the only way to enjoy sex is to wait until you are married is...well medieval springs to mind.

[Reba 2]

Just out of curiosity, I went and did a search for CDC + condom, and came up with a bunch of links for religious groups stating that the CDC says blah blah blah...and then another bunch of links that state that the religious groups quoting of the CDC study are all bunk with no substance.

So, when in doubt, go to the source. Here's the actual CDC study on condom effectiveness.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms prvovide and essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens

And in case anyone is unfamiliar with the word impermeable

Etymology: Late Latin impermeabilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin permeabilis permeable

: not permitting passage (as of a fluid) through its substance; broadly : IMPERVIOUS

Now, I don't have time to read the entire study of course, but already just on page 2, where I found the above quote, is the information refuting "CDC statements" quoted in abstinence only propaganda in previous posts in this thread.

[ace13 0]

I take it we are really talking about kids under 18. Kids who are the responsibility of their parents because they can still not take care of themselves or make decisions for themselves. Once you are over 18, you are well aware of what you are doing and what the risks are and the choice is yours alone. But the kids, whose brains are still not fully formed, need guidance and good example.

Where are these people not being taught the birds and the bees in their health class? I went to Catholic school and they even taught sex ed. It was called the GUS program. Growing up Sexually. It happened in 6th, 7th and 8th grades. Some parts the boys and girls were in the same class and sometimes they were separated so we would feel more comfortable to ask questions. We learned about our periods and menstrual cycles and how babies were made. The boys learned about their bodies and what changes they were going through. Then we were taught that the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is to abstain. At no time was I ever confused as to what was the smartest and healthiest path.

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy and STDs 100% is to abstain completely. No birth control or condom can give you that 100% certainty. We were taught this and aware of the risks. They taught us the truth.

You can call abstinence programs dinosaurs, but they really speak the truth. Kids also need to be reminded that they don't need to be having sex just because all of their friends supposedly are (you know how that goes with bragging and exaggerating the truth to look tough.) It isn't a competition. Like the movie American Pie where the boys HAD to lose their virginity before graduation. How dumb.

Don't people worry about the physical and mental health of these kids?

Flame on!

[Fandango 1,440]

Moreover, why is it that 'abstinence-only' is promoted almost exclusively in the US. I read somewhere that Federal funding of sex education includes a specific percentage that MUST be spent on sexual-abstinence programmes. Those programmes, of course, being tied to the church.

Well, let's really think about this here...isn't the raising of children and the instilling of values up to the PARENTS? Isn't it THEIR responsibility to teach whatever they believe to their children concerning sex?

Oh and LisaD- I read your posts and I do understand what you are saying but I don't agree. The pill has been my best friend for many reasons. It does more than just prevent pregnancy. Without it, I would have to be on vicodin on a monthly basis and no one wants that. It has had a positive benefit to my health and I couldn't live without it.

Well if there are medical reasons for you to be on the pill, then that's really good that it's working for you.....but it doesn't change the fact that it is not a comprehensively effective tool to protect teens from STDs.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy and STDs 100% is to abstain completely.

Yes, and the only way to avoid 100% being hit by a bus is to not cross the road. Trouble is that on the other side of the road is my favorite pizza place.

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

Well, let's really think about this here...isn't the raising of children and the instilling of values up to the PARENTS? Isn't it THEIR responsibility to teach whatever they believe to their children concerning sex?

isn't it ironic that the ones that squawk the loudest about the government strongly support schools teaching kids about sex?

[Dr_LHA 3]

Well, let's really think about this here...isn't the raising of children and the instilling of values up to the PARENTS? Isn't it THEIR responsibility to teach whatever they believe to their children concerning sex?

isn't it ironic that the ones that squawk the loudest about the government strongly support schools teaching kids about sex?

Please look up irony in the dictionary and get back to us and explain your statement.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Moreover, why is it that 'abstinence-only' is promoted almost exclusively in the US. I read somewhere that Federal funding of sex education includes a specific percentage that MUST be spent on sexual-abstinence programmes. Those programmes, of course, being tied to the church.

Well, let's really think about this here...isn't the raising of children and the instilling of values up to the PARENTS? Isn't it THEIR responsibility to teach whatever they believe to their children concerning sex?

Sure - but lets not assume that parents 'take' that responsibility. As I remember, all of the sex-ed classes that I attended at school required parental consent to attend. Parents were sent a letter detailing exactly what material the class would cover.

Doesn't really have much of a bearing on what I said however - I'm just wondering why abstinence-only programmes are promoted almost exclusively in the US. Rhetorical question really - I think the answer is rather obvious. Has a lot to do with politics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, let's really think about this here...isn't the raising of children and the instilling of values up to the PARENTS? Isn't it THEIR responsibility to teach whatever they believe to their children concerning sex?

isn't it ironic that the ones that squawk the loudest about the government strongly support schools teaching kids about sex?

Really? Where do you draw that conclusion?

The general assumption that people have taken in this thread (about a specific type of typically church-funded programme) not working - is that everyone should get some type of sex education. I don't believe I have advocated 'anywhere' taking that right away from parents. As I said - all the sex ed classes I went to required parental consent. In that regard I don't see any problem in schools stepping in - so long as parents have the right of approval on it.

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

Well, let's really think about this here...isn't the raising of children and the instilling of values up to the PARENTS? Isn't it THEIR responsibility to teach whatever they believe to their children concerning sex?

isn't it ironic that the ones that squawk the loudest about the government strongly support schools teaching kids about sex?

Please look up irony in the dictionary and get back to us and explain your statement.

please read the thread, then you might get it

isn't it ironic that the ones that squawk the loudest about the government strongly support schools teaching kids about sex?

Really? Where do you draw that conclusion?

ditto.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, let's really think about this here...isn't the raising of children and the instilling of values up to the PARENTS? Isn't it THEIR responsibility to teach whatever they believe to their children concerning sex?

isn't it ironic that the ones that squawk the loudest about the government strongly support schools teaching kids about sex?

Please look up irony in the dictionary and get back to us and explain your statement.

Indeed - especially where it relates to a point that was never made. That's generally referred to as putting words in a person's mouth.

I might as well say that those who complain about that being done to them - seem to have no qualms doing it to others.