Abstinence-only Sex Education

[Engyo]

Supposedly over $1B spent on abstinence-only education during the Bush presidency. Is it working?

from Dan Savage reporting at the Republican Convention:

CNN: Who's sexier: Republicans or Democrats?
Savage: Well, there's just something about those Young Republicans. They're very sexy. They're very tense and nervous. I spoke to a lot of them because I've been running around the convention asking teenagers throughout the convention if they're virgins or not. 'Cuz I feel like I have a right to know because we've invested over a billion dollars in abstinence education programs under George Bush.

Five questions: Dan Savage, sex columnist - CNN.com

 

[Willamena]

Isn't "Abstinence-only Sex Education" an oxymoron?

 

[Kcnorwood]

I'm sorry but kids are going to have sex even if they are telling you they no they doing something. it's more or less a fact so teach your childen about sex & help keep them safe.

 

[Dunemeister]

Isn't "Abstinence-only Sex Education" an oxymoron?

No, it's not. It's possible to teach about sex, love, and intimacy AND to reserve the sex part for monogamous marriage.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

No, it's not. It's possible to teach about sex, love, and intimacy AND to reserve the sex part for monogamous marriage.

Maybe not an oxymoron, but completely unrealistic. Gotta love hormones!! :drool:

 

[Dunemeister]

Maybe not an oxymoron, but completely unrealistic. Gotta love hormones!! :drool:

Not as unrealistic as you think. Properly supported, even hormone-ravaged teens and young adults can (and do) remain chaste.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

Not as unrealistic as you think. Properly supported, even hormone-ravaged teens and young adults can (and do) remain chaste.

Yea, I was one of those kids. I literally thought I'd go to Hell if I had premarital sex. Hormones got the better of me, though! So what do you mean "properly supported"? By parents, religion, school??

 

[whereismynotecard]

I didn't have any secks. But I could if I want. My mom wouldn't care. Now that my dad is gone, my sister talks about secks all the time, since it's just girls at our house now...

 

[Nanda]

I think it's very telling that the states that support Abstinence-only Sex Education have not only the highest number of teen pregnancies, but also the most abortions.

 

[Kcnorwood]

Not as unrealistic as you think. Properly supported, even hormone-ravaged teens and young adults can (and do) remain chaste.

Tell that to those daughter of the preachers I had....... nevermind....:drool:

 

[Dunemeister]

Yea, I was one of those kids. I literally thought I'd go to Hell if I had premarital sex. Hormones got the better of me, though! So what do you mean "properly supported"? By parents, religion, school??

Well, proper support doesn't mean teaching you you'd go to hell if you had sex. For now, let's just leave aside the fact that it isn't true on an accurate reading of scripture.

By "proper support" I mean something extremely comprehensive. It includes such things as accurate and forthright teaching about the ins and outs of sex. Of course, I don't mean just the physical part, but the emotional and spiritual sides of it as well. It also means providing an environment where the child can safely admit that he or she has sexual feelings (even non-mainstream ones). (This environment need not be home -- it could be something else.) It should also provide means for coping with those sexual feelings beyond praying for forgiveness in your bedroom. It also means giving the child confidence that if they screw up they won't get disowned (part of the reason I don't like hellfire dissuasion techniques). AND it means providing support for girls who get pregnant so they can keep their children or give them up for adoption. It means providing ways for girls who have had abortions to rediscover communion with God and the church. It means giving children outlets so that sexual tension can be alleviated without recourse to sex.

It also may mean segregating boys from girls at school. I'm a big fan of all-girls and all-boys schools. There's no evidence that such environments stunt childrens' social skills later in life. And there's plenty of evidence to show that children raised in such environments have a much lower instance of extramarital sexual activity. Indeed, if I were in a position to do anything about it, I'd make all publicly funded schools separate for boys and girls starting from middle school. Take that!

Failing that, the next best thing you can do is simply provide outlets for that sexual tension -- sports, hobbies, extracurricular activities and so forth.

Yes, there will always be children who stray. My proposals wouldn't reduce teen sex, let alone unwanted pregnancies or disease, to zero. But it would make a serious dent. The problem is that, in the main, most churches provide pretty lame youth groups for teenagers. The youth group teaches that children who have sex go to hell and otherwise ostracizes youth who begin to show interest in sex. It's a stench. And it's part of the reason people view the Christian gospel as irrelevant and ineffective when it comes to sex.

 

[Dunemeister]

I think it's very telling that the states that support Abstinence-only Sex Education have not only the highest number of teen pregnancies, but also the most abortions.

It's telling but I'm not sure what it tells. It's not as simple as "teaching abstinence encourages its opposite." Perhaps it's "teaching abstinence without providing the tools and support to follow through on a commitment to abstinence causes the widespread failure of abstinence programs."

 

[rojse]

Supposedly over $1B spent on abstinence-only education during the Bush presidency. Is it working?

from Dan Savage reporting at the Republican Convention:

CNN: Who's sexier: Republicans or Democrats?
Savage: Well, there's just something about those Young Republicans. They're very sexy. They're very tense and nervous. I spoke to a lot of them because I've been running around the convention asking teenagers throughout the convention if they're virgins or not. 'Cuz I feel like I have a right to know because we've invested over a billion dollars in abstinence education programs under George Bush.

Five questions: Dan Savage, sex columnist - CNN.com

You know if you tell a teenager not to do something, they will go and do it anyway. And if you tell them to do it, they'll go and do it anyway.

For those that decide to have sex in spite of all the warnings given to them by adults, what does abstinence-only sex education teach them?

 

[rojse]

It's telling but I'm not sure what it tells. It's not as simple as "teaching abstinence encourages its opposite." Perhaps it's "teaching abstinence without providing the tools and support to follow through on a commitment to abstinence causes the widespread failure of abstinence programs."

If you are teaching teenagers something that they are not mentally equipped to use, isn't the education course itself faulty, rather than the teenagers it is being taught to?

 

[Napoleon]

Supposedly over $1B spent on abstinence-only education during the Bush presidency. Is it working?

Percent of population having had first intercourse, by age:

Males:

25% by age 15
37% by age 16
46% by age 17
62% by age 18
69% by age 19
85% by age 20-21
89% by age 22-24

Females:

26% by age 15
40% by age 16
49% by age 17
70% by age 18
77% by age 19
81% by age 20-21
92% by age 22-24

Average age of first intercourse, by gender:

Males - 16.9
Females - 17.4


In other words, abstinence-only education does not work.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I agree that Abstinence-Only Sex Ed doesn't work. But I'm not really fond of the passing out condoms strategy either. I feel the real problem is we aren't teaching kids how to make their own decisions. If a person knows how to look at a situation, analyze the facts and come to a well thought out decision then we should be able to trust them to make that decision about sex. This process has to be taught prior to puberty. Once a kid knows how to make decisions, the sex education part becomes a passing along of facts. They need to know about STDs, methods of birth control and possible consequences. But too often, sex education is more about trying to make the decision for the kid or taking it for granted the decision is already made. Neither of these will work well in my opinion.

 

[DallasApple]

I teach both.Abstaining is wise for this and that reason at a young age..The health risk and risk of unwanted pregnancy warnings were the easy and obvious part..The emotional side of it and the intensity that can be involved and the risk of heartbreak or breaking someone elses because you are not prepared or mature enough is what I tried to get across as well...

But..when the time is right for you ..HOPEFULLY when you are married ..Here is what to consider....This is how to protect your self and to protect her.Including the fact she can be on BC and still get pregnant...She can have STD"S and not be aware of it and pass them on to you...condoms can break ...

I also explained the "joys" of love and sex..At the right time with the right person its an awesome part of life..I mean I hate to sound old fashioned..but seriously its a gift to be shared with someone special...

Also my boys are welcome anytime to come and talk to me..And they have ....

Looks like according to those statistics above my son who is fixing to turn 19 in October is ahead of the game..He is still a virgin..He doesnt seem "obsessed" with sex or chasing girls for that. Even though he is interested in girls..He is more of the "romantic" and isnt in a rush to hop in the sack it seems...I think I got him through the worst parts of the hormonal roller coaster..The 14-17 age range...

He took a lot of "naps"...He seems to have calmed down on that..

I think what parents can do is get over themselves and stop being afraid to openly talk about all this...Including masturbation ... Not like its this dirty little taboo secret...

You dont have "the talk"..You talk about it ongoingly..You continue to have an open dialouge with them..

Love

Dallas

 

[Dunemeister]

If you are teaching teenagers something that they are not mentally equipped to use, isn't the education course itself faulty, rather than the teenagers it is being taught to?

Yes, but since that's not the case, there's no worries.

 

[Dunemeister]

In other words, abstinence-only education does not work.

Wrong, the current version of this education doesn't work, especially when there's little broader support for children who commit to abstinence.

 

[Dunemeister]

You know if you tell a teenager not to do something, they will go and do it anyway. And if you tell them to do it, they'll go and do it anyway.

For those that decide to have sex in spite of all the warnings given to them by adults, what does abstinence-only sex education teach them?

Well, that's the point. The warnings are either not issued or they're issued in a manner or in a context that renders them ineffective. Telling children simply not to have sex because they might get a STD is like telling them in a one-off that if they masturbate, their get hairy palms. There needs to be a more sustained, culturally comprehensive support for abstinence.

Teenagers are not actually automatically rebellious, eager to do the opposite of what their parents say. They're developing a sense of independence and testing the boundaries, no doubt, but that's not the same thing, and it can usually be managed.