Printable View
This article claims that there are 'abstinence-only' videos shown to students (where? I did not get that) in which in was said that having sex before marriage is like drinking other people's spit!
The poll that followed it shows 50% saying this is a bad idea, and 38% saying it is ok.
I would very much like to hear what people here think of this.
Is it a good idea to advocate no sex before marriage?
If yes, is this the way to do it?
I find myself channeling Tom Paxton...
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that sex is really ick, it makes you dirty and it makes you sick.
I learned to wait until I'm wed, or better still until I'm dead.
And that's what I learned in school today, that's what I learned in school.
Wow...I'd never read that before. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Do I think it's okay to advocate no sex before marriage? If that's your moral belief, sure. But do I think it's okay for schools to tell my kids when it's appropriate to have sex? No. I mean, really...who's teaching that class? The 30 year-old teacher who just happens to be screwing the 15 year-old student??
That is certainly a good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by brwneydgirl
But what I also do not understand is, can you get away with telling young people that sex is icky in some circumstances, but not in others???
What age bracket are we talking about here, only there has to be lines drawn somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
Well I am assuming that since it is illegal to have sex prior to the age of consent ....that we are talking about a class for underaged people that promotes abstience in any situation outside of wed-lock to get them ready for life later on?
Additionally...it sounds like a private school/class.
Whats wrong with promoting abstience imho...not a dam thing?
In my opinion this whole sex education program in schools is a waste of time. After nine pm switch on the TV in the UK and you can get all the sex education you need. I just don’t see where it is all leading to, because if the statistics are right and I don’t like statistics because of their obvious failure to be accurate. Since introduced many years ago, it has done damn all for the lowering of the boom in the UK of single mothers and some as young as 15.
I think with the attitude of most young people if you tell them that it is wrong to do something, they go and do it to see what the big deal is. It all comes back to the [wet paint, don’t touch theory] yes we have all been there. It is also my opinion that by advocating that sex before marriage is not right in a class room there will be the odd percent that had no thoughts of sex until it was advertised at that point. I don’t think any child needs a half hour or a one hour lesson for a teacher to say four words, [no sex before marriage] end of story. Children today can learn inadvertently more about sex in the playground than they could ever be taught in the classroom.
I don’t think today with the education standards that young men and women in our schools are stupid. They are more intelligent now that they were in my time at school but sex before marriage was not there then [well not heard of]. It is also my opinion that sex before marriage is more prevalent now because there are far more young people in the world. But sex before marriage is probably not a lot more now per thousand people than it was sixty years ago. I have four girls and the oldest 26, and not one of them has had this kind of education at school and not one has let me down. I think it is down to the moral standards my late wife and I educated them with at home.
Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}
No, because it doesn't work. Those who won't fuck before they get married will do so because of their family values, not because some vid tells them. Those who do have sex before marriage will do so too, but when they haven't learned a thing about sex they most likely won't use rubbers and generally have no idea about sex which will lead to unwanted pregnancies, STDs and also raises the risk of abuse. Knowledge is power.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
It may be illegal in the States. It isn't in many other countries. For example in Switzerland it isn't illegal for 11 year olds to have sex, as long as the age gap between the two is less than 3 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
It doesn't work? Is that reason enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Yeah, hearsay and gut feeling are always better than statistics that prove a correlation. Maybe it does not hold true in the UK, but in Switzerland the number of teenage pregnancies has fallen constantly over the last 20 years with the increase of sex ed. Besides, sex ed isn't just about knowing to put on a rubber, it's also about empowerment.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN 2411{lillirose}
No you don't. Sex ed is probably not exactly what you think it is. I'd like to point out a real good website, but it's only in German, so I don't think it will help a lot. Ah, well, maybe it will: www.lilli.ch (hey, it's even called lilli!!!)Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN 2411{lillirose}
I don't think you have actually talked to teenagers for a while, or have you? Because those I know are mostly more or less responsible young guys and gals and the fucktards that make it to the media because of their being - no surprise there - fucktards are a small, but overrepresented minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN 2411{lillirose}
Yeah, they learn a lot from their peers. But most of that is crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN 2411{lillirose}
Yup, completely agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN 2411{lillirose}
Huh? What happened to Ian's post?
It has been removed for further review.
lmfao @ the over-represented fucktard minority...nice one Lucy that was simpley awesome hon I loved it!
And just becuase I see nothing wrong with teaching people that its perfectly ok to abstain...doesnt mean that I don't also think they should learn about safe sex and tolerance for fetishes outside the standard vanilla thingy etc.
Lucy I might disappear at times but I always come back. I have taken a little out of my post because I might have been guilty of presuming the worst intent.
That is just statistics and statistics are always out of date before they get published. Then again maybe Switzerland had a bigger problem than the UK before it started the program. You have given no one the full picture of how bad your country is or was, only how bad it is everywhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
Let me think, I have a 16, 19 21 and 26 year old daughters is that close enough? Do not make suppositions about other people if you know damn all about them. I think I know a little more about English teenage girls at least, than any person from another country.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
So that we all know what field we are playing on, who exactly do you mean by their peers? Also are you talking collectively for the world or just Switzerland?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}
I don't think I'm ever again going to respond to you after this post, Ian. Not because of me. I simply don't want to be responsible for your blood pressure going through the roof.
But please try to remember this: Attack the argument, not the person. OK?
Be well & take care.
I have withdrawn the comment
Please folks ... keep all comments from here on out related to the topic.
Dont you think that by doing as you state, it might just be complicating a subject that most teacher know nothing about. I also think that any teacher that knows anything about kinks and fetishes would be wary of teaching them to a young audience. Not all are as broad minded as the members of BDSM.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}
If we are going to give classes in sex education one would think we should atleast make "tolerance" a part of the things one wishes to instil.
That or provide a 100% objective medical explantive course with no ethical component.
I am a great believer that every vanilla marriage ends up with kinky goings on, and it is down to the fact that sooner or later the couple have to find a way of revitalising boring sex. Then again maybe i am wrong and thats why there are so many miserable people in the world. You might just have a point denu.
Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}
I think it's fine to advocate abstinence as the only sure-fire method of preventing STD's, unwanted pregnancy and the emotional turmoil that can ensue once people engage in sexual intercourse. Nothing else comes with a 100% guarantee. However, of the nearly 10 sex education classes I attended during my school years (Girl Scouts, health, biology, home economics), they discussed safe sex practices with an emphasis on abstinence.
Unfortunately, neither does this. The figures show that children taught abstinence-only have a slightly *higher* level of underage pregnancies and STDs than those taught conventional sex ed. The best guess is that they do it just as much as any other kids (human nature being as hard to beat as ever,) but because they believe they're not going to, they're not prepared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming_Redhead
Even more sadly, there's a growing number of kids turning up with STDs who swear they haven't had sex. Either you really can catch it off a toilet seat, or what they've been taught isn't abstinence, it's denial.
Just because something is classified as a Sexually Transmitted Disease doesn't mean that sexual intercourse is the only way to get it, does it? It means it's the primary way to get it, but not the only way. Blood transfusions or needles from drug use are other ways to get them. It may also be possible to transfer the disease through manual stimulation of the genitals (petting), which kids may not consider sex when asked about it. And some girls are engaging in anal or oral sex in order to preserve their "virginity" for marriage. Again, would they still consider that as having sex? I know most adults would (except perhaps politicians), but would the kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
You can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
To the best of my knowledge the only STD you can get by touching is herpes. All the others you have to have sexual contact, including oral or anal. And the kids should informed of these matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
And that's the real problem. How can you teach kids that oral or anal sex IS sex without informing them that oral and anal sex exist? How can you teach kids to protect themselves without telling them (or showing them) what to protect themselves against? Yet too many parents are terrified of letting their kids know that there IS such a thing as sex. Far better, they seem to think, that the kids shouldn't even know about it until after they're married. Until then, just pretend it doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
That tactic doesn't seem to be working, does it?
It is very important to note that debates about research into the effectiveness of different types of sex education, and criticisms of the extent to which programmes contain factual inaccuracies and are guilty of stereotyping, do not always represent objective attempts to weigh the evidence that these studies have produced.
While the debate between supporters of both approaches has populated these areas of difference it is not in pursuit of a resolution of their differences but rather a definitive answer that suits their moral agenda.
There is no doubt that, whatever evidence is assembled, people who hold particular strong moral views are unlikely to give up supporting their preferred approach regardless of whether it works or whether someone else thinks it presents a distorted picture of the facts.
In April 2007 the results were published of a Congressionally mandated evaluation of federally funded abstinence based programmes in American schools.
The investigation, which looked at four programmes offering a range of settings and strategies, found that rates of abstinence and unprotected sex in students who took part in the programmes were virtually identical to rates among students who had been randomly assigned to not take part.
The ages at first sexual intercourse were also nearly identical, as were the numbers of sexual partners.
It appears that the programmes (abstinence or comprehensive) had no impact on how the students behaved.
With regards to HIV prevention, a systematic review of all relevant studies concluded, "Evidence does not indicate that abstinence only interventions effectively decrease or exacerbate HIV risk among participants in high-income countries; trials suggest that all the programs are ineffective in influencing behavior."
Not sure why, but this really doesn't surprise me for some reason. Probably because I was once a high school student myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
No, it doesn't. Teaching your kids about these matters is a parent obligation, IMO, just as so many other things you have to teach or prepare for.
As for the teaching the abstinence thing in the revolting manner described, I again wonder if it is possible to first make sex gross and then later accept it? Frankly, I find this kind of thing abusive.
And just becuase I see nothing wrong with teaching people that its perfectly ok to abstain....[/QUOTE]
That is just it. It is not about abstain 'being perfectly ok', it is about sex being revolting and therefore you should abstain until after marriage - when it suddenly isn't, anymore.
Ouch! That is not good!Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Nature is nature ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I agree, except that there are some points of sexuality and biology that parents are seldom equipped to handle. The basics, sure, but some in-depth facts about reproduction might be better left to qualified teachers. Assuming that your school is willing to hire such teachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
I agree completely. I've never understood how people can believe that gaining knowledge is wrong.Quote:
As for the teaching the abstinence thing in the revolting manner described, I again wonder if it is possible to first make sex gross and then later accept it? Frankly, I find this kind of thing abusive.
I'm reminded of one of Pratchett's wise observations:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
"He didn't look around, and watch and learn, and then say, 'This is how people are, how do we deal with it?' No, he sat and thought: 'This is how the people ought to be, how do we change them?'"
It doesn't end well in that story, either.
And THAT doesn't surprise me, either! People don't want to change. They want OTHER people to change, to become more like THEM!Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9