Abstinence education anyone?

The social-worker wife just got a new federal grant at her place of employment. It's going to be promoting abstinence education. Keeping teenagers from getting pregnant or getting STD's by "just saying no" to sex until married.

Well,I can never keep my mouth shut,and ended up getting in the dog house by saying that I think the whole thing is a complete waste of time. It sounds like one of these hair-brained republican schemes, were they just assume that if you tell a bunch of teenage kids with raging hormones to not have sex, then they will just stop having sex.

Abstinence classes. It is actually formal training on how to stay abstinent from sex. Is this how the righties prove to us that they finally pulled their heads up out of the sand about this? By saying "yes, we now realize that teenagers are having sex, so we are going to teach them how not to. :wtf:

I just absolutely do not see this working. You are not going to stop teenagers from having sex. It's just a fact. It comes short of telling them to hand them a bible and pray about it, but nonetheless, you can see how the religious right is creeping into our government here. This also shows, once again, our uptight puritanical heritage, and just how deep in denial about human sexuality we can still be.

For the record, I thought the government should have dumped all the money they earmarked for that into better sex education, and condom and birth control distribution and eduction.

them with future ammo against those whose hormones come through.

Good fucking grief ::banghead:

... the "Just say NO to Drugs" campaign during the Reagan years?

That's worked out REALLY WELL, hasn't it? :sarcasm:

it's as good as you're gonna get out of these pantloads running the show now.

Personally, I think kids should be told that abstinence is OK, and sometimes even the better choice, but giving them an alternative to peer pressure to get laid is not the same as a whole course telling them it's the only way.

to the wonderful world of self-gratification, you know, masturbation? And the cool equipment ranging from dildoes, vibrators, and even organic vegetables? Who needs a partner when all this is available . . .

jocelyn Elders was right.
For many teenage girls, it is the better alternative. I don't know about teenage boys. Regardless, they should be taught that self gratification is a way to satisfy their raging hormones without exposing themselves to the risks of sex.

I don't mean to turn this into a sex thread.
I know the experiences of myself and female friends and our experiences tell us that masterbation can be equal to or better than sex with a partner, especially in our teens. Sex toys for women seem to be good for self gratification.
Not being male, I only have the experiences of men who I have been close enough to talk about that sort of thing. They claim that masterbation does not approach the gratification levels of sex with a partner. They claim that sex toys for men are not usually worthwhile. Maybe these men have an agenda though.

what kind of future would traditional marraiges have if the woman discovers at a teen that her big strapping toy is better than a husband. . .and much less maintenance?

No, they want those toys tossed. . .and the lesson will be no masturbation either. . .nothing until marriage. Well, except for the gays - they can't ever have sex. Ejaculation permits, anyone?

This should be taught! Esp girls who go home from school alone at a young age.(14+)
Boys are swarming to take advantage of these poor girls! Maybe they can "Just Say No"!
Always respected and loved J.Elders. :bounce:

needs to be taught. There seems to be a good 5th-6th grade cooperative learning situation that's been going on for years. At least with the guys.

But somebody really should tell them to wash the veggies very well, even if they are organic.

Genesis 38:8-10
"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."

Sperm is for procreation only, and spilling it for any other purpose is a sin. Therefore teaching masturbation would be a sin in their eyes. (As far as some of them are concerned, even married couples shouldn't have sex unless they are intending to procreate :eyes:).

They missed the point of the verses. Onan's duty was to produce an heir for his brother who had died. That was his sin, not wasting sperm.

Is to take pleasure out of it. Sex is pleasurable, so they want to ruin it for people, hence the admonishment that it must only be for procreation or it is "against God's will". :eyes:

reaction is a bit extreme. I don't see any reason to stop abstinence education, as long as it's part of a program to also teach all other sex ed too.

It IS an option, and although I don't believe there's anyone who doesn't already know that, I see no reason why it shouldn't be taught as an option.

recieving fed. funds.

reaction is a bit extreme. I don't see any reason to stop abstinence education, as long as it's part of a program to also teach all other sex ed too.

lest we come down too hard on the very word, "abstinence." Obviously, complete abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, STD's, and also a whole lot of emotional mess that complicates adolescence. Personally, I don't necessarily think the goal should be "abstinence until marriage" but rather abstinence until you are old enough to deal with it and/or in a committed relationship. And that goes for both straight and gay sex.

You will never keep teenagers from trying things out. On the other hand, there is a huge difference in the sexual activities in my generation in the 60's and the kids now. In high school, I knew one girl who wasn't a virgin. Now my students tell me it's the other way around. Once my generation got to college, they branched out a bit, but generally were by that time mature enough to handle the responsibility of birth control and preventing std's.

Why the huge difference? Don't tell me that they were all lying back in my day..they weren't. I was one of them. I guess the "sexual revolution" and just the general manner in which sex is presented in the media..for example, "Friends" where there was no such thing as abstinence.

However, that said, in high school I was taught all about birth control and sexuality. I actually learned what a clitoris was from my gym teacher in class. (NOT in a personal relationship!) The guys got the same lessons. We were told then that it was a whole lot less complicated to wait to become sexually active. Unfortunately, recent abstinence only programs have gotten a bad rep with bad info. And any good sex ed program needs to teach birth control by high school, and how to get it. They should also teach the biology of the process as well. Good straight information with the concept of abstinence being a wise decision thrown in, but not the whole enchilada.

telling gay teens they have to wait until marriage is in most places telling them they can't have sex at all.

Before anyone objects, I've had people respond to that with "Yes. Exactly."

I don't need another reason to be wholly against any such course or class.

"Personally, I don't necessarily think the goal should be "abstinence until marriage" but rather abstinence until you are old enough to deal with it and/or in a committed relationship. And that goes for both straight and gay sex."
****

Perhaps you misunderstood or misread. I'll restate. I think abstinence is a value that should be honored but never..NEVER the only thing taught in a sex ed class. I had way more than that 40 years ago and kids today deserve as good as I got.

But I don't want to come across to anyone as thinking that "abstinence" (in my thinking marriage is not the goal but maturity) is not a worthy value. I definitely believe there is such a thing as being sexually active too early (before some level of emotional stability in later adolescense). I see this in my middle school students, sadly. Girls and boys both. Too much, too soon. There has to be a balance between teaching that abstinence is ok...you aren't a dork if you aren't putting out in 8th grade...but also giving kids information, including where to go for birth control.

Oddly enough, I notice a trend in my high school students (among the girls, at least, because they admit it) to postpone sex and it's funny, but the reasons they tell me are the same reasons I had in high school myself.... "the guys aren't interested in commitment...they tell everybody...next thing you know you are getting a LOT of phone calls..." etc. I guess some things never change.

and I grew up about the same time you did.

Things weren't always the way they are now. I think a lot of people who are younger just think what's true today was the norm always, but in this case it wasn't, or at least not where I went to school.

Everyone I grew up with were virgins through high school.

I guess we were right before the sexual revolution. There was for sure a very big change in the last 30-40 years, and not for the better.

We now have a third of our kids being born into homes without married parents, and the statistics of these youngsters, especially boys is damning. Sexual disease is rampant in our young population, and teachers tell me sex even among junior high kids is pretty open. They have students having sex in the bathrooms and on buses, which is something I never saw in twelve years of public school education.

(on the windows, which were floor-ceiling, about 2 feet wide) to see a bare bottom pressed against the glass and the wild thing taking place right there.

I teach middle school.

This poster is not saying that teenagers shouldn't be taught about abstinence, he's saying this program is a waste of time, won't work and is just a right-wing scheme.
He's right.

If my boyfriend told me he had taken such a job (and I know that it's a bit different since we are not married) I would certainly break up with him.

No furtherers of right-wing quarter-baked schemes can live in my apartment.

is a virtue only to the intellectually lazy magical thinkers...

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Teen sex increased after abstinence program
Texas study finds little impact on sexual behavior

HOUSTON - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush’s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers’ behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.

Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/

In addition, while making an abstinence pledge may work for some groups of young people as a way of delaying when they have sexual intercourse, the majority still have sex before they are married and when they do they report using condoms less often than 'non-pledgers' and are more likely to substitute anal or oral sex for vaginal sexual intercourse.
http://www.avert.org/abstinence.htm

would be much better served by the truth.

Experience in Europe has shown that kids who are given specific, accurate information about STD and pregnancy prevention actially delay sex. Studies of abstinence programs in the US found the opposite, and that kids taught abstinence and shame were more likely to engage in disastrously risky sex.

Having a meal ticket is nice. Howevr, having one that damages kids is not nice. I hope your wife reconsiders.

they just marry them off young, some as young as nine or ten years old in Africa or the Middle East. Is this what we want? Of course the same standard doesn't hold for boys, so those girls who were raped or lost their virginity before marriage have to become the whores for the boys to go to for experience both before and after marriage.

I spent some of my teenage years in South America. I actually had a duena or a chaperone if I went on a date with someone. Other than that I wasn't let out of sight by my very protective mother. In those days, if you were damaged goods your marriagibility dropped and you might have been forced to marry beneath your class or become a whore to support yourself.

In my American high school that I attended, a Catholic boarding school, we were taught abstinence. By graduation eight girls in my class were pregnant and a shotgun wedding followed soon after graduation. This is what they want to take you back to.

Be sure of your birth control, protect yourself, and don't feel bad for just wanting to get your rocks off, because feeling like you have to "be in LOVE" will hurt you more than a one-night-stand.

Because some day, when Old Age takes your sexuality away from you, you'll lay awake at night crying about all that sex you turned down, because it was "immoral" to fuck unless you're married...

birth and provide for the child and provide an education for about $40,000 of college if you do it cheap, so that new being doesn't have to suffer poverty and give the gift of the cycle of poverty to another generation..???

I should have never had my daughter.

Gee, nobody handed *ME* 40 kilobucks to go to college with, and my folks weren't exactly poverty-stricken crackahs, either.

But is it any MORE irresponsible than "Keep a Buy-Bull between your knees and think of Jeebus, and if that doesn't work, oh, well, whatever diseases or that little bundle of colic you get is your OWN damn fault!".

Protect yourself from disease, protect yourself from pregnancy, and just have FUN.

I wonder, which message is more irresponsible?

Maybe I'm too far over to the OTHER extreme, but I think my attitude is a HELL of a lot healthier than "keep it in your pants until your wedding night, and never, never Do It with someone, you're not in LOVE with!"

Girls have a right to be sexual, too.

It's a complex situation. Sexuality is very different between men and women. I would assume those are genetic markers installed in us because of childbearing.

Some women would be fine with your advice, but without exception all the women I know personally (meaning family, colleagues, friends throughout the years) are happiest with sex in a committed relationship.

But there are always the exceptions that prove the rule and I'm sure many men are happy to find them!

abstinence almost always fails, while some forms of birth control such as the pill backed up by a rubber on the guy are almost always successful

i don't blame your wife for taking the cash, but yeah, this is just a jobs program and is abt getting a paycheck, it won't help the kids and in theory may even harm them, altho i suspect only the most naive and brainwashed of teens who will end up pregnant anyway are the ones who would even believe it for a minute

a horny teen will have sex, you can make it a miserable fearful guilt-ridden experience or a relatively safe one that the teen will remember with fondness for a lifetime, but you can't stop teens having sex unless you want to put prozac in the water, a lotta prozac, hormones will have their way

It was reported in the Portland Press herald (maine) last week. One school district in the state (which used to teach birth control) stopped teaching it. The teen pregnancy rate in that district climbed by 14%. While all the other school districts (which continued to teach birth control) saw a DROP in pregnancy rates.

Oh, I get it. . .we pass constitutional amendments saying they can't get married, and then tell them that they can never have sex.

What a plan. . .

like abstinence-only driver's ed, where you are taught if you don't drive, you won't get into any car accidents :sarcasm: