• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abstinence-Only Sex Education

wolfgirl

Graduate Poster
wolfgirl
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
1,375
While it is Sarah Palin's stance on abstinence-only sex ed and the subsequent news of her unwed daughter's pregnancy that has brought this into the spotlight (and about time), this is about the sex ed and not about Sarah Palin, so I'm putting it here instead of in Politics.

I heard some folks on NPR this morning discussing it, and a McCain/Palin supported was asked about the abstinence issue in relation to Palin's daughter's pregnancy. Her response was basically "kids will be kids; you can't be with them all the time; you can teach them all you want, but in the end they will do what they want and there's nothing you can do about it."

I was so infuriated that I was yelling at the radio, "NO S&%*!" Excuse me, but isn't this the very argument AGAINST abstinence-only sex education? Teaching them abstinence and nothing else DENIES this little bit of human nature. Perhaps if Palin's daughter had been taught about birth control, she wouldn't be pregnant right now.

The abstinence-only people think that telling kids about birth control will encourage them to have sex. For god's sake, they're teenagers...they don't need any freakin' encouragement! They're going to have sex. The question is, are they going to be prepared when they do. And it seems to me that question has been answered very clearly in Palin's daughter's case.

It just bugged me that they're acting now like this is something they've known all along. But they haven't. Their argument all along has been you have to just teach kids not to have sex and assume that they won't. Now they're suddenly all about the reality...oh, of course kids are having sex, everybody knows that!

And they do it all with a straight face...
 
Abstinence is only for when you are not having sex. For everything else use a condom.

It is simple really.
 
Meanwhile, in Bizarro World...

What's interesting is I happen to own a small sail boat, and make a living as a guide taking tourists' children around the fjord. Now, unlike the godless liberals, I ensure safety by banning the wearing of life vests on board and making sure none of the kids learn to swim. After all, if the careless little kids don't want to drown, they should keep their sea legs together. Telling them not to fall overboard for then to give them life vests and swimming instructions is like telling a guy not to rob a bank for then to give him a gun and a getaway car and telling him the shortest route to the border:rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
The abstinence-only people think that telling kids about birth control will encourage them to have sex. For god's sake, they're teenagers...they don't need any freakin' encouragement! They're going to have sex. The question is, are they going to be prepared when they do. And it seems to me that question has been answered very clearly in Palin's daughter's case.
Click to expand...
The problem with the abstinence-only people I've debated is that they all viewed sex as something "wrong", as is evidenced by the bank robber analogy they keep touting (see my post above). It's that simple. In their world, sex is an evil that should be prevented until you absolutely have to do it (to recreate), and even then it's only acceptable if you do it right (only while married, missionary position only, be ready to keep child, etc. etc. etc.). I imagine this is where many of the anti-abortion people get their frustration from, too - their stance is that if a girl is naughty enough to defy the Lord and have sex, she deserves whatever punishment she gets, be it STD, baby, or AIDS, and God have mercy on her soul if she tries to circumvent either.

It's a worldview that's about as far removed from reality as you can get, and if they logic was applied to any other circumstance (again, see my post above), they'd get laughed out of town. But then again, isn't that the case with most or all of religion?

And they do it all with a straight face...
Click to expand...
My friend who believes the Earth is flat says so with a straight face, too.

While it is Sarah Palin's stance on abstinence-only sex ed and the subsequent news of her unwed daughter's pregnancy
Click to expand...
Oh, but that wasn't abstinence only education, that was the evil influences from the Liberal Left.
 
Last edited:
wolfgirl said:
While it is Sarah Palin's stance on abstinence-only sex ed and the subsequent news of her unwed daughter's pregnancy that has brought this into the spotlight (and about time), this is about the sex ed and not about Sarah Palin, so I'm putting it here instead of in Politics.

I heard some folks on NPR this morning discussing it, and a McCain/Palin supported was asked about the abstinence issue in relation to Palin's daughter's pregnancy. Her response was basically "kids will be kids; you can't be with them all the time; you can teach them all you want, but in the end they will do what they want and there's nothing you can do about it."

I was so infuriated that I was yelling at the radio, "NO S&%*!" Excuse me, but isn't this the very argument AGAINST abstinence-only sex education? Teaching them abstinence and nothing else DENIES this little bit of human nature. Perhaps if Palin's daughter had been taught about birth control, she wouldn't be pregnant right now.

The abstinence-only people think that telling kids about birth control will encourage them to have sex. For god's sake, they're teenagers...they don't need any freakin' encouragement! They're going to have sex. The question is, are they going to be prepared when they do. And it seems to me that question has been answered very clearly in Palin's daughter's case.

It just bugged me that they're acting now like this is something they've known all along. But they haven't. Their argument all along has been you have to just teach kids not to have sex and assume that they won't. Now they're suddenly all about the reality...oh, of course kids are having sex, everybody knows that!

And they do it all with a straight face...
Click to expand...

wow perfect, nothing to ad.
 
Not even my beautifully composed boating analogy:(?
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
What's interesting is I happen to own a small sail boat, and make a living as a guide taking tourists' children around the fjord. Now, unlike the godless liberals, I ensure safety by banning the wearing of life vests on board and making sure none of the kids learn to swim. After all, if the careless little kids don't want to drown, they should keep their sea legs together. Telling them not to fall overboard for then to give them life vests and swimming instructions is like telling a guy not to rob a bank for then to give him a gun and a getaway car and telling him the shortest route to the border:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

It's all about personal responsibility, really.
If the parents "really" loved their children, they would have prayed to God harder to remove the childrens' devil-inspired thoughts of jumping overboard.
I simply have no sympathy for people who carelessly let the devil control them.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Not even my beautifully composed boating analogy:(?
Click to expand...
.
Nogies is better: :)

"Abstinence is only for when you are not having sex. For everything else use a condom."
.
The number of un-expected pregnancies in the "abstinence only" crowd is apparently quite a big number.
Ignorance leads to parenthood.
 
Second bolding mine
Safe-Keeper said:
The problem with the abstinence-only people I've debated is that they all viewed sex as something "wrong", as is evidenced by the bank robber analogy they keep touting (see my post above). It's that simple. In their world, sex is an evil that should be prevented until you absolutely have to do it (to recreate), and even then it's only acceptable if you do it right (only while married, missionary position only, be ready to keep child, etc. etc. etc.). I imagine this is where many of the anti-abortion people get their frustration from, too - their stance is that if a girl is naughty enough to defy the Lord and have sex, she deserves whatever punishment she gets, be it STD, baby, or AIDS, and God have mercy on her soul if she tries to circumvent either.
Click to expand...

I agree. When we do it, it must be fun.
 
I think that sex abstinence is good. Yes. You can teach your children to abstain from having sex, and it works. Till you get 16, or 18 and start going out at night, drinking and dancing, and girls start rubbing them on you no matter how uncool you are. It happens. It happened to me, being a geeky nerd who dressed poorly. One minute you're justthere, the other you're superplusgoodthere. I was caught a little bit unadvised by sex, I mean, the girl was a bit eager to consummate the act itself, and I had no condom at the time. But she took pills, she said. Of course I didn't remember a damn thing about not doing sex unless you have a condom. I just did it. A year later, she aborted. Now I'm quite happy about it, in fact, even though it went against all that I thought to be sacred those days. I'm quite happy that I didn't end marrying a bitch like her. But I learned not to trust anything else than a blood test, a condom, and yourself, regarding sex. No, sex abstinence only works on the short term. Like, in the 8 hours work you have. Even then it's hard, I know of people who got pregnant by banging the manager during lunchtime. Once, she swears. I can imagine what's going on that Palin (sp?) girl's mind, like "oh my bloopers, it was just once, i'm still virgin, he said it was only the head". According to the Superficial, (not really a scientific source, but wth) the guy...

thesuperficial said:
On a MySpace page subsequently taken down, Johnston boasts, "I'm a ****in' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes.
"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some **** and just ****in' chillin' I guess."
"Ya **** with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.
He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."
Click to expand...
The highlight is mine, of course. I guess he told her, forcing himself upon her, that same phrase. Like, "Palin, dude, like, if you f... with me I'll kick your ass" and she was like "no" but he insisted and then they were like, doing stuff.

The mental images hurt.

Use condoms. And pills. Together. Or just have a vasectomy.
 
Last edited:
Miss B.Palin would not have recived an abstinence only education. So if we are going to consider this a problem with the abstinence only aproach it would appear that schools can't do much about abstinence only parents. Which is not unreasonable. If your parents will react badly to finding you with a condom there may be a problem.
 
Abstinence-only sex education is a contradiction.

You don't have driver's education without getting behind the wheel, do you?
 
Professor Yaffle said:
The thing is, much as we all like to blame abstinence only programmes for teenagers getting pregnant, they seem to be no better and no worse than any other type of classroom based programme.

Some references included in this article:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_anything_work_in_sex_education/

ETA:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/324/7351/1426
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I think what bugs me most about the abstinence-only program is that it is forced to be inaccurate and misleading in order to promote the religious agenda and it includes anti-gay education - at least in my district. This means that I have to specifically address the misinformation my kids are taught at school (not that I wouldn't have to anyway) and it undermines trust, regardless of whether other methods are more or less effective.

Linda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom