Eh, I went through a stupidly religious abstinence program and, being 13, it basically made me decide *not* to abstain, so maybe he is partially right. I know plenty of people who have chosen to wait and that is perfectly okay so long as it is a choice. To be taught only one side - particularly that side - of the choice, though, is flat out stupid, and people who go through abstinence-only programs that don't educate on the anatomy of sex, safe sex, and safety nets of all kinds are typically ignorant in these matters. Only by my own choice have I taken anatomy courses and learned about sex in an educational setting since I was 13, and that's not how it should be. So yeah, krellin might be right.

As for semck, I know plenty of relationships, one of my own included, that have deteriorated as a result of ignorance when it comes to sex. Abstinence programs do not adequately teach about sex and that is how they are damaging.

Great! I'll just continue living in blissful ignorance.

Seems extremely likely.

Having sex is good for you. There is amole evidence of immune system benefits, reduced cancer rates, improved mental health outcomes.

Having emotionally healthy relationships is an important consideration, and this can happen within marriage. Though increasingly (in western europe at least among my peers) people are having long-term monogamous relationships without getting married (despite all the tax breaks).

However sex ed tends to ignore a lot of the relationship advice, or emotional health side of things and instead focuses exclusively on physical health. (I know there are others on this thread who would prefer to look at this from a spiritual perspective, but i don't know what spirit is, so i can't honestly advocate for it; i hope most of what you mean is covered by emotional, mental and physical health) But we know there is a brain-body connection, and you can't just talk about physical health in isolation. Sex (and other physical contact, like holding hands, hugging and kissing) triggers the release of hormones (mainly oxcytocin, dopamine and seratonin) these go on to affect the brain, and are an important part of forming emotional bonds between partners (and likewise between friends) - we also know from studies of breast feeding that babies and mothers who breast feed get considerable doses of oxcytocin - and this is understood to be an important part of mother-child bonding (though oxcytocin is often called the love hormone, i've seen studies directly linking it to trust, not love... I suspect it is useful in developing loving relationships, because they are usually built on trust, but i don't think that necessarily makes oxcytocin sufficient for love...)

I don't think we should talk about sex without talking about love; we should recognise that they are seperate, and how to protect ourselves emotionally as well as physically. Love and sec are seperate but related.

Also, imo, from a practical point of view, learning to have good sex requires practice - and usually with the same partner; everyone is different and likes different things. So i would recommend lots of sex with one person if you want to have a good sex life. Lots if practice, lots of communication of needs/wants, and lots of honesty.

I don't know how you can have a comprehensive sex ed curriculum without these elements.

I understand where you're coming from, bo. Please understand what I'm saying. I advocate abstinence because abstinence is entirely effective at producing the best possible result. I understand abstinence programs are not as effective as other programs because abstinence programs say "don't have sex at all" while other programs say "have all the sex you want, just do these x things to prevent y side effects"

I am making a difference between abstinence as an act and abstinence as a program. The church should and must stick with an abstinence program because there are other spiritual issues that arise with extra-marital sex.

When dealing with those outside of the church, such spiritual issues are not the primary concern, so focus should be placed on reducing negative physical outcomes like unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

What I am further saying is that there are NO negative side effects to abstinence. I am NOT saying that abstinence programs carry no negative side effects (again, note the difference between abstinence as an act and abstinence as a program).

However, all that said, this colorado experiment is in health outcomes, not educational ones. And it should be seen as such.

If the overall health and well-being of individuals ( whether teens or otherwise ) is improved. Reduced rates of abortions and other complications, then it should be supported. As a simple matter of evidence driven policy.

If it is shown to increase STI rates then there is some question as to the long-term cost. And this evidence should also be taken into account. ( though, as far as i can tell, there hasn't been an increase in unprotected sex )

" I advocate abstinence because abstinence is entirely effective at producing the best possible result."

I entirely disagree with this claim.

It sounds to me like you are encouraging celibacy - especially for those who don't want to get married. But even in principle, i don't believe marriage is an important consideration when it comes to having sex.

Well explained distinction Tru, fair enough.

Just as I expected, TN deliberately ignored what I said about *abstinence-only* programs. But he still wants to preach on in his holier-than-thou way. Keep on dancing around the issue, TN.

Jeff, what are you talking about?

Your previous substantive post really makes no sense that I can discern.

"Then keep fighting the good fight against ridiculous abstinence-only sex-ed programs. Providing facts, even though you denigrate them as "programs that promote pre-marital sex", is the right thing to do."

You're criticizing Tru for arguing *against* abstinence-only programs? Isn't that what you're doing too?

As a twenty-two year old male, I would be highly in favor of more willing and safe sex partners. So teach all the sexually frustrated young women about contraceptives and set them lose. That said, I also support the idea that abstinence should be INCLUDED in sex education and explained along more than purely religious lines. There are several arguments about why abstinence, especially in teens, produces favorable results. Any sex-ed program worth its paper budget also needs to teach about contraceptives and everything else. Teaching abstinence only is stupid.

It's not a terribly accurate comparison, but when health classes teach about the effects of alcohol or tobacco, they don't just spout the line, "Just say No." Even though they (at least with tobacco) encourage students not to use it, they still provide informational content beyond the purely negative effects of addiction. Sex isn't even an illegal drug.

"Sex isn't even an illegal drug."

I think that is part of the problem - at least drugs can be argued as unnatural - sex is perfectly natural and normal; thus 'they' have every reason to fear people will lose themselves in the pure unadulterated fun of it...

There are some religious folk who seem to think that God is the only reason they do/don't do anything. And by projection (ie assuming that others are like them) they conclude that the only way to prevent such base behaviour is to teach about the sacredness of sex ( which historically was meant as a way of controling women's sexuality ) and explain how their magical ceremony tirns sex into a good thig!

Ok, i seem to have drifted into caricature... Please note my anti-'magical thinking' bias here.

I would definitely say that 'as much sex as you want', sounds rather unfair - but is accurate.

I do not imagine "...more willing and safe sex partners. So teach all the sexually frustrated young women about contraceptives and set them lose. "

A part of sex ed must be "it is ok to say No." That is an emphasis on consent. But as such As much as you want, also means abstinence if you want.

It means "As much OR little as you want" - i would go further and teach about masturbation, and again teach as much or little, also this counts as sex for many purposes, but likely keeps you safe from emotional entanglement, pregnancy AND STIs (while also discussing the minor issue of addiction, because like alcohol, gambling, and many drugs, about 5-10% of the population tends to have a prety big addiction risk - which likely has a genetic basis - on this tobacco seems to be rather unusual in that it has something more like a 90-100% addiction rate)

@smeck: I'm not sure *what* jeff kuta is arguing about. I think he's arguing just to argue. He hasn't really taken the time to read my posts. He's just taking a stance against me just to do it, really.

@Jeff Kuta: I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor do I have any idea what issue you have with my comments thus far. I sense a great deal of hostility coming from you that I feel is unwarranted. As such, I won't take the time to reply to you if it simply invites more hostility.

@ora:
"If the overall health and well-being of individuals ( whether teens or otherwise ) is improved. Reduced rates of abortions and other complications, then it should be supported. As a simple matter of evidence driven policy."

completely agree. well said.

"It sounds to me like you are encouraging celibacy"

if, by celibacy, you mean it's definition as choosing to never marry or have sexual contact, then I support it if the individual chooses this route.
If you mean something else, then I doubt I'm supporting it. What I'm supporting is the Christian view, that if someone is a Christian, they should abstain from sex until after they are married. If the person in question is a non-Christian, then I still support abstinence for those that can handle it, but I am equally in support of proposing such a method as 2wl mentioned. It's reasonable, it protects all parties involved, and prevents unwanted side-effects.

While I believe that abstinence is the best approach, and am an advocate of it, I also understand that abstinence is a Christian view (among other religions, so it may be fair to say that abstinence is primarily a religious view).

I also understand that most people are not Christian (or many people are not religious where such a religion calls for abstinence outside the confines of marriage).

As such, it's not fair to force the world to abide by Christian morality. For this reason, I don't support legislation that prevents most forms of birth control. The birth controls I am opposed to are those like abortion and birth controls that are equivalent to abortion because I believe that life begins at conception (joining of the egg with the sperm, to be clear).


I hope that clears things up.

@TN: You have been very careful to distinguish between abstinence and "abstinence programs." You have also not taken a position on "abstinence-only programs" which are the most controversial subset of sex ed programs. This is the issue I believe you have been dancing around.

So, to be clear: Do you favor "abstinence-only programs" over "abstinence programs"? Or are they one in the same to you?

There is nothing wrong with a program on abstinence, it simply cannot be based on abstinence. Abstinence is one subset of choices, nothing more. Tru said that, Jeff.

Jeff,

Tru has been pretty clear. It really seems like you're just itching for a fight in this thread.

Agreed, Jeff is either being deliberately obtuse or he sucks at reading.

No one has answered my clear questions, not even TN who really is the only one who can answer it, at any point in this topic.

Sunday at 7 pm post by TN:
Abstinence programs, however, are a different story. They will never be as effective as programs that promote pre-marital sex.

That should be pretty clear as a position against abstinence-only programs vs programs that provide other options to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

@jeff kuta: for Christians, I highly favor abstinence only programs. For non Christians, I'm in favor of programs that reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions

@Tru: so do you think Bristol Palin is a good example? I mean, she has been paid lots of money to promote Abstinence Only education, and has two children of her own. She is seen as a Christian, and Absstinence Only education hasn't forced her into marrying either of the fathers of her children...

It is only the 'for Christians' but i'm picking at.

I mean, surely what we want is comprehensive sex ed for all. And then also send your Christians to some kind of Sunday School which teaches them of the merits of pre-marital abstinence? (I don't have a problem with abstinence only education, so long as it is alongside other education...)

(As an aside on Bristol Palin: www.huffingtonpost.com/chelsea-stone/bristol-palin-stop-judgin_b_7715704.html )

@yaleunc: I don't think it was clear that TN was advocating for "abstinence only" programs all along, but now it is.

@TruNinja: This is the conundrum for public schools. Most of them have decided it is appropriate to have a sex education curriculum. But when Christians gain control of boards of education, they often foist an admittedly worse "abstinence only" curriculum on the entire school body. It may be democratic, but it surely provides worse outcomes.

At this point, sex ed classes will have to teach about sodomy.

Nice attempt at changing the subject. We originally started out with a pregnancy prevention thread and abstinence-only sex education fails miserably at that.

But sodomy won't result in pregnancy, so that's a good thing, right?

Slippery slope much? Sex education should teach sex. Anatomy, consequences, positive and negative, and safety nets. Professionals should be asked to guest-teach about rape and clear up the perpetual misogyny (and misandry in some instances) that plague the victims. Very simple. Abstinence can be taught as a way to avoid all of the positive and negative aspects of sex entirely, but it should be taught as a choice, not a requirement. Teach that sex is an issue of unilateral consent as the conclusion to the curriculum.

I just wrote you a sex ed curriculum and I don't see sodomy in there.

"At this point, sex ed classes will have to teach about sodomy."

Always be sure to get a verbal "baaa" before initiating sexual contact with your partner.

@bo: slippery slope?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hawaiian-public-schools-must-teach-contraception-sodomy-in-sex-ed-classes

Right. So "opt out" if you don't like the curriculum. It's right there in your article.