POLL: Abstinence classes - pointless?

Remove all ads!

A new Study suggests that kids taking abstinence classes are just as likely to have sex than kids who don't.

I can't say I'm surprised. Are you?

[ April 16, 2007, 20:16: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 29 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Abstince classes - pointless? (29 votes.)

Abstince classes - pointless? (Choose 1)
* Surprised? - 3% (1)
* Unsurprised? - 97% (28)

 

Well they're not being taught any pertinent reason not to have sex in those abstinence classes. Most kids aren't going to care that sex should be saved for marriage, should be saved for real love, or whatever else schools are telling them now days. Even talk of STDs aren't enough to scare people from sex as most kids don't think it will happen to them.

 

An exhortation to abstinence should be part of a sex education program. As VD is a public health issue (not a religious issue), an abstinence only educational solution is not only irresponsible but ineffective, as reflected by the study. Excluding abstinence from sexual education programs would also be irresponsible.

 

I'm not surprised.

I agree that abstinance ought to be included in Sex education classes, and Drew also neglected teenage pregnancies. That has to be more than just a religious issue...

Mind you, some kids believe, as Ilmater's Suffering pointed out, that it won't happen to them, therefore, I don't see kids abstaining. That's hard to teach even in religion...

 

At my school they don't give us an abstinance class, so I really can't make a judgement. They do give us an HIV/AIDS thing every year that advises abstinance, but isn't limited to that. They say if you feel the need for some fornication, first build up your fortifications.

[ April 15, 2007, 09:15: Message edited by: ChickenIsGood ]

 

I'm reminded of a quote from former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil regarding abortion: "If you're not going to listen to your parents or your priest, why on earth should we expect you to listen to a politician?"

Replace "politician" with "teacher" and you get my point.

 

I think it's disgusting that the government is spending money to try and teach children some religiously backed mumbo-jumbo that having sex before marriage is a bad thing.

So people have sex before marriage, whoop-de-doo, it's only harmful when someone gets an STD or there's a child who only grows up with one parent. The act of sex itself isn't the bad thing.

Still, can't say I'm surprised about the results. It's impossible to condition people to not have sex before marriage unless you attach some type of punishment to inflict upon those who have sex before marriage.

 

i agree with abomination.

teach the kids to use protection, such as condomes. an advice them on how to know when they are ready to have sex, because this very a lot from person to person.

teenage pregnancy are and will allways be a rarety when the teens know how to protect them self and what happends when not protecting them self.

abstinenes is silly and teaching it instead of teaching the kids to use protection seems to lead to more teen pregnancies then the opposit.

 

Wait...authority figures tell teens to abstain from sex - and the kids don't listen?....Shocking! I've always found it to be strikingly naive for educators to think that they could thwart such a potent biological drive. Were they never teenagers?

A sex education class should offer all available information on the subject so that kids have the capacity to make the best possible choices. Of course, any good sex ed. class would include information on the benefits of abstinence.

I'm glad to see such a consensus here, hopefully it reflects the attitude of the population in general and abstinence only sex ed. will be abandoned as the failed effort it is.

 

The modern culture tells children to have as much sex as they can and at the earliest they can, as well. The modern culture teaches it doesn't matter if you like the other person, let alone love him, but what matters is a hot ass or not even that, but simply a good shag. That's crap, but it takes long to figure out.

At any rate, what I've been trying to say is that the lone instructor teaching abstinence in a separate class kids don't want to attend, and probably teaching it with little internal conviction (does the teacher abstain or did he?), how is that teacher going to compete with the whole paradigm of modern culture?

Kids won't be taught out of promiscuity until the whole extended sex industry, including Holywood and cloth makers, is cracked down on and the sexual saturation is defeated. If kids are bombarded with sexual messages and sexualised fashions, amplified by peer pressure (and whoever is pressured, pressures on others, so the circle closes), how are they supposed to defy that on their own? Besides, it's schizophrenical on the one hand to allow children to be bombarded with that and on the other hand to want them to be responsible and not to be sexual maniacs.

The culture of losing virginity before 18th birthday or being a sucker, must stop.

Oh, just FYI, my 24th is soon and I don't friggen' care. In fact, I'm happy this way.

 

I still don't see what's wrong with having sexual intercourse at an early age.

 

It's not the act itself as the relations. Young people are not prepared and it can hurt their mental growth.

 

Hurt their mental growth?

Heck, ask that Italian lass who had a court order on her about having to have an abortion. We discussed that a fair bit and the only real consensus was about her life being drastically changed for the worse, regardless.

Mind you, kids typically are 'raised' in ignorance of consequences in general, so sexual relations specifically aren't the problem. The whole culture of 'not my fault' is...

 

Didn't hurt my mental growth one bit...

 

I'm not surprised. I saw a similar study about one year ago.

Instead of dealing with abstinance courses, it dealt with people taking abstinance vows at parochial schools. To be fair the study did find that people who took the vows were slightly less likely to have sex than people who did not. However, the people who signed the vows were MORE likely to engage in anal and oral sex, as opposed to intercourse.

Guess the students found a loophole in the vow ... and if not a loophole certainly a different hole ...

IMO, it would be silly to NOT teach abstinance, but unless you can develop a 100% foolproof system (and I think we can agree that such a system does not exist), then it seems logical to develop some type of contingency plan. The contingency plan being to teach protection. Tell kids, we'd rather you would be good, but if you can't be good, at least be safe.

 

I'm not surprised since irresponsibility seems to be so prevalant these days. If it feels good do it, the consequences be damned is the mantra. Chevalier has it right. The culture of immorality and irresponsibility that has been pushed by Hollywood and the media in general since the sixties is very destructive to all, especially the young.

Good morals don't have to be tied to religion. They are just common sense. Unfortunately common sense seems to be a rare commodity in today's crass "me first" culture.

 

Dinsdale,
before blaming Hollywood, it isn't any different in other western countries where people watch much less US movies. Spare me this talking point. What conservatives find difficult to stomach is that technical advantage, the pill, has changed the western sexual culture fundamentally. It is now possible for girls to have sex without risking unwanted pregnancies that would at least significantly shake up their lives. And it is probably there to stay. You cannot uninvent the pill. One can argue the changes of the 'sexual revolution' were to the worse. But don't blame Hollywood and 'the media' for weman taking the pill. That's ludicrous on the face of it.
In my impression people are actually much more conservative about sex than your evil bogeymen media and cinema suggest. Most people I know have sex in pre-marital relationships. They don't hump around like merry bunnies.

And yes, sex does feel good. It's easy to get carried away in passion hormones wreak havoc on the mind That's just a fact. That's why preparing the kids somehow is much better than telling them 'Don't do it' and leave it at that. Same for the moronic idea to refuse to give HPV vaccine shots against cervical cancer to girls because it would 'encourage promiscuity'. Yeah sure! They will all head down to Florida “having fun”, be “on the loose” or whatever.

That 'abstinent' children went over to oral sex is just priceless in the context of abstinence classes. Oral sex spreads herpes and other diseases. Congratulate Bush for making Clintonesque elaborations on what's sex mainstream.

Just consider the potential of STD's as a deterrent against pre-marital sex in general, after all it is an established fact that once you marry a heavenly blessing makes you immune. How about that: STD's like HPV are manifestations of the Wrath of the Lord. Ban condoms, too, and you can add to that list.

That is at the very least convenient. When a girl gets preggers it's her fault, and the boy's. Now that's a surprise. I always thought you get pregnant when you marry. And if a woman gets uterus cancer later in life, probably because she was promisc. Great knowing that. As compassionate christians, let's pray for her not going to purgatory for too long. Maybe there is a way to reckon up her suffering from cancer with her term in the fire pit. Based on that one can consider refusing her chemo therapy, for her own good.

How does preaching abstinence help kids? It is anyway so self-evident that it is amazing it needs preaching. How does that insight that had they been abstinent they wouldn't have had children help prevent unwanted teenager pregancies, or cervical cancer? Uh, never mind. I have a hard time to swallow that what's calling itself 'compassionate conservatives' are simply indifferent toward that.

If you need to do religious classes, there is ample time and occasion for that in sunday school or in church, or religion classes in school if your country has that. It has, just like creationism has no place in biology classes, no place in sex education.

[ April 17, 2007, 11:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

People being against the HPV vaccine is probably my favorite on the list of choosing ignorance over reality. Bill Maher covered that in a show recently (bolded part added by me):

Which pretty much sums up my feelings on that issue too.

Well, I think the problem is not necessarily preaching abstinance, but teaching abstinance from a religious POV. The problem is rather the motivation behind why they teach it. It's OK to say that it is wise to abstain, but not that the reason why you should is because it's sinful.

 

Aldeth,

I agree strongly.