Teen Abstinence

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

I think open-mindedness is very important.

Just remember, Smintz, that "permanant" open-mindedness is also a belief choice, just like Christianity or atheism

I think everyone SHOULD carefully consider different worldviews. However, after enough time, a CHOICE to not make a decision is just that - a CHOICE - and it is NOT any more openminded than choosing atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, or any other worldview, IMO. Do you see what I mean? What do you think?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

Once again assuming a christian perspective (which to me is basically the same as saying "hypothetically...") I would state that if God did create us, well, he created us the way we are. It is natural and healthy for a human to get sexual feelings.... arousal is atleast a sign of functioning. However, people who willingly pursue sex disgust me.

I totally agree with you on all 3 sentences

Yeah, people seem to give themselves much more leniency when "outside of marriage" means not married at all, compared to meaning married but with another person. Cheating is considered a pretty bad thing to do pretty widely, and I think it is much less accepted by the secular population than having sex with other partners before being married, which it shouldn't be, since to me they are quite the same.

I agree with you except for one thing - the only difference I see is that in a marriage, there is an additional element of breaking a vow.

The world is populous with disgusting pig people, christian or not, I've seen my fair share from both sides of the religion line.

Sadly, too true But remember the people that do beautiful things, too. Pain and ugliness are a reality in this world, but so are beauty and love and courage and sacrifice and joy.

Too many people pursue religion from the outside in, but change has to happen from the inside out.

Absolutely!

When teenagers form and end relationships on a whim, I think they often grow into adults living in this same basis, until they find someone who they believe they won't have the "whim" to leave, calling this trust in their own feelings "love". However, when one lives like this, based on emotions, you are affected by emotional fluctuations a lot and are used to reacting based on them. To me, this isn't love. A loving relationship isn't based on these infatuations, but, in my opinion, is more like a commited friendship than anything else. A lifelong friendship with sex as a perk. I think genuine empathy and selfless (if anything can truly be selfess) concern are key elements. Even if they completely leave you forever, wishing the best for them.

I think this is very insightful, Smintz.

Right now, I am thinking that there is no such thing as "unrequited love". I feel love for people I don't even know, and I feel love for people who barely know me. To me, loving someone and them loving me do not neccessarily correlate - unless in a romantic sense, in which case I think there is mutual generic love followed by, under the right conditions, romantic/sexual feelings and attachment, but unless the feeling is mutual then to me it is the same love as loving a stranger or another person just for being who they are, and so it doesn't matter if it is unrequited, nor should it be expected to be "requited". Just really valuing what you see in a person and caring more about this person than yourself to where you don't really even exist, you just want to help this person or you just want their life to go well or for them to find contentment. Sometimes I just feel a real.... humanity just watching some people. Even if they don't notice me.

I agree with this.

Very insightful post, Sminty! And I apologize again for being an insensitive clod and just jumping on the "safe sex" comment instead of welcoming you back I'm sorry - I'm just so angry about the "safe sex" phrase, because I think it's misleading, in a VERY dangerous way, to the people that hear it When I logged on the Moot, I saw your name and was very surprised and pleased! Then I read the post, got my button pushed, and acted like a jerk. I'm sorry, and I'm very glad to see you back!

[Starr Polish]

Using the term "safe sex" is no more misleading than being a told to be a "safe driver." You may wear your seatbelt, use all your turn signals and follow the laws, but you may still crash and end up getting injured. You're just taking precautions to prevent it from happening.

[Valandil]

Our first grade son is in a public school. There's a 7th grade girl in our church who had to place a condom on a cucumber for sex ed at her school. I find that troublesome.

I don't know at what grade they start teaching sex ed, or if they do the 'cucumber thing' at our son's school. However, I intend to find out soon.

I don't want my son's female classmates to think of him as a cucumber.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Our first grade son is in a public school. There's a 7th grade girl in our church who had to place a condom on a cucumber for sex ed at her school. I find that troublesome.

I don't know at what grade they start teaching sex ed, or if they do the 'cucumber thing' at our son's school. However, I intend to find out soon.

I don't want my son's female classmates to think of him as a cucumber.

i'll agree that's kind of goofy... especially for a girl... but i've already told my ten-year-old boy the basics... though i didn't find a demonstration necessary... it isn't that difficult to visualize

[Nurvingiel]

*de-lurks*

I agree with you about safe sex Starr. I would be cheesed if someone actually thought condoms were 100% sprm/STD-proof, and therefore they could have sex wherever whenever, but that's more being annoyed about that person's ignorance (and being worried about them hurting themselves) than with the term 'safe sex'.

Erm... Valandil... what is it about the cucumber thing that bothers you? I mean, 12-year-olds, I'm sure, can understand that the cucumber represents a penis, it is not the thing you actually put the condom on.

One reason the sex ed teachers might have chosen the cucumber is to dispel that silly 'I'm too big to wear a condom' myth.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Erm... Valandil... what is it about the cucumber thing that bothers you?

Fostering unrealistic expectations??

On a serious note - I think acting that out will change a young lady's way of thinking. For one - it is more than subtle encouragement to do the kinds of things for which you would NEED that practice. It also turns their thoughts un-necessarily in that direction... and the thoughts become much stronger when reinforced by that action, IMO. In other words, to have it simply described will foster certain thoughts... and to some extent, I could agree that this is part of responsible sex education. However - to have the girls physically place it over a cucumber takes it a step further. It makes it easier for them to visualize... or involves them more deeply in the notion... or something.

I'm not sure I'm expressing my concerns very well... maybe it's more a 'gut level' thing than a conscious one, and I'm trying to frame it in a conscious way.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Fostering unrealistic expectations??

On a serious note - I think acting that out will change a young lady's way of thinking. For one - it is more than subtle encouragement to do the kinds of things for which you would NEED that practice. It also turns their thoughts un-necessarily in that direction... and the thoughts become much stronger when reinforced by that action, IMO. In other words, to have it simply described will foster certain thoughts... and to some extent, I could agree that this is part of responsible sex education. However - to have the girls physically place it over a cucumber takes it a step further. It makes it easier for them to visualize... or involves them more deeply in the notion... or something.

I'm not sure I'm expressing my concerns very well... maybe it's more a 'gut level' thing than a conscious one, and I'm trying to frame it in a conscious way.

you do have a point... i think there is a fine line between teaching your children honestly about sex and teaching them specifically how to "perform" it

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

you do have a point... i think there is a fine line between teaching your children honestly about sex and teaching them specifically how to "perform" it

YAY!!!

*wipes away a tear*

A liberal and a conservative see 'eye-to-eye' on something! Maybe we can pull this country back together after all!

[Janny]

*YAY!s with Val.*

*And points out that he had actually said that a while back, but everyone disagreed.*

Of course, the real issue of the cucumber is that it is a bizarre inversion of seeing women as objects...

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Valandil

On a serious note - I think acting that out will change a young lady's way of thinking. For one - it is more than subtle encouragement to do the kinds of things for which you would NEED that practice. It also turns their thoughts un-necessarily in that direction... and the thoughts become much stronger when reinforced by that action, IMO. In other words, to have it simply described will foster certain thoughts... and to some extent, I could agree that this is part of responsible sex education. However - to have the girls physically place it over a cucumber takes it a step further. It makes it easier for them to visualize... or involves them more deeply in the notion... or something.

Also, it's a really embarassing thing to do in a classroom situation. I know because our school used bananas. And however much the teacher says you have to act in a mature and grown-up way, it makes it difficult for those children who are more 'innocent' about sex and who don't particularly want to think about it at that age.

It's a gut reaction with me as well, not something I can explain very well. A child shouldn't have to imagine themselves in that situation at that age, or be encouraged to do so.

[Nurvingiel]

LOL Val and Brownie, see, there's hope for the USA yet!

Okay, I understand your misgivings about the cucumber (both humorous and otherwise ). Maybe 12 is a little young to learn how to put on a condom. But I think kids will not pay attention to something that isn't important in their lives.

I mean, I sure didn't take sex ed seriously when I was 12. It was kind of a waste of time IMO.

[brownjenkins]

my point is that there really isn't that much to "learn" about putting on a condom that it needs to be practiced... it should be taught, but not in a way that is bound to make people feel uncomfortable... a big part about sex ed is making kids comfortable with talking about sex with adults... silly metaphors don't help... it makes the kids think that they can't talk about the real thing and must use "fruit" or something instead

another issue is that the boy should be the one who learns to put on a condom... do they make boys practice certain female methods of contraception application (i.e. diaphram)?

i'll spare you any food analogies on that one

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Using the term "safe sex" is no more misleading than being a told to be a "safe driver." You may wear your seatbelt, use all your turn signals and follow the laws, but you may still crash and end up getting injured. You're just taking precautions to prevent it from happening.

I disagree with you, Starr. From what I've seen and read, teens, esp., have a mindset that using a condom will protect them more than it actually does (both from pregnancy and STDs), and I think the term "safe sex" helps to foster this false and very dangerous idea.

[Insidious Rex]

Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.

Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.

McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.

Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.

President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years.

Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.

Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.

Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.

Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.

Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

. . . .

[Insidious Rex]

I felt this (above) was important enough to post here. 11 out of 13 federally funded abstinence only programs use “unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods� to the children in their care. And this is paid for by our tax dollars at the behest of the Bush administration. Talk about agenda at all costs… I hope the abstinence only people find this as alarming as I do. Isn’t it shooting yourself in the foot? I think the concept of abstinence CAN be a useful tool in the COMPLETE sex education arsenal. But why the tricks and manipulations and hard core political agenda promotion at all costs? Why the attempt to completely white wash any of the other important aspects in educating our kids as to what they need to be aware of because of some people’s particular moral and/or religious fundamentals in a public school setting at tax payers expense. It reminds me of the stealth attempt to teach creationism in public schools by calling it "Intelligent Design". Really quite disturbing.

[Starr Polish]

While I have no problem with presenting creationism as a possibility (honestly, why do people get so riled up about intelligent design...if done correctly it does not prescribe to one single faith), the rest of the article is disturbing. It IS shooting oneself in the foot. Example:

Teacher: You can get STDs from toilet seats and kissing makes you pregnant!

Student: Meep! ::student proceeds to kiss guy later, doesn't get pregnant:: Wow, that wasn't true, so EVERYTHING ELSE they told me is a lie, too. I can't get pregnant if I have sex standing up. ::bada bing, bada boom, brand new baby boy::

[Nurvingiel]

Oh my goodness, that's horrible IRex! Teens are lied to enough as it is.

There's nothing wrong with abstinence, but it's not the be-all-end-all of safe sex practices. (And I think you can say safe sex like you can say safe driving - driving safely doesn't mean you'll never have an accident.)

And lying gets you nowhere, all the people did in this case was undermine the idea of abstinence.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree with you, Starr. From what I've seen and read, teens, esp., have a mindset that using a condom will protect them more than it actually does (both from pregnancy and STDs), and I think the term "safe sex" helps to foster this false and very dangerous idea.

Um...condoms do protect from pregnancy and STDs...so that makes no sense to me. Obviously they don't work 100% of the time, but neither do seatbelts.

And Nurv, people actually use that myth? If a guy said that to me, I'd look at him and go "if you're that big you'll kill me."

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

While I have no problem with presenting creationism as a possibility (honestly, why do people get so riled up about intelligent design...if done correctly it does not prescribe to one single faith)

because its an attempt to teach in public schools a "science" for which even its authors admit there is NO evidence. how can you justify that exactly? if you are going to teach creationism then youll also need to teach any other wacked out theory based on any other religion. cant be done. keep it in the comperative religion class NOT the biology class. as for it being independent of religion, come on now...