From what I've found online, such as HERE, it seems a lot like schools' health programs have been overrun by abstinence only policies. Eventually, teachers were required to teach a mix of scare tactics and misinformation. I honestly cannot believe what these schools have come to. They overlooked basic logic, arriving to the conclusion that teens don't have sex if you tell them not to.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be taught about the potential dangers of sex, but that an abstinence only approach doesn't work to prevent the spread of STIs and unwanted pregnancies, and could actually worsen the situation.
Here's my reasoning of why it doesn't work, feel free to add your own or prove me wrong. I want to see what people think:
1.
Some people are going to have sex, no matter well the schools run a scare campaign. This could be because of apathy towards the program or the realization that it IS a scare campaign. The problem is that when people learn they were being taught exaggerations, they tend to start downplaying that teaching. Then, people have sex, ignoring the potential dangers.
2.
If they do realize there is a danger, they don't know what to do about it. Scare campaigns don't work if the danger can be reduced (e.g. condoms, the pill, etc). So you end up with people having sex not knowing how to protect themselves from the dangers.
Again, I'm not against teaching the dangers of sex (STIs, pregnancy, etc), and that abstinence is the only 100% protection, (condoms rate 98% with perfect use, the pill at 99.7%). I'm just against teaching that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself from those dangers.
From the freak on your keyboard.
Well a former Hitler Youth that revels in the raping of deaf boys told me that condoms actually make aids spread more.
At 6/13/11 10:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well a former Hitler Youth that revels in the raping of deaf boys told me that condoms actually make aids spread more.
Nice. You might want to make sure that said former Hitler Youth that revels in the raping of deaf boys is a good source.
From the freak on your keyboard.
now the kids leave feeling guilty about their natural instincts! why haven't we done this earlier?
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 6/13/11 10:13 PM, qwertyfreak wrote: Nice. You might want to make sure that said former Hitler Youth that revels in the raping of deaf boys is a good source.
Well he is the Pope...
From the freak on your keyboard.
Pfffft, what are you, a professional analyst? Ok sure you can tell the effect but hypothetical situations are idea's not facts.
But yah the entire health class is that, scare tactics for drugs for example, like they had to pull out a bunch of crap to make it look bad, biggest tactic being taking a heavy smoker and scanning him, then imply they're like all smokers, then scan a normal brain and compare it. It was so stupid that they mentioned that it lowers your sperm count, something I don't understand, isn't that a good idea when you're young to reduce the chances of impregnating someone? I mean if later one it repairs and you get higher sperm counts then nothing is lost.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
I agree with you.
The abstinence-only policy, in my opinion, has been disproven as a means of effective sex education. I'm a proponent of the more reputable comprehensive sex education approach. It's much more reliable than the abstinence approach insofar that it realistically expects most teens to have sex/sexual encounters and attempts to prepare and equip them with adequate knowledge about the dangers of sex and how to safely avoid them.
The abstinence-only approach practically assumes that teenagers are in control of their hormone levels, which is simply not true.
I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss
At 6/13/11 09:58 PM, qwertyfreak wrote: Again, I'm not against teaching the dangers of sex (STIs, pregnancy, etc), and that abstinence is the only 100% protection, (condoms rate 98% with perfect use, the pill at 99.7%). I'm just against teaching that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself from those dangers.
Name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.
Meanwhile....
The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) showed an uptick in abstinence among 15- to-24-year-olds. It revealed 29.9 percent of men had not had any sexual contact ever, while 28.3 percent of women had abstained.
In the 2002 NSFG, only 22.7 percent of women and 22.6 percent of men reported they were abstinent. The survey defines "sexual contact" as engaging in vaginal, oral or anal sex with an opposite sex or same-sex partner.
....
The NSFG, which aims to assess the overall sexual behavior, sexual attraction and sexual identity of 15- to-44-year-old Americans, polled 13,495 men and women over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008 using a random sample from the U.S. household population. The interviewing technique used allowed those surveyed to enter in their answers without the knowledge of the interviewer.
At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote:At 6/13/11 09:58 PM, qwertyfreak wrote: Again, I'm not against teaching the dangers of sex (STIs, pregnancy, etc), and that abstinence is the only 100% protection, (condoms rate 98% with perfect use, the pill at 99.7%). I'm just against teaching that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself from those dangers.Name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.
Masturbation, handjobs (assuming you don't have cuts on your hands).
But why lie to them and why keep these scare tactics.
Something the OP might like
At 6/14/11 12:52 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:
Where the blue hell did you come from?
But why lie to them and why keep these scare tactics.
Because it's a cheaper way to discourage them from having kids than forcing them to work at Toys R Us during the summer for minimum wage.
At 6/14/11 01:04 AM, Proteas wrote:At 6/14/11 12:52 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:Where the blue hell did you come from?
But why lie to them and why keep these scare tactics.Because it's a cheaper way to discourage them from having kids than forcing them to work at Toys R Us during the summer for minimum wage.
There's nothing stopping you from discouraging them from having kids and telling them about birth control.
What about schools that teach both? When I was in high school, we learned about birth control but the program stressed abstinence. And it was absolutely correct that it's the only 100% way to prevent STDs and pregnancy. I realize abstinence-only programs are unrealistic but I have no issues with a program that teaches both.
At 6/14/11 02:46 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: What about schools that teach both? When I was in high school, we learned about birth control but the program stressed abstinence. And it was absolutely correct that it's the only 100% way to prevent STDs and pregnancy. I realize abstinence-only programs are unrealistic but I have no issues with a program that teaches both.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It's fine to stress the dangers, but I'm against teaching abstinence as the only way to stay safe.
From the freak on your keyboard.
It doesn't matter if your ends are good, conveying misinformation is NEVER an acceptable means of achieving any kind of end. We saw it in McCarthyism and we see it here. I don't care what the intentions are, the bigger issue here is an intentional strike against the integrity of our educational system. Abstinence should be taught, but with proper context, and with alternative viewpoints offered.
There is a common misconception among abstinence only and pro-lifers about their more liberal counterparts. Both of these groups blindly, naively and very much incorrectly assume that the other side has different goals.
People who teach comprehensive sex ed would like if everyone stopped having promiscuous sex until they are ready for the consequences. Pro-choicers would also like there to be no more abortions. However, instead of taking the unrealistic and counter-productive draconian approaches, the libeeral sides would prefer a pragmatic sliding approach that will hopefully lead to a better result in the end.
Instead of going cold shoulder and saying NO SEX or you will be fucked! The comprehensives want more of a nicotine gum step down appraoch for society. If we could get society to stop having free sex when they are not ready for the consequences, we'd be happy. We just realize that society just ain't ready to quit dumb sex cold turkey. So we teach safe sex in order to protect those who cannot just stand up to their urges.
At 6/14/11 01:10 AM, FatherTime89 wrote: There's nothing stopping you from discouraging them from having kids and telling them about birth control.
There's also nothing to help those kids fully understand the potential consequences of their actions, short of putting them knee-deep in the middle of a toy store full of screaming kids.
I think Jello Biafra said it best.
And how about a mandatory class on one of the most important things we're supposed to learn that ain't even taught in school at all? People go on and on about how children are the future, and we have to do this or that, for the children. How better schools won't help unless there's better family life at home. So why is it we don't spend one God damn dime on teaching people how to raise kids? To teach real people to solve real problems in the real world, how much is a child going to eat? How much will it cost to feed and clothe and educate, and just plain RELATE to someone depending on you for 24 hours a day for 18 years or more? Will this responsibility cramp my lifestyle? Why not explore and find out in advance, why not give future parents a class? We're told it's the hardest most important job of all, and then we're all thrown into it completely unprepared! So the same mistakes happen again and again, and people do to their kids the same things they hated their parents for doing to them. Addicted to bad doctors, we do the wrong thing like were told when sometimes the right answers are right under our nose.
At 6/14/11 04:07 PM, qwertyfreak wrote: That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It's fine to stress the dangers, but I'm against teaching abstinence as the only way to stay safe.
Which brings me back to what I said previously, name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.
At 6/14/11 11:49 PM, Proteas wrote: Which brings me back to what I said previously, name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.
Which brings the rest of us back to our points, show us a time in our society when teenagers didn't have sex.
No one here is saying abstinence is not the best method of protection. We are just saying that ignoring the other methods of protection is not only ignoring the reality of life, but depriving those people who make up reality the knowledge it takes to be 99% safe. I am pretty sure everyone would have 100% of the people be 99% safe than 50% be 100% safe and the other 50% 0% safe.
At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote: Click.
your link seems a little inconclusive; it can't say with certainty that abstinence is on the rise or that it is in fact abstinence that is spurring the drop in teen pregnancies and not the correct use of contraception (not to mention the decline itself seems uncertain).
it also makes no mention of STDs, and whether abstinence only is actually reducing their spread.
don't forget about the recent spike in STDs (or is it STIs now?) amongst the elderly, would education have helped us there?
I think that if STD's is what you're worried about, use a condom, but if pregnancy is what you're worried about, don't have sex. That might just be me though.
Yeah if you want abstinence-only education you have a couple marbles loose in your head.
They should hand out condoms to kids for free. See what happens then. They did it in Thailand and it cut down the spread of AIDs like crazy: http://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaid ya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_
place.html
Anyway abstinence people are inevitably religiously-motivated. Doesn't take a genius to figure out anyone who bases their sex ed plan on the bible is a fucking dumbass who shouldn't be listened to ever. But they have money and they have political power so they get their way in schools with their insanity and Amish-level understanding of the modern world.
At 6/15/11 01:33 PM, minipig wrote: I think that if STD's is what you're worried about, use a condom, but if pregnancy is what you're worried about, don't have sex. That might just be me though.
It's easier to prevent pregnancy than it is to prevent STD's, even excluding abortions.
Condoms are the only viable means of preventing the transmission of an STD assuming you have one. They are the only contraceptive that works to this end as far as I know. [Also excluding abstinence]
I might reverse the advisory statement you made, is all.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 6/14/11 02:46 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: What about schools that teach both? When I was in high school, we learned about birth control but the program stressed abstinence. And it was absolutely correct that it's the only 100% way to prevent STDs and pregnancy. I realize abstinence-only programs are unrealistic but I have no issues with a program that teaches both.
Agreed, abstinence-only programs in school is a borderline McCarthyian program, based on using buzzwords and the occasional shock tactics of STDs, pregnancy and the like. I wouldn't have a problem with abstinence programs as long as there are alternatives to said program, {i.e comprehensive and confindential sex-ed class.} out there. Teenagers are going to be horny, and more than likely going to have sex, so a proper teaching of sexual behavior in school is the best choice.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
At 6/15/11 06:07 PM, orangebomb wrote: Agreed, abstinence-only programs in school is a borderline McCarthyian program, based on using buzzwords and the occasional shock tactics of STDs, pregnancy and the like.
I am a strong proponent of comprehensive sex-ed, and I believe the shock tactics are quite valuable. Young people, especially adolescents are generally dumber than shit. The shock tactics are a good way to get otherwise distracted, uninterested, or just plain stupid kids to listen and pay attention.
I also believe that these shock tactics also help with the use of non-absitenence forms of contraception. Scare the little fuckers into thinking they'll become one giant herpe (singular of herpes?) if they don't wear a condom. Then say, that while condoms are good, they aren't perfect. When the stakes can be high, even a low probability of risk can be something to pay attention to.
At 6/15/11 12:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Which brings the rest of us back to our points, show us a time in our society when teenagers didn't have sex.
And my point is simply this; sex education in it's current form does nothing to actually give them a concrete example of the potential consequences of having sex. We inform them about the act, the potential for disease, and that's about it. There's nothing to prepare them for the actuality of what it's like to be a parent or have somebody depend on you for the next 18 or so years of your life while being a constant drain on your resources.
This is where I diverge from the rest of you; you guys (from what I'm reading) are of the opinion that teens are going to have sex, so we might as well inform them about the birds and the bees, as well as the potential for std's and pregnancy just so we can stand back and say "hey, we did our part, what happens to you from here on out is up to you." I think that we should take it one step further and give them parenting classes to go along with it, just to drive home the reality of what they are messing with. You start making teens face the very real aspect of having kids and what they're life will be like with them around, and THEN you can say you've done your job.
At 6/15/11 11:27 AM, SolInvictus wrote: your link seems a little inconclusive; it can't say with certainty that abstinence is on the rise or that it is in fact abstinence that is spurring the drop in teen pregnancies and not the correct use of contraception (not to mention the decline itself seems uncertain).
That's because it's a scientific opinion poll, not a scientific study. It can only show you that it's happening, not why.
At 6/15/11 02:12 PM, poxpower wrote: They should hand out condoms to kids for free. See what happens then. They did it in Thailand and it cut down the spread of AIDs like crazy: http://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaid ya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_
place.html
Thailand is also one of the most popular child prostitution destinations in the world, where it is unofficially tolerated. But who cares about that, right? At least the AIDS rate is down.
Anyway abstinence people are inevitably religiously-motivated.
Or they don't like the idea of schools telling kids that it's perfectly acceptable and understood that they will have underage sex. Nothing abstinence-only advocates say is misleading or incorrect. Kids already know what STDs and condoms are. They aren't difficult concepts to understand. There's no reason why someone receiving abstinence only education is going to not use a condom more than those who had comprehensive instruction. If anything, he will have less sex.
At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote: The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) showed an uptick in abstinence among 15- to-24-year-olds. It revealed 29.9 percent of men had not had any sexual contact ever, while 28.3 percent of women had abstained.
In the 2002 NSFG, only 22.7 percent of women and 22.6 percent of men reported they were abstinent. The survey defines "sexual contact" as engaging in vaginal, oral or anal sex with an opposite sex or same-sex partner.
This ignores an important confounding factor, which is that in late 2004, between the two periods of study, World of Warcraft was released.
BUT SERIOUSLY FOLKS
At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote: Name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.
This is absolutely a moot point in this discussion, because none of us are under the delusion that we can achieve a 100% abstinence rate. It's like teaching an abstinence-only defensive driving class, because not operating or riding in a motor vehicle is the only 100% successful method for preventing auto accidents.
Promoting abstinence is fine and dandy (although it can be debated whether pro-abstinence sentiment is based in tradition or in fact), but it shouldn't happen to the exclusion of teaching other methods of birth control and disease prevention, even if they are technically less effective. An uptick in abstinence does nothing for public health if it comes at the cost of reduced safe sex practice in the sexually active population. Here's a site with a whole whack of sources that suggest, among other things, that abstinence-only programs lead to decreased condom use in those that take an abstinence pledge but later have premarital sex, and that students who received abstinence-only education tend to be less knowledgeable about STDs, misinformed about the efficacy of condoms, etc. etc.
At 6/16/11 06:57 PM, Elfer wrote: This is absolutely a moot point in this discussion, because none of us are under the delusion that we can achieve a 100% abstinence rate. It's like teaching an abstinence-only defensive driving class, because not operating or riding in a motor vehicle is the only 100% successful method for preventing auto accidents.
I'm not under the delusion that a 100% abstinence rate can ever be achieved. I'm also not under the delusion that you will ever get a majority of teenagers to ever act responsibly or behave properly when it comes to their own actions, or that what's being discussed here will ever achieve that.
At 6/17/11 12:19 AM, Proteas wrote: I'm not under the delusion that a 100% abstinence rate can ever be achieved. I'm also not under the delusion that you will ever get a majority of teenagers to ever act responsibly or behave properly when it comes to their own actions, or that what's being discussed here will ever achieve that.
Of course, but I'd say that putting out accurate information about various birth control methods while promoting abstinence will be more effective overall than teaching abstinence only, in the same way that teaching effective defensive driving practice will prevent more accidents than simply telling people not to drive.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
