Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/17/11 12:54 PM, Elfer wrote: 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,

Since when does speaking well of abstinence put me in the category of preaching for abstinence only education, hm?

At 6/17/11 02:16 PM, Proteas wrote: Since when does speaking well of abstinence put me in the category of preaching for abstinence only education, hm?

I kind of inferred it from context in this post:

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.

He said that abstinence is fine and dandy, but was against teaching only abstinence, and you got all up in his grill about it. What's the deal???

At 6/17/11 03:03 PM, Elfer wrote: He said that abstinence is fine and dandy, but was against teaching only abstinence, and you got all up in his grill about it. What's the deal???

The last sentence of what I quoted;

"I'm just against teaching that abstinence is the ONLY way to protect yourself from those dangers."

I was challenging his assertion that there was another way to protect yourself from those dangers, and he failed to respond.

You know why?

The elephant in the room when it comes to this topic is that there IS no 100% foolproof way to protect yourself from the dangers that go along with sex, except... to heed the advice of conservatives and fundies and abstain from sex. And to do so not only validates their position on the matter, it also gives them a place in the class room as you would be doing your students a disservice by not incorporating it into the curriculum. And the only thing you, or anybody else can do to try and argue against it, is to try to either argue against those making the argument, or ridicule the idea itself.

I even tried to present you all the perfect opportunity to convince teens to abstain without actually calling it that by name, and not a one of you acknowledged the idea, which is really disappointing considering that it could actually give the teen some useful information in life.

I'm not against teaching kids about condoms or birth control, or anything else that has been mentioned in this topic. If I was, do you not think I wouldn't have said something by now?

At 6/17/11 04:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

The elephant in the room when it comes to this topic is that there IS no 100% foolproof way to protect yourself from the dangers that go along with sex, except... to heed the advice of conservatives and fundies and abstain from sex.

Abstinence doesn't protect you during sex, it makes you avoid sex.

Sex with the proper protection is a lot safer than playing sports, why on earth would we try to prevent teenagers from doing it?

Would you tell football coaches to include a "you should quit the team if you really want to avoid injury" section in their training? No, because that's stupid as hell and everyone knows it because it's extremely obvious.

At 6/17/11 04:40 PM, poxpower wrote: Abstinence doesn't protect you during sex, it makes you avoid sex.

The only way to avoid sexually transmitted disease is to avoid having sex, pox. Yeah, teens should have access to the knowledge and the materials when it comes to sex education and birth control, nobody with an ounce of reason will disagree with that statement, but removed from all the political bullshit that surrounds it, you cannot deny that abstaining from sex is the only way to avoid getting a sexually transmitted disease or having unwanted children. To do so is a disservice to those same teens, politically biased, and very narrow minded.

A better analogy than the ones you and elfer keep trying to use would be this; body armor will help save your life if someone shoots at you, but it's not foolproof, and the only way to avoid getting shot is to avoid dangerous situations where you put yourself in life-threatening danger altogether.

At 6/16/11 12:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

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.

Well, if there are horny teens that are dumber than shit anyways, then there's no point to have shock tactics taught to them, because they're going to find something with holes to screw, so to speak. Although I will agree that certain shock tactics could work on the normal distracted teen, as long as it's not the main teaching tool, to a regular teaching talk.

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.

It's similar to a kid who plays a sport, there is a probablity that they'll get injured, and more often than not, they're not doing a normal fundemental part of said game. The point I'm trying to say is that shock, buzzwords and exaggeration shouldn't be excessive used to try to send a message to the kids compared to normal cause and effect education, most of them are smart enough to know that they won't be one giant herpe if they do have sex with someone, but they could get herpes down below, which is much worse.

And of course, it's not going to stop all of those horny teenagers out there from trying to screw someone else like they're in a cheap porno, no matter what sex education they have recieved before, they're considered lost causes in that respect.

At 6/17/11 11:14 PM, orangebomb wrote: Well, if there are horny teens that are dumber than shit anyways, then there's no point to have shock tactics taught to them, because they're going to find something with holes to screw, so to speak. Although I will agree that certain shock tactics could work on the normal distracted teen, as long as it's not the main teaching tool, to a regular teaching talk.

Dumb people are pretty damn perceptable to fear and scare tactics. I mean shit, look at the whole terrorism fears. One way to get the attention of a distracted dumb teenager is to scare them.

It's similar to a kid who plays a sport, there is a probablity that they'll get injured, and more often than not, they're not doing a normal fundemental part of said game. The point I'm trying to say is that shock, buzzwords and exaggeration shouldn't be excessive used to try to send a message to the kids compared to normal cause and effect education, most of them are smart enough to know that they won't be one giant herpe if they do have sex with someone, but they could get herpes down below, which is much worse.

The "one giant herpe" was just whimsical hyperbole. I don't care about the buzzwords or any of that. So long as it gets the kids to do something to protect themselves when otherwise they would not.

And of course, it's not going to stop all of those horny teenagers out there from trying to screw someone else like they're in a cheap porno, no matter what sex education they have recieved before, they're considered lost causes in that respect.

The scare tactics are there to stop some, and to get others to prepare. Before Johnny Q Dumbfuck teenager get's a his second brain trhobbing, hopefully he'll think to get a few cockjackets and put them in his car, so when his head brain runs out of thinking fuel the condoms will at least be available.

At 6/17/11 05:52 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/17/11 04:40 PM, poxpower wrote: Abstinence doesn't protect you during sex, it makes you avoid sex.

The only way to avoid sexually transmitted disease is to avoid having sex, pox.

Yeah everyone already knows that.
You're not "informing" children when you bring abstinence into classrooms just the same as you're not informing a police officer when you tell him that the only sure way to not get shot while on duty is to not be a cop.

At 6/20/11 12:18 AM, poxpower wrote: Yeah everyone already knows that.

The statistics would tend to disagree with you.

At 6/20/11 12:18 AM, poxpower wrote: You're not "informing" children when you bring abstinence into classrooms just the same as you're not informing a police officer when you tell him that the only sure way to not get shot while on duty is to not be a cop.

Or like telling people the only way to never drink and drive is to never drink.

At 6/20/11 12:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Or like telling people the only way to never drink and drive is to never drink.

Is this REALLY the best you guys can come up with to try and refute me? Pathetic attempts at trolling? Please, I expected better.

At 6/20/11 12:59 AM, Proteas wrote: Is this REALLY the best you guys can come up with to try and refute me? Pathetic attempts at trolling? Please, I expected better.

Sorry Prot. You're going to have to pick a point here. Are you saying abstienence is the ONLY sex ed that shoul dbe taught, or are you saying regardless of any other education abstinence should be taught because it is the best way to avoid the consequences of sex?

If it's the first, our analogies are extremely apt. If it's the second, you're against us when we actually want the same thing.

parents need to tell their kids about it, as awkward as it may be it pays off in the long run. my dad gave me "the talk" even though at that point in my life i was pretty much already aware. but he did let me know about all the diseases and that i shoudl always use protection, and it was pretty much that simple.

i dont know why people over complicate that shit.

Nobody in this thread is a teenager, or recent grad of high school, so let me tell you whats truly going on. Kids will be horny kids, no matter what, and have sex/do other sexual acts (blow jobs, etc.). The sad part is, our health teachers only tell us the parts of the genital area, and not to have sex. they never mention anything about condoms, birth control, etc.
Even when asked they try to skip around the question, by say that not having sex is the only answer.
Not to mention kids like myself spread the news that masturbation and both male and female ejaculation is healthy.
The scare tactics are only making things worse. If kids know that they are not allowed to do something, they are going to go do it.
My dad told me that I could do anything as long as I use protection, and even offered to buy me condoms.

Here's abstinence education is completely stupid.

What's easier, trying to convince horny teenagers to never have sex until marriage

or

Teaching them how to use condoms and birth control.

And some of it's kind of immoral.

I mean we have this deadly disease floating around and instead of teaching kids about something they can use to prevent it, they either deliberately ignore it or in some cases lie about it's effectiveness.

At 6/17/11 05:52 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/17/11 04:40 PM, poxpower wrote: Abstinence doesn't protect you during sex, it makes you avoid sex.

The only way to avoid sexually transmitted disease is to avoid having sex, pox.

Not true. Transmission by needles can and does happen.

At 6/21/11 05:14 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Not true. Transmission by needles can and does happen.

Oi...

At 6/20/11 09:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If it's the second, you're against us when we actually want the same thing.

You want the same thing as I want? Really? Because reading through this topic again, you're for non-specific "comprehensive sex ed" and use of "scare tactics," and pox is... well, pox.

At 6/21/11 05:14 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Not true. Transmission by needles can and does happen.

And you're point would be...?

I mean, seriously, you're right, but where does this fit into the discussion? Are you gonna have a section in the "comprehensive" sex ed class where you tell kids to shoot up drugs only using clean needles? Because we all KNOW that telling kids to just say "no" isn't going to work, so we might as well tell them how to do it right and protect themselves as best they can.

At 6/22/11 12:36 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/20/11 09:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If it's the second, you're against us when we actually want the same thing.

You want the same thing as I want? Really? Because reading through this topic again, you're for non-specific "comprehensive sex ed" and use of "scare tactics," and pox is... well, pox.

At 6/21/11 05:14 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Not true. Transmission by needles can and does happen.

And you're point would be...?

I mean, seriously, you're right, but where does this fit into the discussion? Are you gonna have a section in the "comprehensive" sex ed class where you tell kids to shoot up drugs only using clean needles? Because we all KNOW that telling kids to just say "no" isn't going to work, so we might as well tell them how to do it right and protect themselves as best they can.

Unless they enter the medical profession this is the only education about STDs they're going to get.

I mean we are talking about teaching them how to avoid a disease that will kill them. Why is that objectionable?

Oh and it's not just drugs but tattoos and medical procedures using unsterilized needles.

Look at what they do with certain drugs, they lie about it, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

At 6/17/11 04:14 PM, Proteas wrote: I was challenging his assertion that there was another way to protect yourself from those dangers, and he failed to respond.

The elephant in the room when it comes to this topic is that there IS no 100% foolproof way to protect yourself from the dangers that go along with sex, except... to heed the advice of conservatives and fundies and abstain from sex.

But this is semantics. All he said was that abstinence is not the only way to protect against those things. "Protect" doesn't necessarily mean that it's 100% foolproof.

I'm not against teaching kids about condoms or birth control, or anything else that has been mentioned in this topic. If I was, do you not think I wouldn't have said something by now?

Well then I guess I don't disagree with you. Discussion over?

At 6/22/11 12:36 AM, Proteas wrote: You want the same thing as I want? Really? Because reading through this topic again, you're for non-specific "comprehensive sex ed" and use of "scare tactics," and pox is... well, pox.

Well, then give me the three to four sentence summary of exactly what you are arguing for.

At 6/22/11 10:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, then give me the three to four sentence summary of exactly what you are arguing for.

I thought that was rather obvious by now.

I want a discussion about abstaining from sex to be part of the discussion during sex ed class, not as a substitute for the class itself.

So far the discussion has been how we should arm teenagers with the knowledge necessary to protect themselves, but at no point have any of you given a serious mention to the idea that maybe you should tell them they could always just refuse to have sex. To me, that's sad, because it really speaks to how little hope any of you have for the next generation if you're not even willing to talk about them exercising a DRAM of self control for a second and NOT HAVING SEX.

At 6/23/11 12:42 AM, Proteas wrote: I thought that was rather obvious by now.

I will come back to this.

I want a discussion about abstaining from sex to be part of the discussion during sex ed class, not as a substitute for the class itself.

And I 100% agree. The FLASH (Family Life And Sexual Health) program I had in elementary did just that is what I model my dream sex ed off of. In that they mentioned all of the numerous forms of protection, but they stressed, strongly, that above all the BEST and only way to protect 100% is abstinence.

My point before was that we cannot abandon the other protection methods. Abstinence only works so far, and kids need to be prepared for the large area that exists beyond it.

So far the discussion has been how we should arm teenagers with the knowledge necessary to protect themselves, but at no point have any of you given a serious mention to the idea that maybe you should tell them they could always just refuse to have sex. To me, that's sad, because it really speaks to how little hope any of you have for the next generation if you're not even willing to talk about them exercising a DRAM of self control for a second and NOT HAVING SEX.

We agree 100%. I want an all inclusive sex ed approach, which includes a very strong discussion about the benefits of abstinence. However, sex ed cannot ignore the sad fact that many teenagers don't have the control to keep their (or someone else's) dick out of their pants.

the only people you will find arguing with the origional post are probably trolls. this is Newgrounds after all

At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote:
Name another 100% successful method for preventing sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies, then.

that atcly is't 100% effective un less you 100% don't want to have sex! so like i'll names one for you ANYTHING SHORT OF HAVEING YOU BALLS CHOPED OFF is less the 100% effctive but a combition of the pill and condoms are abot 99% effective agaist pregcy and between 80-95% effective at preventing STI's Depending on what contry you condom was made in and i n cluded i pic that makes abbdentes less effective in males and lesbians

I'm not one to post in the politics forum but hey, i'll give it a shot for once.

Not all abstinence is religiously motivated. It is though, the one and only true way to prevent not having kids or contracting an STD. Sure we can teach children how to protect themselves and we should do this also, with a mix of the two. Because even with the protection, there are still risks and dangers. Condoms can break and birth-control pills only stop pregnancy (and can actually fail resulting to pregnancy anyway), not the contraction of STD's.

I read through a few posts, and a esponse was something like, you don't play football if you don't want to get hurt. But this is clearly why many people don't play football. They DON'T want to get hurt. It's the same way with sex. You don't want babies and STD's don't have sex. It's the one simple solution to never have any problems.

We can't teach our kids that they can have sex as much as they want, when they want, simply because they are using protection methods. Because that will not work. The truth is, you have to have some form of abstinence no matter what. Like, "If you really feel that you need to have sex, use protection, but I would rather you wait and not have sex because there are still risks and you may not be mature enough."

Also remember that people are fucking retarded. A lot of you in this thread think that just because people are taught something, they are going to listen. Just because you said use condoms does not mean it was an effective means of communication. Most of my friends have kids and they all knew what a condom was and what it was meant for and still ended up having children. They are retarded for not using condoms, and the girls they fucked are retarded for not using the pill. Some people don't give a fuck as both genders will complain on both ends that it messes up the pleasure or their body to a degree. Condoms make men have less pleasure, while the pill fucks with a girls body.

Handing out condoms may work, but then it comes to the next time. The people can always buy condoms. It isn't that hard at all. Like I said people are fucking retarded and just don't want to listen. And if a teenager isn't man enough to buy condoms, he obviously isn't mature enough to be having sex. So if he chooses to have sex without protection, he is fucking retarded by his own, not the sexual education given to him.

Although the world is still retarded in thinking that withdrawing during ejaculation actually prevents the girl from getting pregnant. They should definitely educate on that one.

I always believe abstinence should be taught. But I agree with you. We cannot be sure if the person being taught would apply what is taught. Best ay is to teach both. Whichever way they will not follow, at least they are prepared. If a person does not at least do either way then he/she is a fool. :)

At 6/26/11 12:12 AM, Samuraikyo wrote:

the one and only true way to prevent not having kids or contracting an STD.

But that's true of everything. The only way to not have an accident doing X is to not do X.
Why on earth should that be part of sex ed when it's not part of anything else anywhere ever?

Imagine if there were anti-football groups going around the country demanding that every football coach mention football abstinence to his team and how it's the only way to never get a football injury. That's so obviously stupid you'd never consider it and yet here we are doing it for sex ed for some reason.

Because that will not work. The truth is, you have to have some form of abstinence no matter what.

It's called the chess club.

Most of my friends have kids and they all knew what a condom was and what it was meant for and still ended up having children.

That's because sex is taboo in the USA and access to condoms is limited and frowned upon when you're young.
Often, they need to get some adults they know involved to get contraceptives. What teen wants to deal with THAT bullshit?

And if a teenager isn't man enough to buy condoms, he obviously isn't mature enough to be having sex.

Except he still will so what do you do then?

Football abstinence would be a good program, and it would be cheap too. All you have to do is go to the spot in the high school where the retired jerseys hang, and put up a sign saying "FOOTBALL KILLED THESE STUDENTS. DON'T BE NEXT."