Abstinence is a bad thing?

[RoadRunner]

http://www.foxnews.com reporting:Opening a new front in the religion-in-schools war, two Cornell legal scholars are advocating the removal of abstinence-based sex education from public schools on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state. I suppose teaching that lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. will have to be banned also. What a bunch of doofuses.

[blinc]

Well now that just doesn't make sense to me. I seriously doubt that abstinence is being taught because of a religous viewpoint... it seems it is more likely that it is being taught as a health issue. The way to be sure and not get Aids, STD's is what? Well, duh... abstinence. You'd think they would find better things to be concerned with, than whether or not kids are being taught the safest way of all to protect themselves.

[roldfiel]

This just irks me!!!!!!! {flame} They don't want to teach abstinence because of . . . .whatever, but they don't want to teach safe sex either. So now kids are supposed to be practicing sex(to avoid that religious abstinence{confused}) but we don't want them out there buying condoms either

{flame} {flame} {flame}

[CommunistPanda]

Who says abstinence should be taught in sex education?
I see abstinence as being a matter of choice for the persons involved, and I view being taught that abstinence is necessary is well...wrong.

[blinc]

I'm guessing it's being taught as one of the alternatives in being sexually active. Not the only choice by all means. I do think it should be discussed in sex-education classes. It is a viable option (in my mind) in educating people about sexually transmitted diseases. You know, tell them ok you can do A, B, or C to protect yourself. Although D, "abstinence' is by far the safest means of all in protecting yourself against STD's. In that context, I see nothing wrong with teaching abstinence.

[PsalmReader]

I'm a parent; I used to teach...
I think it's SAD that public schools have to teach ANYTHING about sex.
Where are parents? Hello!
Abstinence IS an option and SHOULD be taught if you are going to teach about sex. It's not about religion--it's about babies and disease (or lack of!). IMO

[CommunistPanda]

I agree, blinc. The option of abstinence should definitely be there, but definitely should not be the only option.
Parents are too embarrassed to teach children about sex. It's why sex education classes were brought in the first place.

[jamesglewisf]

It doesn't matter whether parents are too embarrassed or not. It is their responsibility. I'm not saying to stop teaching it in school, but I'm not going to avoid that responsibility with my daughter. No way.

[CommunistPanda]

I'm not disagreeing - I think it's much better for parents to teach their own kids about sex, and good on you for doing that, but for some parents, it's too embarrassing, in which case schools need to step in and make sure it's taught for the sake of the poor kid.

[blinc]

As stated by a few others here, unfortunately not all parents do teach their children about sexual matters. My parents didn't. I didn't have a clue what it was all about. For gosh sakes, for years I used to think you could get pregnant if a boy kissed you on the ear! Finally, when I hit puberty my father tried to explain, he was so embarrassed that what he didn't do a very good job. It was embarrassing for both of us, because he was so embarrassed in talking about it... it was painful! Left things more confusing then ever.

So, yes... I am for sex education in schools. It's fantastic that some parents aren't shy about talking to their children about it. Good for them, those children will have a healthy, informed attitude. For the children who don't have those kind of parents, someone has to tell them what's what - if for no other reason then to let them know that there are deadly diseases out there and for goodness sakes, how to protect themselves.

I don't think by educating teens about safe sex, it necessarily means you're telling the children ok, it's alright for you to have sex, now that you know how to protect yourself. I think it should be about having a teen, who may already be sexually active, armed with the knowhow to protect himself or herself from horribly scarring or deadly diseases.

That's just my opinion... didn't mean to ramble on so! Just kind of hits home over here, knowing how insecure, confused and stupid I felt as a teenager, not knowing what was what.

[Karenluvs6]

I agree with fact that just because they are teaching the kids' safe sex, that it doesn't mean they are saying 'it's ok....go ahead'.....that is not so. They think they are doing a good thing....BUT....IMHO: I don't think they should teach them in school because it is the parents responsibility to do that. Some parents think their kids' should be a certain age before they start learning about sex...Some parents have other reasons why they want to teach their kids' themselves.
Fortunately, I have a great parent/friend relationship with all of my children....I am not embarrassed to talk to them about anything.

[Karenluvs6]

Originally posted by CommunistPanda
I'm not disagreeing - I think it's much better for parents to teach their own kids about sex, and good on you for doing that, but for some parents, it's too embarrassing, in which case schools need to step in and make sure it's taught for the sake of the poor kid.


I have to seriously disagree with part of this statement. I am not saying that you are a bad parent if you are embarrassed...but I am saying that if you are a parent, and you are embarrassed to talk to your own child....You should step back and re-evaluate your parent/child relationship.
You should never be embarrassed to talk to your kids about anything!
just an opinion..{toothy}

[CommunistPanda]

Sure, as I've said in previous posts, I think it's a great idea that parents do teach their own kids, however, as blinc said, there are some parents who are too embarrassed to do so, and in that case, there needs to be school teaching. And in your example of parents who want to wait till their kids are a certain age to teach them...is it then neglect if their daughter was to fall pregnant in her early teens as a result of not being taught of safe sex by then? Just a thought.

[blinc]

You know what I think? I think that the parents who have an open relationship with their children and aren't so embarrassed to talk to their children, that they put it off and put it off until it's too late, can't imagine a parent who is too embarrassed to do the right thing. (sorry for that long sentence). I'm so glad to see parents like you and Jim, Karen. Parents who aren't the least bit hesitant to explain the way it is to their kids. It's horrible being ignorant of the facts when you're a teenager.

You're so right Jim... hey, it might be embarrassing to talk to your children, and yes, I can see how it would be. But, as a parent it is your duty to teach your children. Couldn't have said it better myself. Now see, if all the parents could be as open as you and Karen, this wouldn't even be an issue! Unfortunately, they're not. In this day and age, keeping a child ignorant... that could mean the difference between life and death for a sexually active teenager.

[Karenluvs6]

I guess some would think it's neglect and others...will say otherwise.....Nevertheless, it is a good point CP!
Just how old does a parent think a child has to be?
Kids' know more these days, than their parents do!
a sad truth.

Thank you Blinc...for the compliment.
I am not a perfect parent, but I do tell them what they need to know....I would be mortified if one of my kids' came home from school telling how to make a baby!!

I know exactly what you mean about being an ignorant teen...My Lord! I knew nothing. My parents were close to us like that.....they didn't talk to us about anything!
Thank God, I was born with 'feelings'!

[blinc]

Oooh! That is a good question. When do you tell children about sex? I imagine the age would vary, depending on each childs maturity level. But then like Karen said, kids know so much more then we did as children at the same age. When you hear awful stories of 12 year olds being pregnant, makes me wonder if you shouldn't start teaching it at a very early age.

[PsalmReader]

I'm trying to tread lightly. :) I hate to make anybody mad, so don't take it that way. :) But IMHumbleO, parents need to get over their embarassment! They knew enough about sex to make a baby; they need to figure out a way to explain it to their kids! My cousin came to my mom to get an explaination. She didn't feel like she could talk to her mom. I think that is VERY SAD. {blues}

As far as age goes, I was about 9 or 10 when my mom explained the physical process. I grew up in church, so I had the "religious" view from there. I think my mom should have addressed that part in her talk. In high school we learned more (names of parts and such) in health class. But I don't recall the physical act being explained there. Boy would I have been embarassed! (Keep in mind that I'm an ag teacher. I taught animal science and such--so I did teach concerning animals. I think that's a less embarassing way. Parts is parts. remember that commercial? But then you don't have a boy looking across the room trying to picture some girl there naked, or vice versa.)

Anyway, I think it is a gradual process. Kids become aware of things and need further explaination. Kids mature at different times. Parents should be in touch with that concerning their own kids. IE, unfortunately my step son saw some nudie pix at a friend of his mom's. {eek2} His dad is going to have to have a talk with him next week when we have him. It's time. He needs to be able to deal with what he has been exposed to. Make sense?

Anyways, that's my opinion. I think this is a really good discussion. This is my first experience with a "hot topic" here at this forum. I didn't know how it would go; I was kinda holding my breath. Didn't know if it would get stinky. {fart} LOL I hope I didn't stink! I don't think anyone has! {toothy}

[Lisa]

This is a good conversation. :)

In my school, I'm PTA director, our 5th graders have sex-ed. Before the kids start on it, the parents are invited/strongly suggested to attend the informational meetings about it. They go over every little detail the teachers will discuss. It all has to be approved by the parent committee before it's presented to the kids but there is a deadline on it too cuz the teachers are mandated to teach it. So, when the class starts that unit, the parents are invited/suggested to attend those sessions. It's been a good combo so far.

But as for us teaching our 5 kids - we take that responsibility VERY seriously. It's more than just teaching the kids about the physical act and how it's done. There's moral training to be done, a condition of the heart to be trained. The kids need to learn that when they begin dating that they are dating someone elses future spouse and to respect him/her. The boys are learning how to treat girls - treat every girl as a lady. They have manners that people constantly comment on - and to me that's sad. People are amazed when our 3 boys hold the doors for ladies and say "please" and "thank you" and call adults by Mr. and Mrs. The girls are learning how to treat others too as well be treated by boys. Respect! Where did that go? I'm not trying to pat my family on our backs, but I'm just sad that respect has been so lost in our culutre.

Sex ed is about more than the physical act. There's a child there with a concience and a heart. We, as a society, need to be more concerned with the person more than the act. If we were, we wouldn't have pregnant 12 year olds. At least, not many.

IMHO Hope this dosen't stink either! :)

[4gvnAngel]

Well...I am teaching my kids what they can handel at each level. I got a hold of some great books that have helped me. I am not really embarrased to tell my kids, but I want to tell them the right way and at the right time. I have told them both how they were born and now I am in the process of teaching them hjow their bodies work. What part is for what and such. I am a BIBLE thumpin Christian {toothy} so I have been teaching my children from a biblical perspective..that God has created their bodies and that they are beautiful and good and we can use them for beauty and good or like everything else God has created.... we canusse it for uglyness and evil. God created speach and we can bless others with our words or inflict injury. Its our choice. God created your body with certain parts that bring pleasure...they feel good, but they are to be for your husband/wife. To be shared with them only. If you choose not to do that, there are always consequences to our decisions. Sex can be beautiful when it is done the way God has designed. Thats about as far as I have gotten with my daughter who is 9. She askes me questions and I do my best to answer them. I think that I am teaching her abstinence. I hope that is what she chooses.

[Lisa]

A BIG ditto A! :)

[blinc]

Absolutely. I think if parents aren't teaching their kids, then there has to be an alternative to finding out the basics of human anatomy and what the repercussions can be, physically, of having unprotected sex.

The morals, the self-respect, has to be taught at home. There's no way, if I had children, that I would want anyone else teaching the personal choices, the thoughts and beliefs to a child of mine. Good grief, they could have a completely different idea of right and wrong, from what I would want my child to know.

PsalmReader - you did great! :)

[Anat]

Well, over here nobody considers teaching abstinence. It's jsut so obvious that not having sex is the best way not to get pregnant and to avoid STDs, it's simply not an issue.

They teach you what to do, in case you decide you do want to have sex and how to best avoid the risks. Nobody is encouraged to have sex, and to the best of my knowledge, we have less teenagers who have sex than the US. It's just not such a big deal here really.


I think Lisa hit the nail on the head - the physical act isnot that important. Kids know the technicalities anyway - it's all over the newspapers and tv. What they do need to be taught about is to have respect for each other and to carry that respect and good manners into their emotional and sexual relationships.

[Karenluvs6]

It wouldn't hurt them to consider making it an option for all families.
You know what I mean?
Make it available to parents who would feel more comfortable having someone else do it....or for parents who are just having trouble finding the right thing to say.
Make it an optional thing...send home permission slips in the beginning of the year, asking permission....if you want to do teach your kids' yourself, then don't sign the slip...simple as that....Parents would feel a lot more comfortable about this if they felt they were being given a choice.

[Nudnik]

It just shows you whom Cornell is paying: “legal scholars”! And it also shows you how stupid lawyers are, in general, even so-called “scholars”: Teaching anything, in public school, or elsewhere, cannot be considered “wrong” because it is taught anywhere else. Besides, the Bible does not “teach” anything: till it’s opened and read, it’s a passive tool, not even an instrument of teaching. As such, it could be banned for teaching (and it is) in public schools. Math could be banned on the same grounds: it is used in the Bible.

[CommunistPanda]

Karen...in theory that'd be nice.
However, what happens in this situation.
Some parent decides that they don't want their child being 'exposed' to such things, so signs the declaration saying that they'll teach them at home, but actually don't.

[PsalmReader]

I had this thought before, but the thread had died down so I didn't post.

Parents just need to get over being embarrassed! If you know enough to make a baby, then by the time that baby gets to be older--you need to figure out how to tell them about it. (Religious views included or not.) Come on, you've got years to plan what to say! My daughter isn't even 3 yet, and I already know how I want to tell her some stuff--mistakes I made, why to avoid them, etc.

Also, biology is extremely important. I think my agriculture background has helped me understand my body and how it works a lot better. Growing up on a farm, you learn a lot about how babies are made and born without having to be told anyway. I think that kids today need to know, so I'm not saying don't teach how parts work. I just think it is a sad fact that some kids have to depend on school to learn about the basics of human sexuality. Let's talk about parental responsibility! Our society seems to want blame Gen X'ers for all kinds of social lapses these days. Well where were half of their parents?? How can we expect them to act responsibly if their parents are too embarrassed to talk to them about the very thing they did to bring the child into the world??

Anat, out of curiousity... do they pass out condoms at school in sex ed classes there?

[TTP]

I would just like to say that it needs to be taught somewhere and somehow, that has already been stated.
Also to kinda get back on track, if it is going to be taught in schools abstinence has to be implemented into the 'sex-ed program.'
I think trying to get rid of the teachings of abstinence on the grounds of violation of an Ammendment is absurd. Abstinence is the only form of protection that is proven to work. Sex-ed is only sex-ed if protection methods are covered IMHO. So if you get rid of abstinence you will be getting rid of protection methods, and if you get rid of those what is the point? The whole reason this is done is to try and educate and protect children in this society.
IMHO

[4gvnAngel]

Amen!!! TTP!! Its the only thing GUARANTEED to work! Reguardless of you r religion or beliefs, or lackof, it is the only thing that wil keep them safe for sure. I still dont get how this could ever be viewed as a negative alternative. Our country has really gone down the moral tubes. {blues}

[TTP]

I agree %100.

[PsalmReader]

:o Oops, guess I'm off topic again. Sorry. Nevermind my question Anat. Maybe it'll be appropriate some other time. :)

[blinc]

PsalmReader...??? You weren't off topic. The topic has pretty much revolved around abstinence and the many routes that topic leads into.

Now if you were to post something about a local Swamp Mud-truck pull... that would be off topic!! {toothy}

[TTP]

Originally posted by blinc
local Swamp Mud-truck pull

Where, where? {toothy}

Ask away. I was just referring back to the original question in my post. Everyone is doing fine!

[PsalmReader]

Uh, well, OK. Go ahead and answer if you want to Anat. :)

[Anat]

I think the question's just fine here. It's definitely has to do with sex ed.

I do belive they show condoms in class and show how to put them on a model. This is not for 5th graders! Just for seniors (aged 17-18).

By the way, what do you guys condider to be abstinence anyway? I'm not married and if you think I should be denied of one of life's greates pleasures because of that...;)

It's all a matter of age really. Sex at a young age (12-16) is not very common here (I think it's quite rare). There comes an age when people mature and can and should have sex. Whether this age is 16, 18 or 21, is a matter of opinion (I'd go with 18 for "can have sex" and 21 for a more recommended age).

As long as that sexual relationship is within a loving supportive emotional relationship and as long as contraceptives are used, I don't really see where the problem is. And please don't tell me that contraceptives are not 100% safe. I know they're not. But a combination of the pill + condoms is a safe as you can get. Life is not very safe in general and a certain amount of "unsafety" can't be avoided.

[Anat]

Originally posted by Anat


I do belive they show condoms in class and show how to put them on a model.


Just to make things clear - not a live human model! On a plastic piece! :D

[blinc]

Thank you for the clarification! {toothy} Had a hunch is wasn't a real model. *wink*

Here, abstinence is completely refraining from having sexual intercourse.

Well, I surely am not speaking about all teenagers, or maybe not even what happens with the majority. It seems to me, personally, that a lot of sex between teens here in the U.S. has become a casual, physical gratification rather then the deep emotional committment you are speaking of.

The contraceptive methods aren't only used to protect from pregnancies here in the U.S. they're also used to help protect teens from AIDS, genital herpes and a good half dozen sexually transmitted diseases. Several of which, at this time, have no cure. That's what's so scary to me... that these kids may be having sex and not really realize just exactly what long-term effects one casual act can generate... if they aren't being taught this information at home.

I'd hate to think a teenager, just starting out in life, could end up dying because a parent or school didn't teach them how to be safe... and of course, abstinence would be the safest alternative of all choices. It doesn't mean that the teens will follow that piece of advice, but if they are fully armed with all the correct information on what can happen and how there is really only one entireley safe way (abstinence) to prevent getting a life-threatening or lifelong disease, at least they'll be able to make an educated choice.

[CommunistPanda]

Interesting that Anat points out they only teach 17-18 year olds how to put on condoms in Sex Ed in Israel...

That used to be the policy here too, but then they moved it forward to 14 year olds because so many under-17's were getting pregnant.

[PsalmReader]

I looked up a definition of abstinence. Mr. Webster says, "1. forbearance from indulgence of an appetite... 3. any self-restraint, self-denial, or forbearance." (The #2 definition was about not using drugs.)

I agree that it seems teens in the US are starting to have sex at younger ages. (Honestly Anat, I could probably find a survey that would indicate a small percentage of 5th graders in the US had already had sex or engaged in some sex act.) I would like to think that the embarrassment of having to buy a condom (if they aren't passed out freely) would deter some teens from choosing to have sex. I'm not stupid though; I know that some would continue without the condom. We are at a paradox there. Do we pass them out so kids who do have sex don't spread disease and get pregnant, or do we not pass them out so that we aren't enabling kids to have sex thinking it's ok and they are safe? I could agrue either side really. But I do think that if sex ed does not include abstinence, then we are telling teens that it is ok to have sex if you are "protected" (whether that is the intended message or not).

I know what I will try to teach my daughter. And I still think it is a shame that parents don't talk to their kids. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't even have to worry about if this or that was or wasn't taught at school concerning sex. HEY PARENTS! Get your heads out of the sand and talk to your kids! (Uh, sorry about that, but it really bugs me that some parents don't talk to their kids.)

[jamesglewisf]

I'm amazed how long this thread has gone on, and I don't mean that in a bad way. It sure has been a popular one.

I personally am against sex outside of marriage regardless of the situation. However, I think abstinence should be tought regardless of the morality of it. I just don't think teenagers should be having sex. There are disease issues, but that's not even the main thing. I think there can be long term psychological effects of pre-marital sex. I think it affects future relationships. It is also bad for the current relationship.

[Nudnik]

I am amazed how long this thread has gone on, and I don't mean that in a bad way. It sure has been a popular one.
This thread has deviated from the OP, which was not about teaching abstinence vs. promiscuity. It was about teaching something in school (or, rather, not teaching it) if it is mentioned in the Bible.
Most posters were so eager to state their support for abstinence that they forgot about the OP.

[blinc]

Yes, but if you look at the title of the thread: "Abstinence is a bad thing"? It also gives the impression that our views on abstinence were to be involved in this thread... this whole thread has stuck around the basic topic of abstinence. Although it's branched off into different areas, it's still on the same tree (so to speak). I think it's fine just the way it is. :)

[Nudnik]

BLINC: I think it's fine just the way it is.
I think so too. MA ain’t the US government :). I.e., it has no guarantees of free speech, but it traditionally let people talk about things they wanted to talk about. Moderators can certainly stir discussions, but you probably know better than me, when you have to take the reins and when you relax :).

[Nudnik]

(Honestly Anat, I could probably find a survey that would indicate a small percentage of 5th graders in the US had already had sex or engaged in some sex act.)
I just read a survey. I do not know how they defined “sex”, but under “The percentage of respondents who had sex”, they had 0% for girls age 12 and 5% for boys age 12.

[keithster]

Let's not forget the alarming increase in oral sex which the teens don't consider to be sex.

Hmmmm. Where have we heard that before? Could it be that we're experiencing some trickle-down immorality? :)

The thing that I really dislike is the assumption that kids are like dogs and are just going to "do it." I'm not raising my kids to behave like dogs and act out on their desires and whims.

If they are going to teach any kind of sex ed, they need to be completely honest about it.

The Bible says no sex outside marriage. And, like so many other things in the Bible, psychology is finding good reasons for this. There are of course the physical risks. But there are also very real emotional risks.

Condoms have a high failure rate (about 17%). They don't stop genital warts, which are pretty nasty.

Abortion carries all kinds of physical and emotional risks for women and can have emotional fallout for men.

If I were young and single, would I have sex knowing all that I know now? NO WAY!

Would I be glad later on down the road that someone had told me all the facts and had dissuaded me from jumping in the sack for a bit of momentary pleasure? You bet.

Basically what I see being taught is sex without consequences. Life without consequences... wouldn't it be nice? Too bad it's just a dream.

[Nudnik]

Keith, I agree with you, although what you said is easier said than done.
I would take that one step further. Our society is gradually becoming conditioned (by greedy lawyers, which are too many) to not to accept personal responsibility. It affects all walks of life, including such inherently personal things as sex.
In short: although, one can rely on the partner, the condom, the school, sheer luck, etc., the consequences will be yours. You can sue everyone in sight and win, only to die next year of AIDS. So, what?

[keithster]

Nudnik,

Easier said than done? Ain't that the truth. I learned long ago that anything in life worth doing or having takes a generous amount of self-discipline and delayed gratification. It isn't always easy, but the alternative, while pleasurable in the short run, is ruinous in the long term. In this microwave society, both self-discipline and delayed gratification are in short supply.

So many lawyers are certainly a pox on society in this regard. There's also something else at work. Americans are becoming quite reliant on govt.

Alexander Fraser Tyler said: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Even though we aren't a democracy, we're seeing the effects of what he said.

I've always said that there was an 11th commandment that came out of the 60s. Thou shalt do as thy darned well pleases and there shall be no consequences.

[TWTCommish]

I don't think kids have the maturity to have sex for anything other than pure gratification.

I'll leave for now with this: it's just pleasure. We all know most things that you enjoy are bad in one way or another if not put off for the right time, and sex is no exception.

I'm waiting for marriage, and I'm sure it will make my relationship with my wife more fulfilling. I won't have to compare her to past relationships (or flings, for that matter)...things like that causes problems.

Let me put it this way: how many people's lives have been ruined by earlier pregnancies? Sure, you may be okay with an abortion, but I doubt you find it pleasant...many women regret things like that as adults.

Look at it the other way: how many people have had their lives ruined by waiting? :)

[keithster]

And, while this may be a difficult thing for some to believe, :) no one has ever died from not having sex.

[TWTCommish]

Sure they have - babies have been created, and then killed because of the "parents" (I use that term incredibly loosely here) wouldn't take responsibility.

My philosophy is this: sex is obviously designed to give us children, so if you're not ready for the possibility of a child, you really ought not to have it.

And yes, in a sense, while people havn't been KILLED, their lives have been ruined and fetuses (children to me, but maybe not to the others here, so I'll call them that for now) have been destroyed because of this.

I'll repeat it: no one's life was ever ruined abstaining. This is totally un-negotiable and plainly obvious. WHY TAKE THE CHANCE?

[TWTCommish]

Ah, I'm so stupid! I thought you said the opposite of what you said. LOL. I guess I'm arguing with myself now. Not an uncommonc thing. :D

[keithster]

Yes, but it was a nicely stated argument and I agree with you. :)

Sex is great... in the right context. We're not dogs. We don't have to give into our momentary desires.