Like all things, the more you know the better decisions you'll likely make.  Abstinence-only ignores reality and is a head-in-the-sand approach to a problem that exists, one that won't go away if you simply don't talk about it.

Abstinence is a critical foundation though to comprehensive sex ed.  It is what should be taught first, reenforced the most, and emphasised as the only truely safe choice.  But it should not be taught to the exclusion of safe sex practices. 

Abstinence is a critical foundation though to comprehensive sex ed. It is what should be taught first, reenforced the most, and emphasised as the only truely safe choice. But it should not be taught to the exclusion of safe sex practices.

I agree. From what I remember of my own sex-ed classes, abstinence was OF COURSE encouraged; but abstinence-only results in problems for all involved.

The problem is, just like creation, you can't really even spend a day on it while you can spend a whole week on the different kinds of protection, different STDs, etc. But abstinence is so simple, it doesn't take long to talk about it.

What really bugs me is that these people's programs aren't to stop kids from having sex, but to stop kids from getting pregnant - two very different things. But, it is true that the more information you have the more likely you are to make a better decision. I had thorough sex-ed and I didn't get anyone pregnant before I was married, so it might not be a bad idea. I just want abstinence to remain a stressed and normal option.

SC posts: "but abstinence-only results in problems for all involved."

Abstinence only results in problems? Really?

No one has ever caught AIDS or any other STD from being abstinent. No one has ever become pregnant from practicing abstinence. Who’s really more vulnerable, the teen taught to use condoms and educated for sex or the one who’s motivated to save sex for marriage?

What really bugs me is that these people's programs aren't to stop kids from having sex

Jythier, Jythier, Jythier. Read the article. It says, The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex

Now, to me, "delaying the initiation of sex" is a fancy way of saying "not having sex" - which is ABSTINENCE, last time I checked. So yeah, these programs are having positive effects and encouraging abstinence, unlike what you say in your response.

Abstinence only results in problems? Really?

I didn't make myself very clear. Abstinence only PROGRAMS result in problems, because they have none of the benefits that we've been told for years they have. Of course, abstinence does not result in problems, and I'd prefer it if all the kiddies were abstinent myself, but study after study has shown that these abstinence only PROGRAMS have little to no effect, and the comprehensive programs are more helpful in every way.

This latest study is just more fuel to the fire.

"Jythier, Jythier, Jythier. Read the article."

I said, "But" after that quoted bit... meaning that, although this one thing is true (which it is), something else also matters (that non-abstinence-only education provides information required for a better decision).

I mean, the thing is called the "National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy" so that's obviously the goal here, not to encourage abstinence while providing additional information to help make it clear why abstinence is such a good idea, and how to keep yourself safe if you decide to not be abstinent. If abstinence is a side effect of their program, though, that's a good thing, and I can support that.

ZOOMBA POSTS:

ZOOMBA,

WIth respect, the problem from teaching both sends a confusing and contradictory message to the students. The schools for years have been doing this----blending the abstinence message with comprehensive sex ed--for years now and it's not working...proven ineffective. Why? it's becasue the former teaches values and the latter is valueless or value-free.

This is where the real issue lies in what is taught in the two very distinctive education programs. Abstinence education programs teach the value of abstaining from sexual activity and that should be reserved for marriage. Also, that sex involves commitment, love and intimacy; qualities most likely to be present within marriage.

Comprehensive sex education isn't values based. Values are omitted, and the teaching implies that casual sex has no lasting consequences as long as the student uses a condom or contraceptives. Comprehensive sex ed teach that casual sex is 'no big deal', when you're ready, just do it...only do it 'safely'. But there is no such thing as "safe sex". That myth has caused STDs to skyrocket among the nation's teens. That myth has aided in making drugs for depression the most prescribed medicine for teens. That myth has increased teen suicide as well as alcohol and drug abuse. The consequences of casual sex have been disastrous for the nation's youth.

Only since the broader implementation of abstinence until marriage education over the past 10 years or so have we seen a slight downturn in teen births and teen abortions.

SC, I don't know how to attach a link. Could you explain in easy terms like you did the avatar?

There are now several bona fide studies, surveys, and evaluations documenting the effectiveness of abstinence education that I think I can find and link.

What Douglas Kirby, senior research scientist at ETR Associates, says holds no water in the wake of the overwhelming evidence that abstinence education produces positive results across the board.

Who is ETR Associates?

It really kind of made me sick when the Dem's threw more money at these abstinence-only programs.  Who exactly are they pandering to? 

Abstinence-only plans are wishful thinking.  They do NOT work. I also think they are dangerous because they emphasize the failure rate of condoms so therefore the thinking is why bother with condoms so we have MORE teen pregnancies, more STD's etc.  I live in the Baptist, abstinence-only, true love waits, promise ring wearing, state of Texas which also has the highest number of teen pregnancies and repeat teen pregnancies. 

I don't have a problem with teaching abstinence and reinforcing that it is the best, no risk choice but I do have a problem with abstinence ONLY.  I think it is really anti-contrapceptive propoganda and dangerous to the health of teens.  Sticking your head in the sand saying well my kid is going to wait until they get married even though only 5% of people are still virgins on their wedding night is just not going to cut it. 

So suck on that, people.

That's a good start. Heh, heh.

I have to agree with this.  Abstinence only will promote more rebellion then anything in my opinion.  The minute you make something taboo it becomes all that more attractive.  I believe with the proper education and attitude about sex, people will be able to make better decisions.  Much like if you didn't teach people about gravity and tell them to stay away from a cliff...curiousity is a strong force in a young mind and people will get too close and fall off because they didn't know shit about what they're supposed to be cautious of.  On the other hand if you say, stay away from that cliff, you'll fall and die.  I'm pretty sure you'll have more people staying the hell away from it.  Some dumbasses will fall off, but you'll have that with anything.

~Zoo

I live in the Baptist, abstinence-only, true love waits, promise ring wearing, state of Texas which also has the highest number of teen pregnancies and repeat teen pregnancies.

Actually back a while I heard of a place/town/city in Texas that had very high rates of teens delaying their sexual experience as a result of teaching abstinence in this particular community. Perhaps you've heard that?

I know from just my own little corner of the woods here, there is a big diff from the kids that are being taught abstinence and those being taught sexual preparedness. The kids in my church are very vocal about abstaining including two of my own. I'm not saying EVERY kid that is in our church is doing this but it's a very large percentage that have made a decision to wait for sex and agree that it's the best for them. I suppose it doesn't mean they won't falter before marriage, but it does help if you make the decison ahead of time. You do not get this same sentiment from the "secular" kids in the school system. I'm involved in both church and school and have alot to do with young teens so I do see this firsthand. I've had girls on my x-country team from our church and there is a big difference between them and the other girls in ways of language and dress.

I think the differences comes from the church, not from whether they got a certain education or not. Also, rebelling against the world's way of things by staying abstinent is still a rebellion to them, against their peers. So it's fun!

The difference between secular kids and Christian kids is going to happen whether they teach sex-ed in schools or not.

Also, rebelling against the world's way of things by staying abstinent is still a rebellion to them, against their peers.

Oh, that's just nerdy.  

~Zoo

Church-goers are nerdy to begin with! Morals and Jesus and love and caring? What a dork. The cool people are all apathetic, hate everyone, don't believe in Jesus, and only have morals to go against them.

Except for the intolerable hippocrites(or hypocrites if you want to spell it correctly). Some of the most dishonorable people I know regularly attend church.

~Zoo