The End of Abstinence-Only

Thank goodness. I remember in my high school health class (which was in Texas, I’ll note), the sex unit discussed all the different STD’s, ways of spreading them, and ways of preventing the spread of them (also the same in regards to pregnancy). Then, after this, specifically noted that the only 100% foolproof method was abstinence. I cannot think of a better way.

I just love the fact that the Christian right has put so much energy into promoting abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control when their entire belief system is based on a virgin birth. If there is one issue that perfectly illustrates the unbridled stupidity of the current conservative movement, this is it.

that…is not the same at all. Christians believe that the virgin birth was directly due to divine intervention.

“increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity),”
Can someone please explain to me how this is these 2 objectives can be achieved together? Use simple words, remember that you are dealing with a “slow” conservative.
.
“I just love the fact that the Christian right has put so much energy into promoting abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control when their entire belief system is based on a virgin birth. If there is one issue that perfectly illustrates the unbridled stupidity of the current conservative movement, this is it.”
Why is it so stupid to state a fact, isn’t it a fact that abstinence is 100% effective? And pray, explain to me why it is an indication of inanity that a group of people embrace an obvious and undebatable fact?
.
….maybe someday I’ll understand the reason a liberal will advocate for throwing a living foetus into a trash in a heartbeat, but will raise hell (and rightly so) at dog fighting …

according to the bible, mary practiced abstinence, remained a virgin, and still got knocked up.
.
Abstinence: 99.99999% effective.

Divine intervention caused the virgin birth. I’m showing restraint I didn’t know I had. Walk away. Go to another thread. Don’t say something you’ll regret.

Okay arch and walkingfunny, this post and blog in general isn’t for debating (okay, ridiculing) abstract religious beliefs. I will say no more on this.

“maybe someday I’ll understand the reason a liberal will advocate for throwing a living foetus into a trash in a heartbeat, but will raise hell (and rightly so) at dog fighting.
.
Not sure what a living “foetus” is but, you are right abstinence is 100% effective in preventing in females from having babies. Too bad its not that simple.

It is a lot easier to advocate waiting until marriage to have sex when the average person married at 18-19. Now that the number is closer to 29-30, that is a long and unrealistic amount of time to expect anyone to wait.
.
I will add, though, that I personally think its utterly crazy to consider marrying someone without having rolled in the hay first. A lack of sexual compatibility will doom a marriage as sure as the usual suspects.
.
One would think if “conservatives” truly wanted to limit abortions and STD’s, they would be all for contraception and comprehensive sex ed. Unfortunately, most of them just want to control the sex lives of others and inflict their personal religious views on the population. Hence, “conservative.”

apollyon07,
.
It may interest you to know that I am (loosely) tied to the part of the Lutheran church that decides what may or may not be blasphemous in a given situation, and even I think the whole idea of God impregnating a human being without sexual contact is batsh!t crazy.
.
I also happen to believe it.
.
It’s OK for both things to be true (i.e. it’s crazy AND I believe it), therefore if it makes for a pretty ironic comment on Christianity and abstinence, then you just have to roll with it. Otherwise you’re doomed to a pretty grumpy life.

“heretical” is more accurate than “blasphemous.” Sloppy post.

My interview with Amy Sullivan.
.
.
Alaskanturkey: Hi Amy, how’s it going?
.
Amy Sullivan: ….
.
Alaskanturkey: So, I see you wrote a post on the budget.
.
Amy Sullivan: ….
.
Alaskanturkey: Right, um…so, Amy, do you understand the point of a blog?
.
Amy Sullivan: (crickets)
.
Alaskanturkey: I miss Ana Marie Cox.

Why is it so stupid to state a fact, isn’t it a fact that abstinence is 100% effective? And pray, explain to me why it is an indication of inanity that a group of people embrace an obvious and undebatable fact?

Because people have not willing to abstain. Given that reality, your claims as to the 100% effectiveness of abstinence is inane.

Sorry. “Because people have not been willing to abstain.”

Walkingfunny wrote: “increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity),”…Can someone please explain to me how this is these 2 objectives can be achieved together?
.
Easy one: Let’s say 10 couples are having sex. 5 of those couples are having sex WITH protection and 5 of them are having sex witout protection. If one of those couples in the unprotected group starts using contraceptives, then (voila!) you’ve “increased contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity).”

To follow up on your point piper, we are actually getting something new on both ends when it comes to time until marriage occurs, and sexual activity.
.
Menstruation is happening at a younger age. It’s part of our diets now, and those lovely chemicals that American corporations keep placing in our environs and our food.
.
From what I have read, sexual maturity (menses) often didn’t occur until the age of 16 a century ago. If you could only get pregnant at 16 and you were getting married at 18, your “chastity” period with a significant other was only a couple years.
.
These days the age is more like 12 or 13 for first menses, and marriage is occurring in the mid to late 20′s. It is much easier to be “pure” if you don’t have a decade and a half to wait to do it.
.
Also thanks to the politicians that the religious right has supported who promised to get rid of abortion,(haven’t gotten around to it yet) but were very busy shafting workers in favor of corporations, we have the economic environment where young people at the age of 18 can no longer get married and support themselves on one salary earned by a high school graduate working in a factory. This one absolutely annoys me to no end. The very policies that the religious right supports makes their goals harder. Estrogens in our food, young non college educated people unable to support a household do not promote “virtue” and marriage.
.
/end long rant.

It is always interesting to hear these arguments on why teenagers and 20 somethings are so overcome by their hormones – all natural, that they cannot help but jump from bed to bed. What would we be if we obeyed all our “natural” impulses? I guess we would be like all other animals, say dogs and goats. You do know that these animals actually mate with parents, siblings and all, no qualms. I would suspect we would expect more from human beings, or maybe not, after all, we evolved from tadpoles and probably still have some of their attributes locked up in us.
.
If you don’t have enough restraint to keep your zippers up, you probably don’t have what it takes to put on a condom before the “act”. When an animal wants “it”, it usually wants it now.
.
btw, can someone please help answer my original question:
“increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity),”
How can these 2 objectives can be achieved together? Use simple words, remember that you are dealing with a “slow” conservative.
Suggestion: just distribute condoms, lots of them, but tell them use as few as possible.

I think we’re missing the ingredient that would have made CBAE more effective: the scarlet letter! .
.
Had young Ms. Palin appeared on teevee wearing a big, bold scarlet “A” while holding her baby, birth rates would tick downward noticeably.

Walking funny. There was a study done recently that Andrew Sullivan linked to that showed rates of STD’s in this country per capita. The area awash in red was not LA, Chicago, SF, or NY. It was the bible belt.
.
Kids whose parents speak honestly and openly about sex, who discuss birth control, ramifications of pregnancies and STD’s, tend to have less sex but use condoms when doing it.
.
So yes, you can teach contraceptive use to people like yourself and maybe they will think less about having all the sex they have, but bash everybody else for. It gets tiring hearing this nonsense. The #1 state for porn subscription is Utah. The #1 state for getting kinky sex toys per capita was Oklahoma. Preachy judgementalistic hypocricy is a failure. Deal with it.

Abstinence isn’t 100% effective because teenagers don’t abstain 100% of the time. Much the same way that no diet will ever be 100% effective because there will always people on the diet that will end up cheating. Practicality should always be factored into any approach that claims to be 100% effective.

“Easy one: Let’s say 10 couples are having sex. 5 of those couples are having sex WITH protection and 5 of them are having sex witout protection. If one of those couples in the unprotected group starts using contraceptives, then (voila!) you’ve “increased contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity).”
.
Your explanation assumes that set of people involved in sexual activity can remain while the use of protection within this same group will increase. So, the assumption here is that there is no correlation between availability of “protection” – removing any responsibility for the sexual act, and the actual increase in sexual activity. Even I, a slow conservative know this is most unlikely, when you remove any responsibility for the act, it is likely to increase, especially among teenagers. Imagine the increase in number of teenagers who will get drunk or stoned regularly or more often if there was no possibility of being caught by the cops or having their brains fried by drugs.

By the way, if you teach your kid abstinence only for sex education what will stop your daughter from giving head as an alternative? Absolutely nothing that’s what. And STDs should be just as big a concern as pregnancy.

Friar: “It may interest you to know that I am (loosely) tied to the part of the Lutheran church that decides what may or may not be blasphemous in a given situation, and even I think the whole idea of God impregnating a human being without sexual contact is batsh!t crazy.”
.
why is it so difficult to believe that God can put a baby in a womb without sex. If you don’t believe in a God, then I fully understand why this is all nonesense to you. But, if you do believe in a God, why do you think this will be impossible for Him?

walkingfunny: He who cannot do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. Look at the numbers. “Most unlikely” doesn’t mean anything.

@alaskanturkey: You’re thinking of abstaining…Amy’s posts?

Why do Amy Sullivan, the clueless community organizer and other anti-family leftists want to get into the bedrooms of other people’s children? If Obama wants to parade children around his favorite abortion mill, then he should stick with his own children. Please note the euphemism used by Sullivan to disguise her attempt to impose the religious cult of the anti-family fundamentalist left on other people’s children: “comprehensive and accurate education about contraception, disease prevention, and decision-making skills.” No thanks, Sullivan and other anti-family leftists. “Teach” your crap to your own children and keep your cult out of public schools. Got it?

WF has so far claimed to ‘know’ three things. In each case, there is an abundance of data to suggest that what (s)he knows is in fact untrue.
Without even delving into the proper role of religious faith in decisionmaking I can declare that there is one person in this conversation whom I wouldn’t trust within ten miles of my kid’s sex-ed curriculum.

This whole issue is corrupted by the religionists. The abstinence only curriculum was taught under contract by church and other religious groups. It was guerrila warfare. I sat through several of the classes as a substitute teacher. For legal reasons, a school employee had to be present, which the abstinence teacher wasn’t. There was not a hint of religion in the lessons, and yet it was obvious that there was theology lurking. The students, who most in the discussion don’t give credit for having living brains, were mostly bored. When a lively discussion developed, cold water was quickly thrown by the instructor…let’s move on.
.
I believe in separation of church and state. This program violated that tennent. I would just as soon Roman Pagan religionists, who believed in wanton sexual activity and had festivals devoted to that, would hijack the issue as have the Roman Catholics and their descendants.

I would just as soon Roman Pagan religionists, who believed in wanton sexual activity and had festivals devoted to that, would hijack the issue as have the Roman Catholics and their descendants.
.
Ironically enough that’s exactly what’s happening. Do you actually beleive the early Christians would have been nearly as uptight as they were if they weren’t reacting to a clearly recognizable evil at the time. Hedonism/Puritanism is just another one of those pendulum swings that appear to cycle through human thought at predictable intervals.

formerlyjames: Actually, the Classical Roman Pagans were pretty uptight about sex, relatively speaking – less so than the Judeans, more so than the Greeks of the time. There were constant debates about whether the fertility festivals like Lupercalia were ‘decent’ and worth keeping, or should be thrown out despite being traditional. I suppose you could think of it as paleoconservatives defending tradition against values conservatives . . . .
.
Having said that, my current beef with abstinence-only curricula (other than that they don’t work and lead to kids learning about contraception from Teh Internet, oh noes) is that in my state, the regulations are currently set up such that any school getting federal money has to have an abstinence-only curricula, and all the state-adopted health textbooks are abstinence-only, but the state curriculum passed by the legislature includes information on contraception. (Not a lot, but it’s there.) So if a school wants the money to teach the couse, it has to violate the state’s own curriculum; if it wants to follow the law, it can’t get funding or approved textbooks.

PD, I don’t know about that. Leviticus existed long before christianity. Saul adopted the parts he liked, ignored what he didn’t, but the point was, the pleasures of this world are ungodly and should be rejected. Another religion later adopted much of his view, but had virgins waiting in the next world.

@kbanginmotown – lol. Good idea – no more commenting on Amy posts for me. It’s time for a teabagging protest party.

Art Pepper Says: He who cannot do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. Look at the numbers. “Most unlikely” doesn’t mean anything.
.
well, the word likely is the root word for “likelihood” which is the technical word used interchangeably for the word “probability” in statistics and mathematics, so I’m not sure what your point is …. well semantics …I digress.
.
why don’t we stick to the issue, since you talk about sense and nonsense, let’s talk about common sense, answer the simple question that I posted earlier – rephrased: does anyone honestly think that a removal of the possibility of responsibility for – sex, drinking, doing drugs etc. will not cause an increase in such activities. In other words, will the possibility of acting with impunity not increase the occurrence of anything we consider naturally pleasurable? Let me simplify it further for you, if people were suddenly guaranteed that they can all they want of anything they want, with no possibility of being fat or ill health, will there be increase in gluttony, or will the set of gluttons increase?

why is it so difficult to believe that God can put a baby in a womb without sex. If you don’t believe in a God, then I fully understand why this is all nonesense to you. But, if you do believe in a God, why do you think this will be impossible for Him?
.
Did you, ah, read the paragraph after that? FT made it clear as daylight.

typing fast, should be working
.
“if people were suddenly guaranteed that they can all they want of anything they want,” should read “if people were suddenly guaranteed that they can ‘eat’ all they want of anything they want,”
.
“will there be increase in gluttony, or will the set of gluttons increase?” should read “will there be increase in gluttony, or will the set of gluttons remain the same?”

walkingfunny (why is that?), yes, you speak reason and common sense as you draw on the 7 deadly sins. But, as I mentioned earlier, you give little recognition to students having active working brains and instincts. They just want to know the facts and risks, and then will act of their own volition. Some will follow what you think they should do, and some won’t.

walking:
.
Yes.
.
Also: Sorry if I wasn’t unclear, by “‘most unlikely’ doesn’t mean anything,” I didn’t mean gramatically. But your common sense is telling you something that isn’t born out by the actual numbers.

Walkingfunny: You seem to think that use of contraceptives automatically makes sex more likely (or that their use means more people will do it). If you’ve got data to support that notion, please cite it. I come at it from the POV that a certain percentage of kids are going to have sex — with protection or without. I’d prefer they had sex with protection, in order to lower the incidence of unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Even if there’s scientific data that shows more people have sex, if they have access to contraception (as you say: “with impunity”) then at least they’re having *protected* sex. And to that, I say: Good for them!

“Your explanation assumes that set of people involved in sexual activity can remain while the use of protection within this same group will increase. So, the assumption here is that there is no correlation between availability of ‘protection’ – removing any responsibility for the sexual act, and the actual increase in sexual activity. Even I, a slow conservative know this is most unlikely, when you remove any responsibility for the act, it is likely to increase, especially among teenagers. Imagine the increase in number of teenagers who will get drunk or stoned regularly or more often if there was no possibility of being caught by the cops or having their brains fried by drugs.”

Actually, there isn’t any, but that’s beside the point.

There are four major groups of sexually active couples
A) Those using Abstinence
B) Those sexually active using Contraceptives effective against STDs and pregnancy (Condoms)
C) Those sexually active using Contraceptives effective against pregnancy (Birth Control Pills, morning after pill, etc – also probably includes Abortion)
D) Those sexually active using no form of contraceptives. Also includes those who use contraceptives incorrectly such that they are ineffective

The intent of any program, IMO, should be to move as many people as possible up the ladder from lower levels to higher levels. Natural instincts more than anything else draws people to lower levels. A problem with Abstinence only education is that several studies have shown that it is about as effective as any other program at keeping people in the first category, but because little time is devoted to “safe sex” discussions, the number using B or C or (more importantly) is much lower and, just as importantly, the number trying to achieve B or C and failing because of improper use of contraceptives is much higher. As such, STD spread and pregnancy rates are far higher while doing, honestly, fairly minimal effect on maintaining abstinence.

“…abstinence-only programs have not proven nearly as successful…”
.
Please. They blow.

gah – two thoughts diverged simultaneously
.
“…the number using B or C is much lower and, just as importantly, the number trying to achieve B or C…”

Walkingfunny — I completely respect your belief that sex outside of marriage is wrong, as well as your right as a parent to teach that message to your children (mine certainly did).

However, I can assure you that the shock value alone of sitting through a graphic slide-show presentation in health class showing the open sores of STDS, as well as statistical data on local infection rates had a FAR more sobering impact on my hormones than my “values education.”

Why do Amy Sullivan, the clueless community organizer and other anti-family leftists want to get into the bedrooms of other people’s children?

That’s rich: a winger trying to champion bedroom issues. The question, however, remains why you fundies want to impose your ignorance on everyone else.

Actually, here’s a different way to look at it using numbers.
.
Most contraceptives boast a 99% effective rate but for arguments’ sake, let’s say it’s 95%.
.
Not using contraceptives has, if I remember my numbers correctly, a 14% chance of not getting pregnant (I’m not sure how that number works out, but that was a stat I’d run across once. I’m sure we can all agree that it’s unlikely that the prevention is below this number).
.
Let’s assume that 20% of students under abstinence only education are having sex (a ridiculously low number) and half of them are not using protection or using it incorrectly. Therefore, we have 0.1*0.14 + 0.1 * .95 + 0.8 = 0.014+0.095+0.8 = 0.909
.
Now let’s assume that everyone is having sex under sex education (a ridiculously high number) but 95% of them are using contraceptives effectively (probably a low number). Then we have 0.95*0.95 + 0.05 * 0.14 = 0.9025 + 0.007 = 0.9095. Slightly better for what would, realistically, be the extreme scenario
.
The fact of the matter is that if you’re using STDs and Pregnancies as you measures of success, for every one student that starts using protection, you can have 6 students start having sex (with protection) with zero impact (in fact, positive impact) on pregnancy rates.
.
Yes, this equation ignores morality, but I believe that’s an issue between the students and God to sort out, not for the government to enforce on students.

…sitting through a graphic slide-show presentation in health class showing the open sores of STDS,…
.
reality,
.
I’ll see your slide show and raise you a set of posters on the wall of the hallway outside of the VD clinic at any military base. I’ll even toss in the “small basketball pump” they used to inject the penicillin in your rump (two doses!!) as part of the treatment.
.
Talk about something that would “inhibit your hormones”, (or eating, or looking at a female with nefarious intent, or any other number of otherwise normal activities…)

Abstinence has never been workably enforced in the whole of human history. Just like prohibitions against theft and murder. Forbidding such activities doesn’t stop people from stealing and killing.

Abstinence only education works only in an idealistic world. The reason for it is simple. You can tell kids they will get pregnant, or get STDs until you are blue in the face and it won’t make an impact because all kids think they are immortal, and it could NEVER happen to them!

After all, they know better than some old person right?

No, we live in the real world, and in the real world kids will believe what they want to believe, and do what they want to do because they think they can get away with it, and the know everything, so nothing bad is going to happen to them.

The only effective way is to educate kids. Fully.

There’s nothing vulgar, or obscene about sex. It’s a perfectly natural means by which the human species perpetuates itself, and is a means that couples use to maintain a close relationship.

It’s by trying to shield kids from the truth that you make them most vulnerable. If sex is presented in a casual, matter-of-fact manner, like it’s no big deal, you are less likely to see reckless behavior. If it’s not a forbidden, naughty activity, the tittilation that comes from doing what your elder’s tell you is wrong vanishes.

Believe me, the quickest way to get a teenager to do something is to make them think you don’t want them to do it. But if you make it nothing more than factual biology, you will see interest in it will dwindle.

Quick note: I really appreciate the fact that we can have a generally civil discussion
.
realityexists: “However, I can assure you that the shock value alone of sitting through a graphic slide-show presentation in health class showing the open sores of STDS, as well as statistical data on local infection rates had a FAR more sobering impact on my hormones than my “values education.”"
.
I am not advocating for no sex education in schools. Far from it, I believe it should be taught well and often, there is no virtue in ignorance. When the teaching should start and other details are open to discussion. My point is this; it is a very difficult balancing act to try to teach abstinence while handing out condoms. If we say that teaching abstinence is ineffective, then leave it out because it is a distraction from teaching “when you do it, do it with a condom”. There is no reason at all to teach abstinence if there is no possibility of a repercussion from having sex since I will be protected by a condom. Or could there still be some responsibility that a condom cannot protect me from? Condoms will protect me from STDs, but without a “value system”, we are mere animals living by instincts. God forbid that we are reduced to that.

Hmmm, let’s see… Bristol Palin was raised by parents who preach “abstinence only” worked like a charm, didn’t it? I was educated, properly, and was duly intimidated by the thought of all the possible consequences of going to bed with someone. I was, truthfully, not quite 23 when I finally gave it a try. I have been patiently reminding my daughter, since she could first speak in sentences (she’s 16 now)”Get your education, get a job, save your money, THEN meet somebody, and maybe get married, THEN have a baby. It has always been in friendly, but firm terms. When a boy at school began to pressure her, she came straight to me. We settled it, I praised her thoroughly for her mature handling of the situation (which reinforces the fact that it is good to come to Mom, and to talk to Mom)I’ve had to educate her myself, mostly, because everybody is yowling about what can be taught in school, even public schools. But we are legalizing same sex marriage. HUH??

we are mere animals living by instincts. God forbid that we are reduced to that.
.
I find your utter distrust of human nature a but disturbing. You seem to have this notion that left to ones own devices, people would drink, smoke weed, eat ice cream, have sex, and play video gomes 24/7 and never come up for air. Beleive it or not, the desire to read, socialize, join clubs, perhaps attend church and be helpful to our fellow travelers is just as much a part of our instinctual nature as the desire to engage in sex and eat.
.
I get the feeling that your own unwillingness to engage in certain pleasures has allowed you to blow their appeal up beyond any real proportion.

I think that there is a place for including the potential benefits of abstinence in public education. Personally, I think that good sex education does not have to exclude a discussion of values. Ideally, sex education would emphasize:

A)making choices that are right for you personally in terms of when & if to have sex, &

B)responsibility for protecting yourself and others if & when you do have sex.

I don’t see that either a discussion of the benefits of abstinence or the availability of free condoms undermines those objectives.

The problem with abstinence-only education isn’t “abstinence” it’s “only.” Huge difference.

I work with kids, middle schoolers to be exact. Time and time again, I hear parents tell me, “I will handle how to explain to my child about sex and/or drugs.” Ha! They either don’t and do a piss poor job.

There is a reason teen pregnancy is on the rise. It is too easy to blame it on society and pop culture. Too many kids have no idea about what to do to protect themselves during sex and adults having their heads in the sand about these issues is ridiculous.

district112 — Agreed, vehemently. I taught in an abstinence-education only school district for three years. For those that managed to graduate, 60% of high school girls in my district graduated with one or more children. I realize that multiple circumstances contributed to the teen pregnancy rates in my district, but I’m not sure how anyone could possibly be convinced that teaching sex-ed and handing out condoms could possibly make the situation worse.

[...] Read more: The End of Abstinence-Only Education (Time Magazine) [...]

walkingfunny, if you’re still here:
.
You didn’t read my comment very carefully. I said two things:
.
1) The concept of the Virgin Birth is batsh!t crazy
.
2) I believe, nevertheless that it’s true
.
Got it?

I hear 2 sister’s talking on NPR one day. Their parents had diedm, I think and both I think had grown up in foster care and the older sister was attempting to be a mentor to her younger sister. Her younger sister wanted to have a baby because she wanted to feel loved like she belonged to somebody. The older sister tried to explain to her younger sister that babies can’t love you in the way she wanted to feel when they are first born. That there was going to be months of just taking care of the baby with little time for herself. Her sister said she understood, but she didn’t sound convinced, in the end.

Friar Tuck
.
You didn’t read my comment very carefully. I said two things:
.
1) The concept of the Virgin Birth is batsh!t crazy
.
2) I believe, nevertheless that it’s true
.
Got it?
.
Yes, got it now, I warned you that I was slow . I agree, and add that every claim of a miracle will be (in your words) “batsh!t crazy”, hence the claim to the miraculous. It is not supposed to make natural sense.

Age-appropriate comprehensive sex-education should be taught in schools period! Parents may feel that it is their job or right to pass on this information, but the bottom line is that few are equipped to do so. And unless and until parents take a test proving that they have this knowledge themselves, they ought to rely on the professionals and STFU.

Trifecta55: Please forgive me for quoting you out of context. I tried to abstain from doing this but like abstaining from sex, that never worked for me either.
“We’re actually getting something new from both ends”
THAT is the best argument against abstaining that I have ever heard.

[...] here:  The End of Abstinence-Only Education (Time Magazine) Tagged: abstinence, all-1376, among-the-proposed, based-abstinence, cbae, changes-it-includes, [...]

I don’t see why the federal government has to be the one funding sex ed. That seems like something states and local government can handle themselves.

Abstinence only was/is the stupidest idea ever conceived. It is the classic ‘don’t do as I do – do as I say do” rant.

Idiotic..

Peter, just as some states rank at and near the bottom on education funding and quality, there will be those left up to their own devices that will be lacking on this as well. I mean really, do you think those states trying to teach creationism as an alternative scientific theory won’t be tempted to tell young people that contraception doesn’t matter because if God wants you pregnant nothing will stop it not even virginity.

[...] hoping he doesn’t pull a Warren on this one Posted on May 7, 2009 by Bento Obama is pulling funding on abstinence only sex education: The Obama budget eliminates the main federal funding streams [...]

Peter and Dee, you both miss the point entirely. The federal government funded sex education in the form of abstinence only to appeal to the christian fundamentalists which formed the base of the Bush administration. To the victor go the spoils. That simple. Let us pray that we never suffer through such an administration again. Fat chance.

This thread is about wrung dry. Before I abandon it, let me say to Word Warrior, I don’t know what you mean by pull a Warren, and I don’t know what Bento means, but I have enough grasp to know that you are a right wing crazy, without even checking your link. Go crawl back under a rock, please. To all informed and civilized people (Word Warrior, that doesn’t include you btw), have a good night and tomorrow.

Let me just add that I used to question the wisdom of Federal education funding too and Dee successfully convinced me that it was approriate.

[...] over, F-22 … now we know the real reason Republicans are opposing President Obama’s [...]

[...] over, F-22 … now we know the real reason Republicans are opposing President Obama’s [...]

walkingfunny wrote:

> You do know that these animals actually mate with parents,
> siblings and all, no qualms. I would suspect we would expect more
> from human beings, or maybe not, after all, we evolved from
> tadpoles and probably still have some of their attributes locked
> up in us.

> Your explanation assumes that set of people involved in sexual
> activity can remain while the use of protection within this same
> group will increase. So, the assumption here is that there is no
> correlation between availability of “protection” – removing any
> responsibility for the sexual act, and the actual increase in
> sexual activity.

You seem to want to suppress other (unmarried/teenage) peoples sex-life.
What is your reason for doing so?
I think you’re trying to sell this idea.
To get this idea sold to other people you require some secular purpose, which all of us (but not just christians) can understand and relate to.
Not getting a STD cannot be the reason, since you did not mention that you want to suppress only promiscuous sex-life.
Not getting pregnant can also not be the reason, since there are effective contraceptives.

“It would appear that Western civilization has endured two millennia of consecrated sexual neurosis simply because of the authors of Matthew and Luke could not read Hebrew.” — Sam Harris commenting on the mistranslation of “young woman” into “virgin” in the bible

Sex Ed. has become a political football for too many.
Abstinence only = FAIL!

Spring is here. Love is in the air. Teenagers are having sex.
When they ask for birth control and protection from STDs they mean now.

Abstinence means no sex. No sex means no babies and no diseases. How much instruction does this require? Not much. But why have no sex? If at this point religion(s) becomes part of the equation the religious “instruction” MUST remain the responsibility of the religious institution or community to which a student belongs and MUST NOT and CAN NOT be taught in public schools. This does not mean that religions or religious beliefs are not welcome or appropriate in sex education classes. It means that there are too many different religious belief systems to be properly taught in said sex education class. As these commentaries become hopelessly lost in discussions of virgin birth (oxymoron, morons, or are we discussing cloning, perhaps artificial insemination? Does the son of God have God’s DNA or only his mother’s?), imagine how the mention of “God’s plan” plays out in a classroom with a mix of Roman Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Fundamentalist Christian, Atheist, Mormon, Lutheran, Protestant, Jehovah’s Witness, the Quaker boy with two mommies, the Baptist girl with two daddies hoping to get married soon, and the identical twins of Hippies, Destiny and Happenstance who already lost their virginity, one is waiting for the results of an STD test and the other awaits the results of (another) pregnancy test. As every abstinence-only program has a free get out of jail card, called marriage, what do the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students wait for? Abstinence until civil union? I know, I know, one nation, under gawd, with liberty and just ice for all.

@sgwhiteinfla

Even worse than your daughter giving unprotected head would be saddlebacking:
http://www.saddlebacking.com/

As for the conservative claim that the alternative to abstinence-only is no mention of abstinence at all, that is a strawman. Comprehensive plans do emphasize abstinence as well, but not exclusively. And, walkingfunny, giving teens various alternatives that have shown to be effective when practiced properly, including abstinence and using condoms, is much more likely to succeed.

@way2ec,
“As every abstinence-only program has a free get out of jail card, called marriage, what do the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students wait for?”
_
Well, for gay men there’s always the priesthood.
But seriously, those people shouldn’t be having sex (or at least the kind that they would like) ever anyway. They should be attending therapy to learn how to be straight instead, and then get married so that they can have straight sex.
And then seek out male prostitutes secretly.

@excessphase,
It wasn’t Matthew and Luke who mistranslated it. It was the translators of the Septuagint.

@Word Warrior,
Obama is a Japanese lunchbox?

@Friar Tuck & walkingfunny,
You’re free to believe whatever crazy nonsense you like, but that cannot form the basis of a public healthcare policy.

@archstanton68, sacredh, etc.,
My mother got preggo while still a virgin, too, and the baby was born on the feast day of the immaculate conception to boot. Of course they named my sister Maria. Sex ed really could’ve come in handy (abortion on demand, too). She grew up in a conservative Catholic family where such things were never discussed, and thus she became a teenage mother. But that convinced her to encourage her children to practice safe sex, all of whom married in their late twenties or thirties and had children (only) afterward.

@trifecta55,
I saw that recent article too about how the average age of onset of menses was much later in previous decades, but actually, in the 19th century it was at the age of 17! That means a lot of girls were probably married BEFORE they started menstruating. Sort of like in Saudi Arabia, I guess.

@walkingfunny,
Abstinence is 100% effective. Abstinence-only education, however, is not. That’s the problem.
But since abstinence is so effective, we should advocate it for everyone, like St. Paul (the person, not the city). You will only have to wait a few years until the Rapture anyway.

[...] sisters about birth control–a.k.a. “Community Based Abstinence Education”– are over. Champagne and condoms for [...]

[...] Policy | Fiscal Year 2010 budget sees the end of abstinence-only funding for public [...]

I used to work as a birth control / unplanned pregnancy counsellor. My job was to provide information on all available options surrounding contraception and unplanned pregnancy in order for my clients to come to a decision that best suited their circumstances.

What I have learned from this (most rewarding) work is:
1. People have sex. Hate to break it to ya, but it’s true. And guess what? Everybody IS doing it. So just deal with that fact and give the public the means to keep themselves as safe as possible.

2. Nobody wants to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. It’s not a party. Providing the public with a means to deal with the situation in a non-judgemental way if it occurs is the only option. Because after all, it’s not like their doing anything that nobody else is doing. It’s just that they got caught.

3. Sexual health = mental health. If humans are not finding a safe, healthy, fun way to experience their sexuality, it is a mental health issue and will mess them up in the long run. Accept it: humans need sexual contact because it is in our programming. All that hyper-conservative idealistic blathering about “morality”, and “why can’t they just keep their zippers up” is a waste of time. People have sex because it is awesome and fun and a great workout and because we are social creatures that require physical contact to remain contributing members of society.

I mean, Jebus. Humans have been having sex since evolution gave us genitals (or, if you’re going to get all freaky about it, since some higher power of some sort built our pipes out of sand or whatever the heck s/he did).

If you claim you DON’T need/want sex, I would be much more worried about you than if you said you did. So stop exerting all this misdirected energy into trying to prevent people from having sex, and just give the public the resources so that they can be trusted to make the best decision for them at the time the decision is needed

This is a really important issue to teens like myself, and I wrote a blog about the comments on this blog which can be found here:

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/dandaman6007/2009/5/11/Correcting-Myths-and-Misconceptions-about-Sex-Education

Check it out!

[...] The End of Abstinence-Only Sex “Education”: As I explained in the magazine a couple of months ago, abstinence-only programs have not proven nearly as successful as approaches that combine the message that abstinence is a good goal for teenagers (see: Bristol Palin) with comprehensive and accurate education about contraception, disease prevention, and decision-making skills. [...]

This is really a simple issue, let’s leave religion out of it. Abstinence should be preached ALONGSIDE prevention of teenage pregnancy.That is the only way-a comprehensive sex education for the youth is inevitable.It always works. Teach your child that abstinence is the best way out of teenage pregnancy, pre-marital sex and heartbreak. When the child gets to the stage starts telling her a different story, teach her about how to avoid unwanted pregnancy, which can come at any age, not teenage only.You can’t follow them everywhere.A word is enough for the wise child.

     Hey, archstanton68 – Abstinence IS the only way to guarantee you won’t get an STD or pregnant… The Bible clearly states that Mary’s case was divine intervention which trumps natural law (as God made the law and is outside of and not bound to it). Teenagers, contrary to what many of us think (myself NOT included), are NOT capable of doing anything and defying all odds and doing much the same thing. The Bible says Mary was made to be carrying a child; not Gonorrhea, Herpes, HIV, or any other STD!     And yes, realityexists, the problem with abstinence programs is that so many of them are purely abstinence at the expense of all other methods (and “contingency plans”). Much the way most non-abstinence centered curricula omit it entirely, or relegate it to a footnote status. This is a problem in more than just this area of education, however.     It is systematic that there are entire fields of education pushed on us with a severely limited range of opinions – often with fraudulent (or outright non-existent) “facts” to support said position – rather than truly educating us to be critically thinking and inquisitive (therefore investigating and learning for ourselves, outside of school as well) the education system is politically charged to force students to regurgitate a single philosophy and idea as the absolute truth to the exclusion of any other possibilities, without fairly investigating or representing them.
     This has taught those on both sides that their way must be the exclusive standard presented to students. It the wrong way to teach anything, and IT must be corrected before this kind of problem can be corrected.

[...] For one, less attention has been given to the fact that the committee also gave the thumbs-up to a Baucus amendment that appropriates $75 million in grants to comprehensive sex ed programs, as well as research into innovative strategies to prevent teen pregnancy. That's a 50% increase over the amount Obama requested in his FY2010 budget.  [...]

[...] change the Obama administration implemented in this area was the requirement that funded programs "have been proven through rigorous evaluation to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (… Many abstinence-only advocates who lobbied for the Bush abstinence-until-marriage rules have [...]

[...] women create a livelihood for themselves, moving closer to self-reliance. To act locally, end abstinence only teaching in our own schools. Do what you can to send girls to school throughout the world. Support [...]