Abstinence only.

Sorry. Yes you have and no they don't.

alan smithee wrote:Sorry. Yes you have and no they don't.

No I haven't, and yes they do. You're trying to find a contradiction where there is none.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:No I haven't, and yes they do. You're trying to find a contradiction where there is none.

With all due respect, I think it's pretty clear that you've completely lost this argument by now. When only 1 out of 10 people thinks that abstenance only is a "good idea", its probably not! America is one of the most "prudish" countries in the developed world (if not the most) and there are so many things that are still taboo there its ridiculous. The more taboo you make things, the more kids want to do them. Telling kids not to drink, do drugs, have sex often entices them to do it. And low and behold the US has more problems with underage drinking, teenage pregnancies and STD's than any comparable European countries where the legal drinking ages are much lower and where sex is taught responsibly. The proof is in the pudding!

Teaching "abstenance only" is a dangerous form of denial and absolutely ridiculous in this day and age where the average teenager loses their virginity by 15 years old! Children are having sex and they will continue to have sex. Telling them to abstain is like telling them not to be a teenager! Not teaching them about safe sex is akin to telling your kids "don't drink", but not telling them that drinking and driving is deadly! Abstinance only is a completley illogical and impractical philosophy as it pertains to prevention of teen pregnancies and STD's. Any parent that would teach abstinance only is irresponsible and ultimately partially responsible for the mistakes that their children make.

captainbryce wrote:With all due respect, I think it's pretty clear that you've completely lost this argument by now. When only 1 out of 10 people thinks that abstenance only is a "good idea", its probably not!

captainbryce, I know others have denigrated Forgivness_Man for his views and while I don’t agree with much of what he has to say my debate with him was based on our difference of opinion that statements he has made here and elsewhere are contradictory. But with all due respect to you, just because only 10% of the population thinks something's a good idea doesn't necessarily mean it’s not. If only 10% of the population thought the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the Americans With Disabilities Act, etc. was a good thing, would that make them bad ideas?

Neither approach, “traditional sex” education or abstinence-only are totally effective. Both sides can dig up their own statistics. If some parts of one work and some parts of the other work, they should be used. It shouldn’t be all or nothing.

captainbryce wrote:Cut for space.

This isn't a win/lose argument. It's an opinion. You can't win or lose opinions. And you're defaulting to popular opinion? lol Popular opinion doesn't determine what is or isn't a good idea. Judging by the decline of our culture in recent decades, I don't think I trust society to say what's a "good idea" anymore.

Sorry, but the "they will do it anyway" argument is weak. The same can be said for any kind of reckless behavior. I think it's a copout excuse to justify irresponsibility and lazy parenting to be honest. Parents use that excuse all the time now to justify letting their kids self-destruct with all kinds of behavior.

Sorry, but abstinence-only is not irresponsible. It is THE most responsible choice. It just requires a little bit of self-control. People can use condoms if they want, they are readily available, but abstinence-only works if followed. Hence it's perfectly reasonable to choose to take that route. MANY people do and are perfectly happy as a result.(They don't get immediate gratification from one night stands but they avoid a lot of pain that comes with that life) But if you feel differently, you're in control of your own life. People have to be responsible for their own decisions and if they don't use a condom, they gotta look in the mirror for who to blame.

And I still do not believe kids are in the dark about condoms. I know what a condom is and I didn't need anybody to tell me, and I was taught abstinence-only. If kids wanna have sex, it's their job to be "responsible."

alan smithee wrote:But with all due respect to you, just because only 10% of the population thinks something's a good idea doesn't necessarily mean it’s not. If only 10% of the population thought the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the Americans With Disabilities Act, etc. was a good thing, would that make them bad ideas?

Fair enough. Point taken and I withdraw that remark. But I still stand by the rest of my argument.

alan smithee wrote:Neither approach, “traditional sex” education or abstinence-only are totally effective. Both sides can dig up their own statistics. If some parts of one work and some parts of the other work, they should be used. It shouldn’t be all or nothing.

I disagree and I'm more inclined to say that sex education needs to me more exstensive than what it is now (which is not very extensive). It also needs to be a series of classes geared towards different age groups starting in middle school, not high school (when they are already likely to be doing it). Abstinence only is pointless because it's a fantasy. Sure, there are a few kids that maintain that they are "saving themselves for marriage", but they are few and far between, and teaching abstinence to the majority who have no intention of being abstinent is a waste of time and ultimately ignoring the problems that may be generated by them having sex.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:This isn't a win/lose argument. It's an opinion. You can't win or lose opinions. And you're defaulting to popular opinion? lol Popular opinion doesn't determine what is or isn't a good idea.

I've already conceded this point (see my above response).

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Sorry, but the "they will do it anyway" argument is weak. The same can be said for any kind of reckless behavior.

No it can't. First of all having safe sex is NOT reckless behavior. Having unprotected sex is reckless behavior and therein lies the difference! Teaching safe sex is trying to prevent reckless thinking. Teaching abstinence is ignoring the potential that they will engage in reckless behavior. Statistics demonstrate whether or not MOST teens are likely to do something or not and the fact is MOST teens are likely to have sex. So it's actually a very logical argument!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I think it's a copout excuse to justify irresponsibility and lazy parenting to be honest. Parents use that excuse all the time now to justify letting their kids self-destruct with all kinds of behavior.

I agree with you on this but unfortunately you are missing the point. Not teaching children about safe sex because you want to pretend that we live in some fantasy world where kids always obey their parents wishes is lazy, irresponsible parenting.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Sorry, but abstinence-only is not irresponsible. It is THE most responsible choice. It just requires a little bit of self-control.

Self control and TEENAGER are not often used in the same sentence. If you have that much faith in your kids, more power to you. But it's delusional thinking to assume that most kids excercise self control under most circumstances. This is 2010, not 1950! Wake up and face the reality that most kids are having sex! Pinning your hopes on a hormonal teenager exercising self control when it may result in some very unfortunate consequences is taking a big risk.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:People can use condoms if they want, they are readily available, but abstinence-only works if followed.

That's exactly my point, IF FOLLOWED. That's a big if! And if you acknowledge that condoms are readily available and they work, why in the hell would you NOT want to teach your children about them? Frankly, I just don't get that. Shouldn't you be doing everything possible to protect your children instead of just relying on a hope and a prayer that they'll do what you say all the time?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Hence it's perfectly reasonable to choose to take that route. MANY people do and are perfectly happy as a result.(They don't get immediate gratification from one night stands but they avoid a lot of pain that comes with that life) But if you feel differently, you're in control of your own life. People have to be responsible for their own decisions and if they don't use a condom, they gotta look in the mirror for who to blame.

Your response is very 'poetic' and under any other circumstances I would totally agree with you here. The problem is, this only applies to reasonable, educated adults who are responsible for themselves. We are not talking about grown ups here, we are talking about children (whom their parents are ultimately responsible for). You can't pin self responsibility on your child when you are responisble for them. That just doesn't make any sense!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:And I still do not believe kids are in the dark about condoms. I know what a condom is and I didn't need anybody to tell me, and I was taught abstinence-only. If kids wanna have sex, it's their job to be "responsible."

Again, that's taking a big risk. Its funny because I just heard this exact argument on CNN this morning. Turns out that most kids (and parents) when asked either NEVER have the sex talk with their children, have it too late, or are very embarrassed, awkward and vague about the whole thing. Most kids learn about sex from TV, movies and other kids in school! If sex education didn't teach kids how to properly use condoms, the majority would just be guessing! If they didn't scare kids half to death with those nasty pics of STD's, most kids wouldn't know what's out there beyond AIDS (which is something that only gay people get remember). Sex education is important and abstinence only just doesn't cut it. It's unrealistic and irresponsible. That is MY opinion!

^^^^Safe sex IS reckless behavior cause it's only SO safe, especially when you're sleeping around and not with the same partner.(Which at 15, is probably the case) It's a very illogical argument. If MOST teens committed suicide, does that mean parents should just be all whatever about it? MOST teens have sex because MOST teens don't have parents willing to teach them crap. They either look the other way or say "Don't have sex cause I say so" and leave the kids with no explanation. I don't feel parents should throw their hands up on parenting cause of statistics.

No it isn't irresponsible parenting. It's not a fantasy land at all. It's merely telling them the way the world really works isn't always the world where they can have whatever they want and that their decision will have ramifications.

A big risk? Oh please. I think I am easily say what BS the "big risk" is. "Kids are going to eat junk food anyway so encouraging healthy eating habits is living in a fantasy land." And if kids are going to disobey you anyway, who is to say they will even wear a condom? "Kids will do it anyway" is just a copout.

Well, I don't concede that condoms "work." They help but they are not fullproof. Abstinence is. "If you do drugs, make sure you use a clean needle." Making reckless behavior less reckless is still reckless behavior.

Actually, you CAN, because THEY want to prove that THEY are adult enough to have sex. If they aren't responsible enough, they probably arent' responsible enough to remember protection in the first place, and they certainly can't handle the emotional effects. That's all the more reason to go the extra mile to make sure they don't have sex because if they aren't responsible THEMSELVES, they are not ready for sex.

Well, I never had the talk either and again, and I grew up with fairly traditional values, and I still know what a condom is. Sex Ed is the unrealistic and irresponsible thing. I honestly believe it's parents making themselves feel good for lazy parenting. Abstinence only works, and I've seen it work when it's done right. There's just no excuse not to have it. Every excuse against it really doesn't hold up under scrutiny. That's make take anyway.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^Safe sex IS reckless behavior cause it's only SO safe

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard anyone say!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:especially when you're sleeping around and not with the same partner.(Which at 15, is probably the case) It's a very illogical argument.

Actually, it is you who is defeating your own logic. Abstinence only is an "idea". You just acknowledged that teenagers are likely to sleep around with different partners, so your answer to that is to NOT teach them about safe sex? Sorry, but that just doesn't add up!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:If MOST teens committed suicide, does that mean parents should just be all whatever about it?

First of all, MOST teens do NOT commit suicide, so that's a pointless analogy. Secondly, teaching about safe sex is NOT being "all whatever about it", it's being responsible about it.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:MOST teens have sex because MOST teens don't have parents willing to teach them crap.

Bullshit! Most teens have sex because they are horny teenagers and want to have sex! And they are still going to be horny teenagers whether their parents teach them "crap" or not!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:They either look the other way or say "Don't have sex cause I say so" and leave the kids with no explanation. I don't feel parents should throw their hands up on parenting cause of statistics.

That's exactly what teaching abstinence only does! Says don't do it because I said so. Because that's what the kids hear whether you explain the consequences or not. Ultimatley, they are going to make the decision themselves, so why not have them be prepaired in case they make the "wrong" decision?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:No it isn't irresponsible parenting. It's not a fantasy land at all. It's merely telling them the way the world really works isn't always the world where they can have whatever they want and that their decision will have ramifications.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but if the ramifications of unwanted pregnancy and STD's are something you are willing to risk by not keeping your child educated in such matters, that sounds like irresponsible parenting to me.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:"Kids are going to eat junk food anyway so encouraging healthy eating habits is living in a fantasy land."

Again, you're missing the point. Teaching them about safe sex is analogous to teaching them about eating healthy. Teaching them abstinence only is analogous to only buying healthy food in your house and hoping they continue to eat healthy when they walk out your door.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:And if kids are going to disobey you anyway, who is to say they will even wear a condom? "Kids will do it anyway" is just a copout.

Actually, it's not a copout because your argument is very flawed. It's based on the assumption that two wrongs make a right! The fact is, most kids are going to have sex whether they are taught abstinence or not. The question you need to be asking yourself as a parent is, if they are going to have sex, do you want to teach them to be safe about it or completely ignore that aspect. And I'm telling you that ignoring that is irresponible and dangerous regardless of your philosophy about teenage sex.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Well, I don't concede that condoms "work." They help but they are not fullproof. Abstinence is.

Abstinence is NOT foolproof because it requires that they actually stay abstinent! What part about that do you not understand?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:"If you do drugs, make sure you use a clean needle." Making reckless behavior less reckless is still reckless behavior.

No my friend, sorry but that was an equally ridiculous analogy because a) there is no safe way of doing heroin and b) MOST kids are not doing intravenous drugs! So that example is not even applicable. Having sex in and of itself doesn't have to be reckless if the person is educated and takes the proper precautions.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:If they aren't responsible enough, they probably arent' responsible enough to remember protection in the first place, and they certainly can't handle the emotional effects.

I think you underestimate most teenagers because you are making assumptions not based on anything scientific whatsoever, and using those assumptions to justify parental irresponsibility. It's your responsibility to make sure that they have all the information necessary to make the right choices. You can't control what choices they make, but you can ensure that they have the information. Using a ridiculous argument like "they probably won't use them" doesn't let you off the hook as a parent because if they don't know how to use them, they CERTAINLY won't use it. There is always a risk, but by NOT doing you job and teaching them, you've actually increased the risk yourself.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:That's all the more reason to go the extra mile to make sure they don't have sex because if they aren't responsible THEMSELVES, they are not ready for sex.

Once again, you cannot be with them 24/7! Unless you plan on making them wear a chastity belt until they are "old enough" (in your judgement), this is a fantasy!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Well, I never had the talk either and again, and I grew up with fairly traditional values, and I still know what a condom is.

That's very fortunate FOR YOU. But you hardly represent the majority. Knowing what a condom is and knowing how to use one and have access to them are completely different things. I'm sure most kids know what a condom is, but unless you've actually been instructed in how to use one and have access to them it's pointless!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Sex Ed is the unrealistic and irresponsible thing. I honestly believe it's parents making themselves feel good for lazy parenting. Abstinence only works, and I've seen it work when it's done right. There's just no excuse not to have it. Every excuse against it really doesn't hold up under scrutiny. That's make take anyway.

Well, I respectfully disagree, on many counts. But that's why we live in a free country! Fortunately most people now are under the realization that kids need to be taugh proper sex education in the 21st century. Teen pregnancy rates and STD transmission rates have actually gone down in recent years and it's no thanks to "abstenance only" instruction, but to better sex education. In most European countries, their sex ed programs are way more extensive and they have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and STD's because the kids are more responsible. This ridiculous notion of abstenance is not seen as realistic (except in the US) and low and behold the US has historically struggled with teen pregnancy and STD's. Again, the proof is in the pudding!

^^^^It's only ridiculous until you learn it's true.

Man, lots of already treaded ground with you. I'm ignoring some parts cause I'm too lazy to read it all.


"It's dangerous!" Only if you stop being a parent cause you think your kids are animals without any self-control.

It requires that they stay abstinent, just like protection requires that they actually use it? I thought that was how ANYTHING worked. I understand it perfectly. Abstinence IS fullproof.

There's no safe way to do heroin? Well, I am sure if people claimed that there was, I am sure we'd have plenty of people saying we gotta encourage our kids to practice safe drugs cause they will do it anyway. "They WILL do it anyway. It's dangerous to tell them not to do drugs. At least if they use a clean needle, they won't get AIDS!"

Chastity belts? Oh please. lol If you can't be with them 24/7, you can't be sure they're putting the condom on(properly) either. They might be too lazy to remember to go out to get one when they're horny now. We could go on forever with this. That's the point of TEACHING them.

Access? You mean Walmart? Showing kids how to properly use them is an illusion, IMO. I don't think any sex education will REALLY do that. Unless we're gonna have them drop their pants for the teacher next. Wouldn't surprise me actually. "Alright class, drop the pants and I'll put the condom on correctly for you."

The proof IS in the pudding. 100% of abstinent kids don't get STDs or pregnant. Kids who do are those who choose to have sex. Those are facts. Sex Ed makes people feel better but it's not helping the real problems. I don't want my kids to get an STD or be unwed parents. How do I prevent that? I give them valid reasons to wait to have sex, not hand them a rubber and tell them to use one before every roll in the hay and cross my fingers that they remember. Ignoring the problem doesn't work, but neither does throwing fuel on it cause it's gonna be there anyway.

And if you wanna make this about MY kids, you've definitely overlooked a LOT. What other people do with their kids is their business. But in schools, it should at minimum be confined to an elective class