Does Abstinence-Only education help or hurt teenagers?

If middle and high schools addressed Sex Ed. from an abstinence-until-marriage angle–pinpointing all of the benefits of it–do you think this would be more beneficial or harmful to kids?

Abstinence only is more harmful. Obviously abstinence should be taught as an alternative. Kids are going to make the choice either way. But making that choice with some kind of knowledge & education will lead to better results.

CeCe wrote:Abstinence only is more harmful. Obviously abstinence should be taught as an alternative. Kids are going to make the choice either way. But making that choice with some kind of knowledge & education will lead to better results.

Also, as Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders pointed out (before that politician/coward Bill Clinton fired her), masturbation should be encouraged for young ppl as an alternative to sex with others and the stigma of lone sex removed.

harmful...A great percentage of them are going to do it no matter what you say, so the more educated they are about safer methods, the better, imo.

I'm still trying to get my head around that one, how the hell would that work? I can't see it being a full class, sounds more like a one-afternoon lesson.

Supernova wrote:I'm still trying to get my head around that one, how the hell would that work? I can't see it being a full class, sounds more like a one-afternoon lesson.

That's what our sex ed was at one school I went to. Our science teacher wrote "Mr. Frank" on the board and said something like "Today, I'm Mr. Frank and you can ask me ANYTHING you want..."

People asked some really weird questions...

We've had this discussion before with predictable results. It's one thing if abstinence is part of the curriculum of a sex education or health class (key word: education) but to teach abstinence and only abstinence is not much of an education.

alan smithee wrote:We've had this discussion before with predictable results. It's one thing if abstinence is part of the curriculum of a sex education or health class (key word: education) but to teach abstinence and only abstinence is not much of an education.

What it'll ONLY do is result in more pregnancies and STDs. Every sex ed class should promote abstinence as a viable option....but don't be so thick as to present it like it's the only one.

I've yet to see how it hurts teenagers. (Although I agree, we don't need a whole class on it. That's kind of even part of the point. ) I don't see how it's any different than telling them to not take drugs or to not ride recklessly. Both of the above have safety measures that could make the difference between life or death but saying "Don't do it but here's what you do if you do it" is basically talking out both sides of your mouth.

I don't believe in settling and I've yet to see a case of abstinence NOT working. What I see if teenagers NOT practicing it, and reaping what they sowed. Now, there is a WRONG way to teach abstinence, granted. But I don't feel it harmful at all. Not having sex isn't harmful. Therefore, teaching that isn't.

Sex Education itself, IMO, is a crock. So yeah, I support abstinence only education, done right. Why should I settle for something that MIGHT work? I was never one to support jumping out a building because we got a net to catch ya. My advice would be to simply not jump off.

Hurt.

When I hear "abstinence only", what I hear is "we're going to present sex as something that is inherently seedy, negative and dangerous...we're going to push the naivete of marriage and picket fences....and in the meantime we're not going to educate on safer sex practices, should the kids decide that they're going to become sexually active despite what we tell them."

So yeah that's gonna be harmful.

^^^^Relying only on connotations? Two COULD play that game.

CatEyes10736 wrote:When I hear "abstinence only", what I hear is "we're going to present sex as something that is inherently seedy, negative and dangerous...we're going to push the naivete of marriage and picket fences....and in the meantime we're not going to educate on safer sex practices, should the kids decide that they're going to become sexually active despite what we tell them."

So yeah that's gonna be harmful.

Win.

When I hear anything else, I think "We'll make a brief mention to kids about waiting to have sex to save face, but for the most part, we're going to tell them to have sex with whoever they want and we'll give them the free partially effective means to avoid some of the possible consequences of their actions, giving them the false illusion that they are completely safe."