Sex Education: Abstain or Don't?

Acrticle Against Abstinence Only

Artical For Abstinence Only

If this is a topic that has already been brought up here, forgive me.

I was reading about these tonight and It really just blows my mind that anyone would think that an Abstinence Only sex-ed class would be a good idea. Even more so that it is endorsed by our policy makers with such… vigor! That being said, the second article states that Abstinence Only programs focus both on safe sex practices, as well as relationships and how to pretty much 'Just Say No'.

Thoughts? Opinions? Is anyone FOR Abstinence Only sex-ed?

I don't have an issue with teaching abstinence, however I have an issue with abstinence only classes. I don't think they work, and I don't think it's realistic.
Your links provided didn't work so I can't comment on what the articles discuss.

I've never understood the concept of waiting until marriage before having sex.
Sex, like many other things, is something you can get better at, learn from, and explore.
In the context of teenagers and youth, it's important to teach them the ramifications of sex, but don't demonize it, nor portray it as a shameful act if they do decide to have sex.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I don't think they work, and I don't think it's realistic.

---

See, I don't think they would work either.

But I've actually read about them a number of times, and shockingly they DO work. I wish I had links and data at my fingertips, but I don't. So I'm just going to have to recall some basic results from memory.

Kids are weird. It is surprising how effective it is to actually tell them in clear, uncertain terms: "DO NOT DO X." Surprisingly, a very significant portion of kids will actually listen when the admonition is presented in a very clear, absolute, definitive way.

The same method actually seems to work for drugs and alcohol abuse. For some reason, a lot of parents don't think to just say straight up: "We do not want you abusing drugs, drinking, or having sex." They get so worried about not being their kids friend, or being perceived as "square", that they pussy foot around the issue and never give their kids a very clear direction.

Yes, it doesn't always work. Some kids will outright defy their parents no matter what. But every analysis I have ever read about indicates that simply telling your kids not to do something in a very concise, clear manner actually has a shockingly high success rate.

My personal belief is that the best course of action is to give students proper sex ed. I think that trying to drill abstinence only into a kid's head is very dangerous, because while it might deter them from sex initially, sooner or later they'll take the plunge. I think it's important that when they do, they're equipped with proper knowledge and a sound education of what their options are, of what safe sex entails, and where and how they can get help if it's needed. I think abstinence should be presented as one of the many options they have, not the only option. Pushing an abstinence only campaign puts young people at risk of being in situations where the choices they make are uneducated and unsafe, because they've been denied proper knowledge and instruction. I think the choice to abstain is one that young people should make for themselves, not have made for them at their own expense.

I think there is a time and a place to teach other stuff also. But someone else posted a thread here recently about some place teaching sex ed at age 5.

WTF?

Maybe in high school (middle school at the earliest) start teaching about birth control and all that jazz. But before that it is pretty ridiculous.

I was pretty sure the latest results showed that abstinence only education was an expensive and over funded failure. That's the spin it's getting anyways.

Here's an article that has a lot of good links:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77254.php

It sounds like "abstinence only" is a term of art that is more specific than what I thought it was all about. It is starting to sound like a loaded code word like "Intelligent Design."

I assumed it meant a program that teaches abstinence as the primary means of keeping kids from being sexually irresponsible, and then left contraception issues for health classes at the high school level.

From what I remember reading, abstinence only programs are mostly built on misinformation and on drilling the idea into student's heads that they should wait until they are married to become sexually active. My main source of knowledge about abstinence only programs comes from what I have read about "True Love Waits," which is a Christian group that advocates no sex before marriage to students. They work with schools to spread this philosophy to students. They also do a thing called the "virginity pledge" which is basically exactly what it sounds like. Students sign a card saying they will not engage in sex before marriage. True Love Waits isn't the only group that does this, as it's popular with church groups as well (like Evangelists). It seems like this creates a ton of peer pressure between students and church congregations and what have you, while eliminating proper sexual education.

A couple studies have been done and I believe that there are stats available that indicate that abstinence only education doesn't eliminate the risk of STDs, pregnancies, etc in the students who are receiving it, but rather that they are more at risk to engage in unsafe sex due to misinformation or a lack of appropriate education.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
It sounds like "abstinence only" is a term of art that is more specific than what I thought it was all about. It is starting to sound like a loaded code word like "Intelligent Design."

I assumed it meant a program that teaches abstinence as the primary means of keeping kids from being sexually irresponsible, and then left contraception issues for health classes at the high school level.

---

The more secular programs tend to call themselves ABSTINANCE FIRST, and these are the programs, as I recall that have the surprisingly good results compared to traditional sex Ed, and are probably the ones you are thinking of in your earlier post. When I was in college, the program I volunteered with did indeed start in Kindergarten, but the kids would have no idea the point of the classes was to prevent them having sex before they were ready later. The abstinance first program wasn't intended to replace the traditional sex ed the kids got in Junior high and high school, but was done in addition to that. It was also highly secular.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Carrah
From what I remember reading, abstinence only programs are mostly built on misinformation and on drilling the idea into student's heads that they should wait until they are married to become sexually active. My main source of knowledge about abstinence only programs comes from what I have read about "True Love Waits," which is a Christian group that advocates no sex before marriage to students. They work with schools to spread this philosophy to students. They also do a thing called the "virginity pledge" which is basically exactly what it sounds like. Students sign a card saying they will not engage in sex before marriage. True Love Waits isn't the only group that does this, as it's popular with church groups as well (like Evangelists). It seems like this creates a ton of peer pressure between students and church congregations and what have you, while eliminating proper sexual education.

A couple studies have been done and I believe that there are stats available that indicate that abstinence only education doesn't eliminate the risk of STDs, pregnancies, etc in the students who are receiving it, but rather that they are more at risk to engage in unsafe sex due to misinformation or a lack of appropriate education.

---

UGH! I remember that program from when I was in High school. It's the only sex ed my parents would allow, and it was just dreadful. It would have been even worse if I were straight, at least in my case, it largely just seemed like a parody of itself.

I strongly believe that sex ed. should be taught in an environment that's positive, supportive, and not in an intimidating or dogmatic fashion. You talk about how great sex is, AND you discuss how STDs can be transferred. You also don't exclude discussions about homosexuality.
I suspect the abstinence only programs have a religious under score to them. This is a different issue, and should be explored as an additional informational source, if that's important to the student, or family.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn
The more secular programs tend to call themselves ABSTINANCE FIRST, and these are the programs, as I recall that have the surprisingly good results compared to traditional sex Ed, and are probably the ones you are thinking of in your earlier post. When I was in college, the program I volunteered with did indeed start in Kindergarten, but the kids would have no idea the point of the classes was to prevent them having sex before they were ready later. The abstinance first program wasn't intended to replace the traditional sex ed the kids got in Junior high and high school, but was done in addition to that. It was also highly secular.

---

Yeah, that sounds a lot more familiar. Perhaps that is what I have read about rather than this abstinence only thing.

I'm curious what is being taught to the kindergarten children. I find it hard to believe any type of sex ed is appropriate at that age.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
You talk about how great sex is

---

I don't think this is at all necessary, and can easily be misinterpreted as tacit approval of anyone's choice to have sex at whatever age simply for the "fun" of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Yeah, that sounds a lot more familiar. Perhaps that is what I have read about rather than this abstinence only thing.

I'm curious what is being taught to the kindergarten children. I find it hard to believe any type of sex ed is appropriate at that age.

---

Oh... it was songs and games about how lovable and capable we all are as individuals, and a lot of poems and rhymes that used to remind me a lot of Stuart Smalley, or whatever the lay therapist was on Saturday Night Live. These were especially targeted towards the girls, but all the students took part. They also had games that showed how great saying no to our friends is, sometimes. We saw cartoons and did skits and stuff where people said no to something they didn't want to do with their friends and ended up having more fun with other friends, or their family, or by themselves. It was all about feeling confident in making their own choices as to what is fun, and what isn't fun, and knowing what makes a choice a healthy choice and what makes it an unhealthy choice. It was part of a "peer helper" program the school put in place that was used in conjunction with the Abstinance First program, as well as Drug and Alcohol Resistance (DARE), a diversity appreciation thing, and a national anti-bullying program. The coordinator tended to mix and match activities from the various national programs to get the most out of our time with the kids, but all of the programs pretty much had teaching materials from kindergarten to high school level.

This was NOT the town I grew up in, by the way, but rather where I went to College.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
I don't think this is at all necessary, and can easily be misinterpreted as tacit approval of anyone's choice to have sex at whatever age simply for the "fun" of it.

---

But at the same time, when you demystify the process, you remove the idea that parents are keeping some great secret from kids.

It's the same way with alcohol. You tell your kids that it is bad for them and they can't have it, but then are visibly seen to drink it yourself, all it does it convince them that it's actually perfectly good for them and you (stupid adult that you are) are keeping it to yourself.

The more honest you are about it, the more seriously the kids will take your admonitions. If you point out that sex is fun and pleasurable, they are more inclined to believe you when you say "but also very dangerous so you have to be careful"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tharzon

It's the same way with alcohol. You tell your kids that it is bad for them and they can't have it, but then are visibly seen to drink it yourself, all it does it convince them that it's actually perfectly good for them and you (stupid adult that you are) are keeping it to yourself.

---

Or you can just never drink alcohol around them, or have it in the house. That is a far better way to avoid the hypocrisy that gives them an excuse to drink booze. Yes, it might be a sacrifice, but surely it is a worthy one, no?

As for the comparison to sex: I hope nobody is having sex in front of their children.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tharzon

The more honest you are about it, the more seriously the kids will take your admonitions. If you point out that sex is fun and pleasurable, they are more inclined to believe you when you say "but also very dangerous so you have to be careful"

---

I think as soon as you say "fun and pleasurable" you can pretty much guarantee they are going to do it at the first opportunity.

I don't think it helps to lie and say its horrid, evil, and from the devil, but touting its merits is just going to entice them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Or you can just never drink alcohol around them, or have it in the house. That is a far better way to avoid the hypocrisy that gives them an excuse to drink booze. Yes, it might be a sacrifice, but surely it is a worthy one, no?

---

I like how the decision seems to be one between hypocrisy or incompetance rather than allowing for the possibility of responsible parenting.

Or you can explain what it is, how it works, and why small doses imbibed responsibly are not only safe, but beneficial to ones health, and that drinking to excess can not only be detrimental, but lethal, and trust your children to respect your knowledge and experience and exercise some responsibility.

I've been having wine with dinner since I was 12. Had I been strictly forbidden it all along, I almost certainly would have figured this was some adult mystery and gone out of my way to get rip-roaring drunk.

Instead I was given a small amount, with the family, under supervision, and had it clearly explained to me that it is something more appropriate for adults, and as I got older, it was something I could partake of.

As such, in the 5 years I've been legal to drink, I would say that I have drank to excess only twice. Once on my 22nd birthday and once at New Years Eve 2006.

As for Sex Ed. My mother subscribed to the policy of "If they are mature enough to ask an explicit question, they are mature enough to hear an explicit answer"

When I was old enough to wonder, and mature enough to ask straight up without giggling about things, I was told. Honestly, openly, and with the goal of actually educating me with the realities of the world.

As such, I was perfectly cognizant of the risks involved in sex, the means one can undertake to minimize those risks as much as possible, and understood the importance of the act to many people, and was taught to treat it with respect.

I don't see how this is a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Or you can just never drink alcohol around them, or have it in the house. That is a far better way to avoid the hypocrisy that gives them an excuse to drink booze. Yes, it might be a sacrifice, but surely it is a worthy one, no?

---

Not to derail here, but my parents don't drink. Either of them, ever. Not beer, not wine, nothing.

I started partying and drinking when I was 13 and I had never even so much as seen them with a drink, let alone drunk.

So I am not sure that it really has anything to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karmei

So I am not sure that it really has anything to do with it.

---

It has a lot to do with it, but nothing is absolute.

One of the few things about child raising that is known with absolute certainty is that children learn the majority of their behaviors from their parents (assuming they have them).

There is no single way to guarantee that your kids will not abuse alcohol (or drugs). But a sure way to increase the chances is to have alcohol around the house and to let your kids see you drinking it.

Children are programmed to emulate their parents. That is one of the things that makes being a parent so hard. They will emulate everything: drinking, smoking, aggressive driving, the way you treat your spouse, the way you let yourself be treated by your spouse, and basically everything else you can imagine.

I think that "fun" or "great" are a poor choice of words...

"Special" or something along that line of meaning would be more appropriate. The large majority of teens in the west or modern nations will be curious and eager. I think that sex ed should include making sex to be something 'special'... special is -good-, but also it's not something to do or explore carelessly.

Teaching that you wait to have sex with someone that you care about and want to share something THAT special at least would make the ideal more practical and imo more effective. Really, I think the message we want children to have is "Don't fuck up", not "don't fuck, period". Not so say I endorse teen sex, persay, but it's going to happen. Better to make them educated and have a genuine sense of safety and caution about how you have sex and who you have it with.

IMO, the wait till marriage idea is a little out dated considering the modern world. People are not married at 14 or 16 anymore. They are in school till at least 18 or so, if not longer. The body is simply mature and 'ready' to reproduce by then. It's hard for me to agree with the "plan" to be counter to natural instinct and development.

The way I see it is I want my children to be educated, so I talk to them myself as well as allow them to attend educational classes. I am more concerned about disease and pregnancy than I am about the whole immoral characterization with the whole premarital sex thing and abstinence.

But to preach abstinence to young children is smart. Get them while they are young. You don't have to say what sex is in a sex education class when your audience is in the age range of 8-10. You can have campaigns that simply state "Say no to sex" like you have D.A.R.E. education campaigns on "Say no to drugs". Slogans are great for younger ages. I think with young kids, you only should be providing answers when they are at the point that they ask questions. Beware if you give information to young kids and be ready to answer questions.

The last thing I want to teach my children is to wait until they are married before they have sex. If I had waited and then discovered that my newly hitched man cannot get it up or that my new, blushing bride was frigid, I'd have been friggin enraged....and smartly divorced.

The thing about the smoking and drinking I can see. My husband and I both used to smoke about 8 years ago but we quit back then. Our son took up smoking years after we quit and I'm really disappointed, but it was the friends that he was hanging with, they all smoked cigarettes. On a second note, my husband and I both drink beer, always have. My son has no desire for drinking alcohol (probably because he can't afford to buy it himself because he's struggling to pay bills because he's on his own now! YAY).

Okay, I'm done now. :)