True Love Waits (Until Someone with a Clue Teaches Sex Ed)

[Agathon]

Yes we should. Abstinence is silly. The only reason to abstain from sex is that you don't want to do it. Otherwise it's fine.

[Arrian]

Abstinence is an OPTION. It can be presented as an attractive option (so to speak), by pointing out the dangers - and responsibilities - involved in having sex.

But this strikes me as preaching, not teaching.

-Arrian

[Locutus]

Abstinence is a moral choice. You can inform kids about facts related to that choice, but they must make the choice themselves. It's not up to schools to tell our children how to think.

It's like with elections: you can teach kids how democracy works, but you can't tell them how to vote. If schools would teach their kids that they should vote republican, it would be an outrage. Abstinence shouldn't be any different.

[Agathon]

What dangers? I can think of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Other than that, it is certainly healthier and more fun than drinking or taking drugs.

Both of those can be avoided with proper use of contraception. All my friends and I practiced safe sex (not with each other, you guttersnipes ), and there was no problem.

Abstinence programs are beloved of parents who can't stand the idea of their children having sex. Most of them are hypocrites, since they were doing it at the same age.

[Kontiki]

My sex ed classes in public school covered the bases of contraception and disease prevention, but always made clear that no method except abstinence was 100% effective. And this was almost 20 years ago. I fail to see the benefit of abstinence only eduction over this.

[Arrian]

What dangers? I can think of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

Yep, and those are pretty big ones.

I'd add the potential for emotional harm/exploitation - especially if we're talking about sex between, say, an older man and a high school girl (although that's not to say there can't be exploitation & harm done if the situation was reversed, but that's the most common version).

Safe sex, while clearly superior than unsafe sex, is not foolproof. There remains danger, and that's something kids should know (in addition to how to use a condom).

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Arrian




Safe sex, while clearly superior than unsafe sex, is not foolproof.

Neither's life.


I suggest we ban it.

[Arrian]

Surely you're not under the mistaken impression that I'm supporting abstinence-only "sex ed" are you? I thought you could read.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If someone says condoms don't have an extremely high rate of stopping STDs then either their full of it

They're talking about latex (which is rubber, not plastic, btw--hence the name, rubbers). They claim that because HIV is smaller than the pores in the latex condoms, that they can't stop the spread of AIDS. This of course, ignores the fact that HIV can't travel without a medium, and the medium can't get through the pores. Thus, HIV can't get through the pores.

The only STD that condoms can't stop when used properly is a case of the crabs.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chaunk
Some people are allergic to latex I guess.

There are plastic versions for people who can't use latex. Lamb "skin" is used for feel alone. They are utterly useless otherwise.

[Jon Miller]

No, you are wrong there.

Condoms only have a 95% chance of stopping STDs when used properly.

Of course, that is a lot higher than is being claimed.

Jon Miller

[DanS]

If the couple knows how to properly put on the condom; i.e. pinch the tip to get the air out, leave a bit extra at the top, roll it back and don't put on petroluem jelly which can damage the latex then they're damn near fool proof.

I think you're going to need backup for this "damn near fool proof" statement, because my sex ed class (where they didn't even mention abstinence) cited statistics that indicate condoms aren't at all fool proof.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
What dangers? I can think of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Other than that, it is certainly healthier and more fun than drinking or taking drugs.

Well, there's the danger of hooking up with someone who doesn't know what he's doing, and getting the impression that sex is boring and painful.

[Ecthy]

thanks Jon. source? 31% sounded OK to me

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
thanks Jon. source? 31% sounded OK to me

Try reading the article in the OP, where they give a 97% success rate. The 31% failure rate is when condoms are used improperly, which is a lot better than the 85% failure rate abstinence has (i.e., 85% of those taking abstinence pledges go on to have sex).