Debunking the siren song of 'safe sex'

[mattskramer]

Oh. I am so tired of this debate. I have a general understanding of the general perspective of both sides.

On one side you have those who advocate abstinence based sex education. They want a "just say no" approach - or something close to it. Their belief is that if you spend much time teaching sex, beyond focusing on being celibate until marriage & monogamous in marriage, then you are encouraging sex - at least to a greater degree than if you kept the focus on abstinence.

On the other side you have those who advocate comprehensive sex education. Beyond informing students about abstinence. They want to teach them about contraception and other sex-related subjects. Their belief is that some students will not obey if they are simply told to not have sex. Therefore, kids should be informed about the various ways to have sex - with the risks and rewards involved - with the assumption that some kids will take risks and have sex anyway.

It seems as though the only way to resolve this debate is to have a controlled study. Select 2 sets of relatively similar communities. Within the school districts of some communities, have sex education be abstinence based. In the other set, have sex education be comprehensive. After a few years investigate the students who had attended the schools and compare them. Which ones are well adjusted and which one have sex-related problems?

 

[Bonnie]

mattskramern On the other side you have those who advocate comprehensive sex education. Beyond informing students about abstinence. They want to teach them about contraception and other sex-related subjects. Their belief is that some students will not obey if they are simply told to not have sex. Therefore, kids should be informed about the various ways to have sex - with the risks and rewards involved - with the assumption that some kids will take risks and have sex anyway.

Problem is that most sex educators scoff at the merits of even including abstinence within the cirriculum citing that's it's just plain ridiculous and naive on the part of parents to attempt to teach kids some form of morality, and that they as educators KNOW better.

 

[sitarro]

I am so thankful that I grew up when I did . I had a rediculous amout of sex and tried almost every drug I could get my hands on .I had a great time and have some incredible memories from those days . Nobody that I knew got pregnant , very few diseases , no wrecked cars except a friend who was high on alcohol, and the music was so much better that it's a joke . People were more independent and creative and there wasn't any AIDS until that asswipe flight attendant screwed that monkey in Africa and ruined all of the fun .I never bought into the just say no crap and couldn't believe a God with as good of a sense of humor as ours would not want us to enjoy the bodies we were given . I'll still take some hydro over a lousy beer anyday and am still loving life , so shoot me .

 

[mattskramer]

Problem is that most sex educators scoff at the merits of even including abstinence within the cirriculum citing that's it's just plain ridiculous and naive on the part of parents to attempt to teach kids some form of morality, and that they as educators KNOW better.

Wow! Do you mean that most educators scoff at having a sex education curriculum even mentioning, to any small degree, the merits of abstinence? Do you have any references? That seems like a rather bold statement. I have yet to hear anyone on the topic of sex education say that any mention of abstinence should actually be omitted?

 

[007]

If what you say is true, you are more than likely the exception - NOT the rule.

And maybe that's true. But his situation should be the rule, and NOT the exception.

 

[Hobbit]

Wow! Do you mean that most educators scoff at having a sex education curriculum even mentioning, to any small degree, the merits of abstinence? Do you have any references? That seems like a rather bold statement. I have yet to hear anyone on the topic of sex education say that any mention of abstinence should actually be omitted?

When my health class, both junior high and high school, reached the sex ed unit, they recieved the standard Kinsey inspired sex ed packet. Anything about abstinence had to be written in and the teacher showed us in the teacher's book where it basically showed abstinence as an impossible standard that sounded nice, but that nobody in the real world could expect to uphold. Fortunately, this was in a very prodominantly Christian town, and nobody had any problem with the teacher making up her own blurb on abstinence to add into the handouts. If I still had the handouts, I'd scan them in and upload them, so that you could see where the teacher had to write in abstinence materials, but that was several years ago.

 

[Annie]

When my health class, both junior high and high school, reached the sex ed unit, they recieved the standard Kinsey inspired sex ed packet. Anything about abstinence had to be written in and the teacher showed us in the teacher's book where it basically showed abstinence as an impossible standard that sounded nice, but that nobody in the real world could expect to uphold. Fortunately, this was in a very prodominantly Christian town, and nobody had any problem with the teacher making up her own blurb on abstinence to add into the handouts. If I still had the handouts, I'd scan them in and upload them, so that you could see where the teacher had to write in abstinence materials, but that was several years ago.

Well I guess I live in an ok town, because even when my daughter was in high school, they were exposed to some 'pledge' of saving oneself for marriage. It was a presentation during sex ed, based on health and mental health. This was public high school. (She's 24).

 

[alien21010]

Having fairly recently been through the sex ed scene myself, I'll put in my input.

It seems to me that, there are no basic studies that indicate which education is better in terms of overall awareness about STDs, and the sexual complications that one may endure when they do in fact engage in sexual activity (whenever that may be).

That being said, I am a strong believer in comprehensive sexual education. Most of the parents who are the "JUST SAY NO" camp, fail to give their children even the most basic understanding of sex, and all that is involved in it. And while I can respect their position (Just saying No would solve a lot of problems) it is not very realistic. It seems to me that there are two subsets of adolescents. The first subset, have either a strong moral or ethical background. These adolescents will likely NOT engage in sexual activity until marriage. More often than not, this strong moral or ethical background is infused into the child during their upbringing, not due to religion or because "Daddy said so."

The second subset, is the group that lacks any moral/ethical cohesion in their lives. These are the kids who will engage in sexual activity, and may become pregnant or contract an STD. If you've looked at the recent statistics, something like 50% of teens have had sex by the age of 17. The same statistics also show that 1 in 4 sexually active teens will contract an STD.

The numbers do not lie. Kids are having sex even with the huge surplus of money being spent on abstinence only education, and it simply IS NOT working. My school district focused on abstinence, but also taught us how to protect ourselves, and consequentially, there have been only one or two teenage pregnancies at my former high school, and few to none cases of STDs.

Contraception works when used properly.

 

[no1tovote4]

Wow! Do you mean that most educators scoff at having a sex education curriculum even mentioning, to any small degree, the merits of abstinence? Do you have any references? That seems like a rather bold statement. I have yet to hear anyone on the topic of sex education say that any mention of abstinence should actually be omitted?

Let's put it this way, they often scoff at the idea that teenagers would actually circumscribe their desires for the better of the prospective child that may come to being because there is no "birth control" that is actually perfect. Often they may "mention" as a side effect the "benefits" of abstinence, but never actually seriously mention it as a basis of behavior. In all of the classes that I was in, or have heard of besides the "abstinence based" they don't even seriously mention the financial and psychological drain of having children regardless of the basis on which they were formed.

 

[KarlMarx]

This would be a really good analogy if the kids were born in possession of drugs. That's one reason why this argument doesn't pass muster. Another reason is that there is no "instinctual" drive to use drugs.

Have you ever heard of a concept called "self control"?

Sex before marriage is not inevitable, it is because of:

a) The availability of The Pill --- which was gave us sex without consequence
until
b) There was an increase in venereal disease, but we had penicillin which gave us sex without consequence again
until
c) Girls were getting pregnant anyway, so we got abortion
until
d) AIDS came along... now we're back to sex with consequences

There is no such thing as sex without consequence. The Left, (who by the way couldn't figure their way out of a paper bag but fancy themselves as architects of a Brave New World.) have been dumping their crackpot ideas into our schools and are doing their best to undermine parental authority and ensure that all kids engage in sex. Many on the Left are perverts or dirty minded old men and women or they take the word of perverts like Kinsey as if it were the Gospel.

Just like "coat hanger abortions", safe sex is another fairy tale invented by the Left.

If safe sex did exist, then perhaps we wouldn't need 1.5 million abortions a year and throw $15B at find a "cure" for HIV/AIDS (which is not going to happen--- there never has been a cure for viral borne disease)

I'd like you to name one person who has become pregnant, died, contracted a disease, lost their mind or for even came down with a bad case of acne because of abstaining from sex.

 

[MissileMan]

Have you ever heard of a concept called "self control"?

Sex before marriage is not inevitable, it is because of:

a) The availability of The Pill --- which was gave us sex without consequence
until
b) There was an increase in venereal disease, but we had penicillin which gave us sex without consequence again
until
c) Girls were getting pregnant anyway, so we got abortion
until
d) AIDS came along... now we're back to sex with consequences

So you believe that pre-marital sex is a recent phenomenon...you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. As long as there's been marriage, there's been pre-marital sex. The consequences and options have changed is all.

There is no such thing as sex without consequence.
Just like "coat hanger abortions", safe sex is another fairy tale invented by the Left.

That's funny, there are hundreds of millions of people having safe sex all over the planet.

I'd like you to name one person who has become pregnant, died, contracted a disease, lost their mind or for even came down with a bad case of acne because of abstaining from sex.

What is it with the people on this baord and selective reading disorders? I'd like you to quote where I said teaching abstinence is a bad thing. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I've been saying that an "abstinence only" approach to sex education is a bad idea.

BTW, everyone knows that acne clears right up after ya get some!

 

[KarlMarx]

So you believe that pre-marital sex is a recent phenomenon...you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. As long as there's been marriage, there's been pre-marital sex. The consequences and options have changed is all.

No, I don't believe that premarital sex is a recent phenomenon, not is extra-marital sex. However, I do believe that the incidence of extra-marital sex and premarital sex has increased because of the availability of the pill, antibiotics and abortion. However, even with these three, the number of unwanted pregnancies, the number of cases of STDs and definitely the number of unwed mothers has not decreased, but rather increased. The idea that sex can be enjoyed without consequence is in itself an unsafe one.

That's funny, there are hundreds of millions of people having safe sex all over the planet.

Sure, like in Africa and Asia where the number of HIV/AIDS cases is measured in the millions rather than the thousands. All that safe sex education really paid off, didn't it?

What is it with the people on this baord and selective reading disorders? I'd like you to quote where I said teaching abstinence is a bad thing. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I've been saying that an "abstinence only" approach to sex education is a bad idea.

Where is it written in the Constitution that the US government is supposed to be teaching sex education to our kids? I'd like to see that clause. Isn't this just another case of the government meddling in and f***ing up yet another aspect of people's lives? How about this instead? Parents teach their kids about sex (as in "don't do it until you're married and if I catch you, I'm going to make your life and the life of your boyfriend/girlfriend a living hell".... "good girls and boys don't until they're married"... "who buys the cow when milk is free?"....).....

Sounds quaint to some? Yes, I'm sure, but then so does telling the truth, working hard and being self reliant....

BTW, everyone knows that acne clears right up after ya get some! [/QUOTE]

 

[MissileMan]

Sure, like in Africa and Asia where the number of HIV/AIDS cases is measured in the millions rather than the thousands. All that safe sex education really paid off, didn't it?

A significant percentage of AIDS cases in Africa at least are married women who are getting the disease from their husbands. It's being spread because they won't use proven methods of safety like condoms. But I was referring to the millions and millions of disease-free people who crawl into bed with their disease-free partner. Are you going to argue that everyone in the world is having unsafe sex?

Where is it written in the Constitution that the US government is supposed to be teaching sex education to our kids? I'd like to see that clause. Isn't this just another case of the government meddling in and f***ing up yet another aspect of people's lives? How about this instead? Parents teach their kids about sex (as in "don't do it until you're married and if I catch you, I'm going to make your life and the life of your boyfriend/girlfriend a living hell".... "good girls and boys don't until they're married"... "who buys the cow when milk is free?"....).....

Sounds quaint to some? Yes, I'm sure, but then so does telling the truth, working hard and being self reliant....

There are options. You can have your kid excluded from the class offered at their school, you can home school, you can move to a community where they don't offer it in their schools, or you can augment what your kids are being taught in school. You know, they call it parenting.

This isn't a morality issue, it's an educational one.

 

[KarlMarx]

A significant percentage of AIDS cases in Africa at least are married women who are getting the disease from their husbands. It's being spread because they won't use proven methods of safety like condoms. But I was referring to the millions and millions of disease-free people who crawl into bed with their disease-free partner. Are you going to argue that everyone in the world is having unsafe sex?

And that exposes the flaw in your logic. No, not everyone is getting infected because they are following safe sex guidelines, but many are. It is not an "all or nothing" situation. The fact is... that there is only one proven way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS... don't have sex.

There are options. You can have your kid excluded from the class offered at their school, you can home school, you can move to a community where they don't offer it in their schools, or you can augment what your kids are being taught in school. You know, they call it parenting.

This isn't a morality issue, it's an educational one.

Actually, it IS a morality issue and this is where we will part company. We aren't teaching kids about breeding chickens. By teaching children about safe sex, we are telling kids by implication that it is morally acceptable to have sex outside of marriage. That is a moral issue.

 

[MissileMan]

And that exposes the flaw in your logic. No, not everyone is getting infected because they are following safe sex guidelines, but many are. It is not an "all or nothing" situation. The fact is... that there is only one proven way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS... don't have sex.

Actually, it would be don't have sex with someone who has AIDS. Can you see the difference?

Actually, it IS a morality issue and this is where we will part company. We aren't teaching kids about breeding chickens. By teaching children about safe sex, we are telling kids by implication that it is morally acceptable to have sex outside of marriage. That is a moral issue.

OK, teach your kids abstinenece only. Do me and the rest of us tax payers a favor though. Start putting aside some money to take care of the baby your son or daughter is going to have because they didn't know how to prevent pregnancy.

 

[KarlMarx]

Actually, it would be don't have sex with someone who has AIDS. Can you see the difference?

It's not that simple... because there are other diseases.... chlamydia, gonnorhea, syphlis, HPV, and others......

OK, teach your kids abstinenece only. Do me and the rest of us tax payers a favor though. Start putting aside some money to take care of the baby your son or daughter is going to have because they didn't know how to prevent pregnancy.

You assume that my son or daughter is going to have sex before they're married, and can take care of it on their own. That's how you think, you assume that kids are going to have sex, they are going to get pregnant and be on welfare unless the government steps in and does something. I have news for you. The government does very little well... and it certainly does not do education very well.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, it would be don't have sex with someone who has AIDS. Can you see the difference?





OK, teach your kids abstinenece only. Do me and the rest of us tax payers a favor though. Start putting aside some money to take care of the baby your son or daughter is going to have because they didn't know how to prevent pregnancy.

You can teach you kids that abstinance is the only form of birth and disease control that is acceptable for your family. You may also teach them about the other forms that exist so they don't look like complete idiots amongst thier peers and more importantly how the other forms of disease and birth control are LESS effective than abstinance.

 

[MissileMan]

It's not that simple... because there are other diseases.... chlamydia, gonnorhea, syphlis, HPV, and others......

Again, these diseases don't magically appear in someone. If you have sex with someone who is disease-free, you stand NO risk of catching one.

You assume that my son or daughter is going to have sex before they're married, and can take care of it on their own. That's how you think, you assume that kids are going to have sex, they are going to get pregnant and be on welfare unless the government steps in and does something. I have news for you. The government does very little well... and it certainly does not do education very well.

I'm assuming that a kid who knows nothing about contraception is more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. AND, since these kids haven't even finished high school yet, I'm assuming that they will need assistance. These are both reasonable assumptions. You can't deny the fact that some kids are going to have sex before marriage. I'm not certain of the percentage, but I'd wager more than half will. You want to cut down on the number of abortions, but you don't want to do anything other than just saying "just say no" to prevent the pregnancies that lead to the abortions. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Hobbit]

FACT: You can never be completely sure that someone is STD free unless they've never had sex, and sometimes not even then in cases such as tainted blood transfusions. Medical tests are not perfect and have been known to show "false positives" and "false negatives."

FACT: Latex is pourous. According to the statistics, having sex with a condom with somebody who has HIV only protects you about 5 times out of 6, 9 out of 10 if the condom has absolutely no defects and is used perfectly, a rare occurance. That's the same odds you have of surviving a round of Russian Roullette. These odds are the same with all STDs and with pregnancy protection.

FACT: There is no perfect birth control. In the book, Sex for Dummies, by Dr. Ruth, it is stated that there has been at least one case where a tube tied woman and a man with a vasectomy made a baby together.

FACT: Decades ago, when no contraceptives or disease protection were (widely) available and pregnancies out of wedlock were frowned upon, venerial diseases and unwed pregnancies were far less common than now.

FACT: Parents who choose to teach abstinence only to their children and are sure to explain the possible consequences of extra-marital sex find that their children are far less likely to have STD's and unwanted pregnancy.

FACT: In some school districts, the school board and later the courts have ruled that parents cannot opt their children out of sex ed classes.

FACT: Most statistics given in sex ed classes are still based on Alfred Kinsey's original survey. This survey was vulgar, and was given at a time when sex was still considered private, meaning that the only people who would answer the questions were such people as prisoners, sex offenders, and prostitutes. Despite this, Kinsey presented his results as if this was an accurate cross section of the general population, which has resulted in the currently used false statistics claiming that a far greater percentage of the population cheats, engages in homosexal activity, or has sexual feelings for children than is actually true. Furthermore, the content of this survey is a closely guarded secret, shielding it from scientific scrutiny. Thus, the entire study is scientifically invalid, yet is still held as gospel at the Kinsey Institute, which still publishes most school sex ed materials. Some schools still require Kinsey Institute certification to teach sex ed. Some of Kinsey's additional writings opine that humans are sexual, "from womb to tomb" and use this belief as a justification for pedophilia.

Sex ed needs drastic reforms, to say the least. Anyone who thinks it works as is doesn't think much of a human's ability to resist carnal urges, which is insulting and a disservice to all.

 

[Annie]

Hobbit, bottom line: Waiting for sex is good; for marriage, for future children, for all concerned.

Bottom line: kids most likely to do so are like you: Parents care for each other and children they raised together. Problem is, too many parents do not care for each other-then after the fact, do not show due care for the children they brought into the relationship.

Bottom line: even with less than ideal circumstances, parents or parent can get through to the children that it is in the kid's interest to care for themselves and future children. Not ideal, but better than saying, "It didn't work for me, won't for you..."