Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 117 (640160)
11-07-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:59 PM


Re: Serious question
Just that we explain openly and honestly what their options are.
Right, but I think we can generally assume that teens know that they can not have sex since the majority of them will have been not having sex since, oh, they were born.
They'll know about that option, believe me. (That's part of the ridiculousness of "teaching abstinence.") What they may not know about is how to avoid unwanted sexual activity in a situation where they're being pressured by someone they care about, or by an authority figure, to engage in sex that they don't want to engage in. But that's the same situation faced by a girl who wants her boyfriend to use a condom and he doesn't, or a guy who wants a monogamous relationship and his boyfriend doesn't.
But it's better that any decision they come to is a fully informed decision (or as fully as it is possible to be). Where they are advised that it is morally and socially acceptable to abstain as an aid against peer pressure etc (overt and otherwise).
I know you're trying to agree with me but I just keep getting this whiff of moral panic, I guess. But I think we can agree that a good sex ed program teaches teens how to demand respect for their choices and to respect the choices of others. If that's where you're at then, to me, you're in the right place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 6:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 77 of 117 (640161)
11-07-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:59 PM


Re: Serious question
Where they are advised that it is morally and socially acceptable to abstain as an aid against peer pressure etc (overt and otherwise).
Its not peer presure per se, its gen pressure their sexual organs are starting to or have developed and their hormones are dictating to them have sex, to abstain is fighting your own nature in a sense.
Im not saying its bad to abstain it is one option one can take but it is the hardest option.
Edit: abstaining to me is saying no im not going to have sex with you because im too young, bla bla bla. Not im not going to have sex with you because i dont have a shot, i have not got a clue how to get in your pants, there hasto be some sex on the table for you to abstain from it otherwise its like a poor man who does not have any food saying im on a diet, he is not he is starving.
As for not having sex before marriage i find it silly what if on your honeymoon you find out that your life partner isnt worth a dam in bed.
Edit: i rather go with a social norm from an African tribe where if the husband finds out that his wife is a virgin he demands a larger dowry from the womans father because he hasto teach her everything.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 6:14 PM frako has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 117 (640163)
11-07-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
11-07-2011 5:26 PM


Re: Serious question
Right, but I think we can generally assume that teens know that they can not have sex since the majority of them will have been not having sex since, oh, they were born.
That was not what I meant, what I was talking about was the kind of thing that you say next:
What they may not know about is how to avoid unwanted sexual activity in a situation where they're being pressured by someone they care about, or by an authority figure, to engage in sex that they don't want to engage in.
Some teens report having sex because they thought that was what they were meant to do (in order to be a good girlfriend or whatever), so it is a good idea to teach them they can abstain if that is their choice and that there is a support structure should they feel they are being pressured into something they aren't comfortable with.
Obviously they understand that it is physically possible to abstain from sex, but some may feel it is not socially possible to abstain.
I know you're trying to agree with me but I just keep getting this whiff of moral panic, I guess.
It's a false whiff, I'm afraid.
But I think we can agree that a good sex ed program teaches teens how to demand respect for their choices and to respect the choices of others.
Absolutely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 6:27 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 79 of 117 (640164)
11-07-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by frako
11-07-2011 5:32 PM


Re: Serious question
Its not peer presure per se, its gen pressure their sexual organs are starting to or have developed and their hormones are dictating to them have sex, to abstain is fighting your own nature in a sense.
It's not either/or. Both pressures exist.
As for not having sex before marriage i find it silly what if on your honeymoon you find out that your life partner isnt worth a dam in bed.
There are some people that believe that a lifetime relationship should not be dependent on sexual prowess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by frako, posted 11-07-2011 5:32 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by frako, posted 11-07-2011 6:30 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 6:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 117 (640167)
11-07-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
11-07-2011 6:10 PM


Re: Serious question
Obviously they understand that it is physically possible to abstain from sex, but some may feel it is not socially possible to abstain.
Oh, ok. That gives me a much clearer picture of what you were talking about, and I think we're on the same page.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 6:10 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 81 of 117 (640169)
11-07-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Modulous
11-07-2011 6:14 PM


Re: Serious question
There are some people that believe that a lifetime relationship should not be dependent on sexual prowess.
The more you have in common with a person or try to have in common the better the relationship being totally different in sexua,l preferance, prowess .... count too.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 6:14 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(5)
Message 82 of 117 (640170)
11-07-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Modulous
11-07-2011 6:14 PM


Re: Serious question
There are some people that believe that a lifetime relationship should not be dependent on sexual prowess.
And those people are called "friends."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 6:14 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 117 (640174)
11-07-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Serious question
I was simply asking whether or not there is any secular reason to teach abstinence only education.
Yeah, my bad. I read your question, but I translated it to, is there a constitutionally valid reason that would pass the muster with the Supreme Court which presently includes Clarence Thomas who will accept any pretext offered, and Scalia who thinks the Establishment Clause bars only establishing a particular religious sect as the state church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 3:07 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 84 of 117 (640177)
11-07-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:28 PM


Re: Serious question
I said abstinence only.
The reason I press on about asking whether or not there are any secular reasons to teach it is to find out just how pervasive religion is in our government, then we can use this to point out the dangers of letting religion take an even stronger hold of our government. Hopefully anyways.....

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 9:40 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 117 (640183)
11-07-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 8:19 PM


Re: Serious question
I said abstinence only.
I know. That's why I said "There is no good secular reason to neglect to teach children about the existence of usage of contraceptives." But just saying that would have been boring so I said a little more than that, with
quote:
The only reason I've ever seen which could be construed as secular is that by teaching that sex can be made safe with proper use of condoms with the pill as a backup (for example) may cause risky behaviour (that is it might foster promiscuity).
The reason I press on about asking whether or not there are any secular reasons to teach it is to find out just how pervasive religion is in our government, then we can use this to point out the dangers of letting religion take an even stronger hold of our government.
Of course, many of the people that we'd want to convince about the dangers of religion don't see this as being a danger; they tend to be perfectly comfortable with government enforced morality (as long as it's their morality of course), even as they are often against government interference in other areas of their lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:19 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 86 of 117 (640240)
11-08-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by hooah212002
11-04-2011 8:51 PM


hooah212002 writes:
quote:
Is there a secular reason for abstinence being taught?
Because it's simply easier. Having sex with someone brings in a whole host of issues and scenarios that must be dealth with from the biological to the emotional to the social. Your life is going along fine as it is. While sexual activity may be pleasurable at the time that you are engaging in it, are you sure you're ready to deal with what comes after? Too many times one partner pressures the other into it only to drop them once they've had their moment. If you're the one being dumped, think about how you'll feel about that. Is that really OK with you? And if it is, are you really OK with other people knowing that about you, because it will become known to others.
It is much better if you and your partner are on the same page and in the throes of puberty, there's a good chance that you're not simply because you barely know what you want let alone how to deal with what comes after if you don't get it. By not having sex, you don't have to put up with all the drama. Hold off until you are having sex because you want to, when you understand what you need out of having sex, and are in a position to make sure that your needs are met.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by hooah212002, posted 11-04-2011 8:51 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 87 of 117 (640242)
11-08-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by hooah212002
11-05-2011 12:14 AM


hooah212002 writes:
quote:
Surely sex education teachers could, along with teaching contraceptive methods, tell children "the only truly effective way to NOT have unwanted pregnancies or get STD's is to NOT have sex"
Except that would be a lie. I can have sex with every single person in the world, if I wanted to, and not risk even catching a cold let alone an STD or get someone pregnant.
I just have to do it right.
quote:
So again, what is the secular purpose behind abstinence only sex education?
Abstinence only? There isn't one. A secular education would want the most effective education available and abstinence only is a failure.
Comprehensive sex ed is much more effective. Children who have comprehensive sex ed put off sex longer and are more likely to engage in safer sex practices when they do have sex.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 12:14 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 88 of 117 (640247)
11-08-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:28 PM


Modulous writes:
quote:
The only reason I've ever seen which could be construed as secular is that by teaching that sex can be made safe with proper use of condoms with the pill as a backup (for example) may cause risky behaviour (that is it might foster promiscuity).
I'm reminded of a school board meeting here in San Diego (though I think it was in one of the suburbs) regarding sex education and someone had mentioned, "We don't teach our kids how to do drugs 'safely.'"
Another parent came up after and said, "You're right, we don't teach our kids how to do drugs. That's because we don't want our kids to ever do drugs. We do, however, eventually want them to have sex. It would be cruel not to teach them how to do it safely."
Like it or not, the human species becomes sexually potent at a time when society has not set them up to be capable of handling the fallout. Therefore, we must educate them about this or society will have to deal with it for them.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:28 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 89 of 117 (640277)
11-08-2011 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
11-03-2011 8:17 AM


Me and my wife only have two children. I don't want to know how many kids we would have had if it weren't for contraception (I've never had sex with anyone else in my entire life). OMG, those senators really are the epitome of stupidity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 11-03-2011 8:17 AM Taz has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4219 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 90 of 117 (640427)
11-09-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Omnivorous
11-04-2011 3:16 PM


just another example of slander and name calling.
keep this place classy omnivorous

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Omnivorous, posted 11-04-2011 3:16 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 11-09-2011 9:56 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 92 by Omnivorous, posted 11-09-2011 11:01 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024