Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 117 (639788)
11-03-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
11-03-2011 7:45 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
From what I've read, one of the underlying problems is that it doesn't make teaching contraceptive compulsory. So any teachers or local boards that happen to personally believe in 'Abstinence Only' can teach that if they choose. I'm not sure if there are other laws that do make it compulsory, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2011 7:45 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 11-04-2011 1:04 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 72 of 117 (640150)
11-07-2011 4:28 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.
There is a secular reason to teach abstinence, where it is successfully implemented it is a fantastic way to minimise STDs and pregnancy.
There is no good secular reason to neglect to teach children about the existence of usage of contraceptives.
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).
Of course, whether or not promiscuity is a bad thing is a moral argument, and the main moral arguments raised against promiscuity have a religious base. Though I can imagine some secular arguments that might be tried.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 3:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 4:38 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 84 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:19 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2011 12:25 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 75 of 117 (640156)
11-07-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
11-07-2011 4:38 PM


Re: Serious question
I don't think there's any such thing as "teaching abstinence", no more than you can teach "liking jazz" or "wanting to travel to Europe."
I disagree. I'm not proposing we teach teens to not to want to have sex:
Teens will either want to have sex or they won't
I'm suggesting we teach them what they should desire. Just that we explain openly and honestly what their options are.
...how to express those preferences and defend them against peer pressure.
And that one viable option is abstinence from having sex, so that they have that tool available to defend against peer pressure and as a valid expression of their preferences.
The problem, of course, with abstinence is that while you're doing it you don't get to have sex.
Yes, abstinence is psychologically difficult to pull off and its a hard sale, it certainly didn't fly with me when I was taught it. Which is why I agree that we should give information to teens for how to do it safely. This, incidentally, was my school's attitude to drugs as well: Don't do it, but here are some safety tips if you do (avoid re-using needles, have a sober person around to help avoid injury etc).
Why is it necessary to accept the "moral panic" position that sexual activity by teenagers and young adults is something to be avoided at any cost?
It isn't. I'm not proposing a 'moral panic' position, and I'm not proposing that sex be avoided at all costs. Just that we teach them that having sex is risky, that the best way to avoid the risks is to avoid the activity, but if they do carry out the activity teach them how to do it as safely as possible.
Teens will decide on their own whether to have sex or abstain. We should be equipping them with the tools such that those choices are safe and respected.
Agreed. 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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 4:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 5:26 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 77 by frako, posted 11-07-2011 5:32 PM Modulous 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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024