abstinece-only sex education

I finally got some free time and decided to check back (lurk) at evc. I probably won't be reading or posting much in a regular way for quite a while, and I didn't expect to post anything this time, but your thread sort of jumped out at me...First of all I agree with your overall point: evidence shows abstinence ONLY education does not provide any benefits, most ironically the very benefits religious advocates desire... less sex.Second... I agree completely, though it is sort of sad that you left out the mechanics of pleasure humans derive from sex. Demystifying how the body works to drive us to sexual activity is just as important as what might result from such activity.However... I disagree completely with that. You are now adding a moral dimension which does not have anything to do with understanding sex and more importantly has nothing to do with preventing STDs nor unwanted pregnancy.No matter what anyone wants to believe for themself, sex is NOT synonymous with relationships. That is born out by sexual behavior in children and adults. Teaching about sex within that framework or in conjunction with it is likely to lead to more confusion for those who have little or no experience with sex or relationships. Confusion between the two can lead to a lot of bad decisions.And I am a bit puzzled what a program could discuss regarding love. Love is an amorphous and highly subjective quality. Are we going to teach that love is naturally for only one person at a time? That it will always coincide with sexual desire? That sex is less when it does not coincide with love? How about that love is only understood through commitment in marriage?As a matter of fact, some cultures have not even had a word for love and it is untranslatable. Your plan for teaching sex in connection with love to them, would be like me insisting best instruction on proper dietary health must include the concept of "gezellig" (a dutch concept which is untranslatable in English).Same goes for respect. How does one teach what sexual behaviors or lack of such behaviors count as respect for onesself or one's partners? This seems like an attempt to introduce moral dogma, whether classical antimale antisex feminism or Xian fundamentalism. Does using porn count as having less respect? Does enjoying many sexual partners count as less respect? Does selling one's sexuality count as less respect? How about sex with others of the same gender, or a different race? There are arguments for all of these as somehow indicating a lack of respect for onesself, one's partner, and one's children.Indeed it would seem like at some point such discussions will end up pitting teachers against specific parents. Or maybe I should say would involve having teachers pit children against their parents. Unless you know of an objective concept of respect with regard to sex? I almost agree. Abstinence is an option and is not discounted just because one teaches kids how to deal with protecting their sexual health.I wouldn't agree that it has "the very best track record" of prevention. There are enough repressed people dealing with physical and emotional consequences of NOT gaining sexual experiences. If you want the best track record, how about masturbation (including mutual)? It provides the sexual release people crave and will not result in STD transmission nor unwanted pregnancy.In the end I think mechanics ARE THE ONLY proper focus of sexual education. As far as emotional issues, kids should be referred to their parents for moral and social instruction regarding when and why people should engage in sex.But of course as you suggest, the results of abstinence ONLY education is problematic for everyone... even according to the stated standards of its advocates.Edited by holmes, : fixed quotation error

---

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I was in a relationship with a girl from Denmark and lived there for a bit. One of the people was specifically a teacher of small children. I do not know what you are talking about. You are suggesting that this is taught in schools as part of sex education? If not, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.The suggestion was that IDEAL sex education programs would include a discussion of love. My argument was that that is a highly ethnocentric concept, including usage of language which may not be relevant to all cultures. That is a valid point when we are discussing sex education programs for other cultures. There is no IDEAL sex education program that involves singular moral or cultural concepts.Sex does not equal or necessitate love and vice versa. And I will note that for some cultures (including for many parents in the west) "loving" people of the same sex is thought to be in the same category as "loving" mom and not "romantic". Are you suggesting it should not be taught that way because there is a minority community that thinks different? What about the minority community that believes one can love mom romantically as well?I can see how one can teach sex education without mentioning love. I cannot see how one can discuss love in the context of sex without running headlong into mandating a single cultural vision. If a term is a cultural artifact then it is not necessary for educational programs. Let me put this in a way you might understand better. Some cultures do not have a concept of Jesus or even of Gods, to say that an ideal sex education program would involve discussions of either would be unnecessary, right?I notice that while being dismissive of my post you have not attempted to explain why love would be part of, much less necessary for an IDEAL sex education program. That some might use it on a local level is one thing. Suggestion it is part and parcel of sex education is another. Yeah that's pretty simple. Too bad the concept of respect is not that as easy as you made out. As I suggested cultures have different ideas of what counts as respect for onesself and others and so your saying it will be YOUR version which gets taught sort of begs the question I introduced.Does selfrespect include doing things one wants if others do not want you to do them (even if it does not involve anyone else but you or another willing partner)? Does respect for others include NOT trying to help them overcome social stigmas which currently make them NOT want to do certain activities but it is obvious they have such inclinations?I mean according to YOUR definition of respect then prostitution and porn and even child sex (as long as the kids are willing) is no problem. Many would disagree. Also, according to YOUR definition, it would seem that one should not be helping people overcome hangups against homosexuality. Many would agree with that sentiment, but my guess is that you would not.And in ANY CASE, personal integrity and individualism is something that (if its going to be taught) would be taught in an overall educational sense. Why it would have to be part of a sex education program is unknown. How would it HELP prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies? If a person is given the knowledge of how that works, then it doesn't matter what emotional situations they have sex in... right?Unless you are arguing that someone will believe, unless taught about sex within the confines or romance and respect, that the mechanics will change based on the emotional/political circumstance of the sex act?Maybe I can start very simply. Masturbation. Define a singular vision of that sexual activity which involves love and respect. It was once raised in the US as being mentioned to children in sex education as a form of safe sex which respected one's needs and without violated or disrespecting others. That resulted in the Surgeon General being dismissed from her job because many people thought masturbation is disrespectful to onesself and others. Ironically dismissed by a president who would go on to almost be dismissed for getting a blowjob, when if he had just stuck with masturbation...Edited by holmes, : No reason given.

---

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's not true. And I have been arguing should not be the case. Morals should be left to the side as they are IRRELEVANT to discussion of biological facts. Morals are for your family and friends to discuss with you.If they are to include cultural and personal conduct, can you tell me WHICH cultural and personal philosophy would be taught? And then what that would have to do with actually maintaining physical sexual health?

---

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Doc's post was excellent and so was his followup. I don't feel you are giving him a fair shake. Let me try to approach this in a similar manner, but some added dimensions.First let me say right at the outset that I AM very pro sexual freedom. I am the antithesis of everything you believe about sex and am the target of everything you are railing against our nation heading toward. I want to get that out of the way right now.Okay, it seems to me that regardless of one's moral agenda we should be able to agree people will have sex and issues with regard to sexual health will exist (within wedlock or not). This is to say whether one waits until marriage at 30 to have sex, or decides to have sex at 10 with anyone and all passing by on the street, the NATURE of the problems one can face are exactly the same on a mechanistic level.Education has the purpose of training young people to deal with potential issues they will face at any point in their life. Why sex should be treated differently is not obvious, even from a strict antisexoutsideofmarriage viewpoint. Education will teach the simple basic mechanics of how the body works and the nature of the physical components and how one may deal with the physical issues can arise.I can tell you straight up that that does NOT further MY moral agenda one iota. Namely it cannot because it does NOT teach cultural/historical issues. That latter portion is left to parents and the community. And thus there are no moral conflicts.If your kid is taught how pregnancy occurs and how it can be facilitated/avoided, that is merely factual information which can aid him or her at the time sex becomes an issue in their life. If a kid is ONLY taught the moral message of "don't have sex", then when sex does become an issue, he or she is totally unarmed to deal with any threats to their health.Unless you are believing that your children will not go on to get married and be fruitful and multiply, they will face the same physical risks everyone else does. We can agree on that, right?Sex education then is as much a training for sexual health within a faithful marriage as anything else. That some may decide to use that training to help them survive in sexual situations outside marriage is besides the point. And I might add helping this other group does not hurt as it would at least reduce the number of health problems any specific sex-fiend will suffer which is better for the community, even if on the average they are going to suffer more (if I accept your false argument regarding disease for the sake of discussion).It seems like a win-win situation. Where am I wrong in this?

---

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Ahem, that YOU were instructed as such does not mean all have been, will be, or must be. Sex education does not require such instruction. To me this is a completely contradictory statement. The western paradigm is a moral position, unless you are going to get into some semantic debate. Indeed much of the paradigm held by nontheists within western culture comes directly from unthinking acceptance of Xian religious beliefs. They stripped away the god and for some bizarre reason kept the moral standards associated with it.The ability to get or prevent pregnancy, or to get or prevent STDs is wholly separate from whether one is in love, in a relationship, married, divorced, or under pressue to have sex because of all those around you. Whether you respect yourself or not, or respect your partner or not, the nature of the mechanics of sex remain EXACTLY THE SAME. The risks remain EXACTLY THE SAME.If you cannot agree with that, then I'd like an explanation of how it differs whether one is in a respecting and loving marriage, or screwing some person you hate but everyone will think you're a loser if you don't?Emotionally and culturally there will be differences, but that is not a sexual issue and has nothing to do with SEX education. Conflating these things is a moralistic position based on (originally) religious positions. Teaching these things together opens the door to confusion for children and fights between the state and parents.To another poster I mentioned the real world example (it really happened) of discussing masturbation in sex-ed. A surgeon general of the US recommended this and was kicked out. Does masturbation engender self-respect or not? There are widely different view points on that, much less on when one starts having sex with others. Age, homosexuality, porn, and prostitution are four very large and contentious issues that directly hinge on concepts of respect of self respect and respect of others.

---

holmes {in extreme lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree that attempts have been made, but my point is that they are arguably not productive in efforts to promote sexual education nor advance actual sexual education. This would seem to be a particularly relevant point in this discussion.Let me approach this from a different angle to make my point clearer. Faith has a rather specific and strong cultural belief system. Her criticism has been that purely mechanistic explanations in sex ed plays into the hands of, if not advances, a different cultural/moral belief system than her own.Your response to Faith was essentially to address or allay her fears on this by arguing that sex ed does and would involve discussions of cultural sexual issues. In your response you mentioned things like relationships, marriage, divorce, and self-respect.While that may seem straightforward to you, the question would arise how that could actually help what Faith is worrying about. I would pretty well guarantee Faith's concepts of what relationships, marriage, divorce, and self-respect differ radically from many, including yourself. Not to say she is in a minority opinion, just that there are many different points of views on all of these subjects and some quite polarized.For certain we can bring a teacher in who can speak to the FACTS of how the body works and how it interacts with the environment. This is imparting a skill set wholly independent of culture and moral position on how one SHOULD or MIGHT BEST use their body. That skill set will be useful to one of your cultural paradigm or Faith's.What we cannot do is bring in a teacher who can speak to the FACTS of how sex fits or should fit into one's life and society. No one can be knowledgeable of what is an objectively appropriate way to handle sexual situations, because there arent any. First of all societies contain a diversity of opinions on those issues. Second those opinions always change over time. Third a teacher is just a single person who cannot be any better placed, and may very well be more poorly placed than a parent, to let a child know how to handle situations. The teacher may know biology better but its unlikely they have a better lock on morality and culture.My guess would be that many would want children educated to be positive and accepting of gays or being gay. Many others would not. Indeed Faith would likely not. Your position would actually create a greater threat to her beliefs, and her ability to raise her children according to her cultural beliefs regarding selfrespect an sexuality. Or in a contrasting way if we let the strictest moral code define what gets taught, you probably wouldn't be too happy.But let me ask, if we allowed sex ed to be taught with a cultural component and a fundemantalist gov't came to power and so began teaching ITS cultural component, would you be satisfied? If your answer is yes, then you would essentially accept Faith's argument and abstinence only education. If no, then you would logically have to accept my argument that cultural artifacts be left out of sexual education.In short, to the degree one believes that instructing cultural and moral issues belong in sexual education, one must allow for the validity of abstinence only education. To the degree that one believes instruction is for sexual and sexual health information alone, teaching cultural and moral issues are superfluous and potentially counterproductive.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If that is the case, it is either not uniform policy, or it is very very recent. This does not make sense to me. If the term "love" does not translate into another culture's language, that sort of suggests love is a cultural concept, doesn't it? This argument of yours looks suspiciously like the condescending argument "they all believe in God and Jesus even if they don't understand it yet and call it Buddha."Really, other cultures do not understand sex or relationships in the same way those in the west do. Thus matters relating to relationships have nothing to do with promoting information regarding sex and sexual health. Heck, why don't you tell me what love is and what it has to do with sex that everyone agrees to, even if not using the same language and expression. Really? You mean you don't have immigrants from other nations where you live? Okay, well that really doesn't matter as I was addressing the assertion that the IDEAL sex education program would involve such concepts.Sex education is something that is going on all around the world and MUST be promoted around the world given the current health crisis from HIV. Abstinence only education is actually being advanced along that front from the Bush administration. I am equally not impressed with calls to teach people to understand cultural sexual roles as feminist-Xian doctrine dictates (or any OTHER culture including mine) as a rider to sexual health information. Heheheh... I have an interesting real world anecdote from a failed sex ed mission regarding that. Maybe next time. Was that a typo? You meant to say you DO think it should prepare people for relationships, right? If not, then we have no disagreement and cultural concepts are superfluous.Assuming you meant they should prepare people for relationships... how on earth can you teach or prepare anyone for how to be in a relationship? What teacher is not as fallible as anyone else in that regard? There is no objective answers on how relationships can and should be lived. If there were we'd have uniform agreement on that subject.It seems to me that is simply an attempt at cultural indoctrination by a ruling group over all others, especially social minorities that might disagree. Parents and others within one's direct community are the most important sources of information of that kind. I do believe sex ed teachers should encourage people to discuss those issues with family and friends, but telling them what sex is about is sufficient for sexual health. But that itself is biased thinking. Doesn't Faith have a right to raise her kids to think sex, or certain sex acts, and relationships are NOT correct and are forms of disrespect where you think otherwise? I don't see how you can have a sex education curricula which involves relationships that will not be contrary to one culture or another, even within the same nation. The question of infidelity and masturbation itself is culturally loaded when discussing relationships. Notice I said, it would SEEM. If I was wrong could you explain why it was not meaning what it appeared to me to be meaning.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I found this to be an interesting inconsistency... yeah, and yet felt bound to repeat the current cultural mantra... Delaying sex does nothing to increase sex health. Instituting good sexual health skills does, regardless of age.I might note that they apparently reversed themselves regarding evidence of abstinence program success to say... This suggests Faith is correct that it might be method of implementation which is the issue of failures to achieve abstinence successes, rather than the fact that any program is teaching abstinence only.However, your quotes highlight what I think most of us are trying to get across, regarding sexual health itself... Thus the health of good Xians who happen to fail is put in greater jeopardy. And that of course would hold true for those that might actually get married before having sex.Then again they revert to supporting cultural causes... While I get that a course stigmatizing gays is not useful, I don't see why a course in sex ed would need to deal with "issues surrounding homsexuality". Indeed the only useful info would be the kind of info this quote dismisses.Conservatives have a right to expect their children do not get instructed that certain lifestyles are acceptable. It is doubtful that liberals are going to expect or accept kids be taught curricula reducing stigma of children that have sex at young ages, or are children of prostitutes, or use pornography regardless of isolation and loneliness they might feel.Dealing with the effects of social homophobia has nothing to do with sexual education, that is purely psycho-social and NOT inherent to sexual activity. Indeed one might never have such a sex act at all and still feel the pressure. If anything it is a civics or psych issue.Edited by holmes, : transposition

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's a very good point. I realize there is a difference between purely abs-only ed and a virg pledge, and you have highlighted a potential issue in taking anything away from the results shown.The point I was trying to make... though your caveat is well made against it... is this could support Faith's argument that the issue may be how rather than what an abs-only ed currently involves in the areas where failures have been noted. Perhaps a pledge type drive within such an educational scheme would work, or at the very least change the failure rate. That certainly would add a nice 1984-ish form of peer pressure to keep kids from having sex. Victory over the orgasm!

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

As well meant as that is, I am going to challenge your claim. Unprotected sex is NOT the problem at all.The problem is willful ignorance. We have the means to test individuals and identify who is infected or not. With this knowledge we could begin drastically reducing infection rates. Instead we want to continue pursuing this epidemic unlike any other epidemic we have ever faced before in history... simply because it has sexual stigma.The problem is that people who do not know their status, but are infected, are allowed to live in a dream world that they may not be and so continue to have sex. And those who want to have sex have no easy way of knowing whether their partners are infected or not. This is protected for the privacy concern of the individual with the contagious disease.Most people that know their positive status get the help they need and move into safe sexual practices that do not involve the uninfected (or at least with those who know and are willing to take risks).Yeah, condom use is USEFUL for the prevention of its spread in cultures that refuse to enact better identification programs and address the disease for what it is, a contagion, instead of some socio-religio-political issue. But it is not as good as knowledge.That said condoms are also useful for prevention of other diseases as well which while not of "plague" quality, are also maintained in societies by cultural guilt complexes.And it might be mentioned there are safer sexual acts involving NO condoms than acts with a condom. That is another bit of knowledge people don't seem to want to spread around.Not ranting at you, just frustrated that the debate seems to get stuck at condoms vs abstinence when there is a world of better options out there.Edited by holmes, : added who

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

It is true that the main focus of my frustration and commentary is with HIV. That is because it is currently a lethal pandemic which is identifiable through testing.However I would include other STDs. Along with the common sense issue that sexual health includes containment of all diseases including nonfatal ones, there is mounting evidence that HIV tends to coincide with other STDs and follow other STD epidemiologiogical "trails". Okay I want you to think about that statement. Your argument was that people should not be having unprotected sex. Isn't it just as much a fact of life that people are going to have sex with people without condoms? Many if not most people really prefer direct contact, over condoms.The point I am trying to make is that the first and most important step is people need to get their sexual health status into the "known" category. Not to mention societies need to accurately need to identify the scope of the problem. Especially with regard to HIV, but also for others which may help spread HIV along with their own negative health conditions.The second is that there needs to be a way for people, or society, needs to deal with the health status of potential partners who have HIV. I won't get into how that is done here as that is pretty long and drawn out.After those two (which would drastically reduce infection rates more than condom use), changes in sexual behavior become the next important factors. In a 2005 discussion on transmission of HIV, some top researchers identified simply convincing people to switch away from unprotected and protected anal sex to oral sex (protected or not, with ejaculation in mouth or not) would reduce infection rates by up to 95%. That's right, even unprotected oral sex involving the swallowing of sperm is less risky than protected anal or vaginal sex (whether top or bottom).Switching to mutual masturbation as an alternative would result essentially in elimination of its spread via sex (HIV or other STD).Obviously for those that will not get tested and will not change their sexual behavior when engaging in sex with those of unknown or known positive status, then condom use CERTAINLY adds protection and is DEFINITELY advised.But to me that seems like advocating people wear seat belts and crash helmets as the BEST SOLUTION to car injuries, instead of simply taking off the blind fold and using the steering wheel while driving (which for some reason people are doing en masse). While that is true, HPV is not a condition similar to HIV nor other STDs (especially if asymptomatic as you suggest) in its direct effect on health. And this does not reduce the fact that people can go in and get tested to find if they are infected (even if not all will be correctly diagnosed) and so reduce its spread. Ironic to your point, while condoms may help, they do not do so with the same degree that they would protect people from HPV with regard to other STDs.Okay, again I'm not trying to come down hard on you or anything. Advocating condom use is great. You are not wrong in trying to do this. I am simply getting at the fact that there are still much better alternatives. Ones that truly address the problem, rather than trying to live as best we can without having to deal with the problem.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Ironically one of the major reasons I am writing these days is that I'm sick! I caught some damn nonsexually transmitted cold so I can't work as I have been (thankfully it did come when I had a slight break from work anyway). My guess is in the next couple days I'll be back into lurking mode.Of course when I lurk, yours will be posts I'll look at. Yes, I don't think all STDs must be treated as seriously as fatal contagions. Indeed I would not be so concerned except right now we have a fatal contagion that often moves with other STDs. If we are going to do one, we might as well get as many as we can. At least with regard to identification.To be honest, while there may be malicious people (like Gaetan Dugas) who will continue to have sex despite knowing their status, and hiding it under medical confidentiality (like plague carrying is some right), I don't think that's the major issue.Most of the spread comes from well meaning people who will change their behavior once they know their status, but simply do not know it and do not want to know it. Its sort of like the child who believes that covering their eyes means others aren't there or can't see them. Maybe its part of our instinctual makeup. We have to overcome this and identify the scope of the problem.Right now HIV is beating the black plague as an historical epidemic. People today usually look back to think how silly it was for people not to have figured out how it was spread and the silly kinds of stop-gap measures they put in place. My guess is people in the future will have to view us in the same way. We know what the cause is, we can identify its presence in the population... but we just WON'T!I am glad to see that Clinton is now pushing plans that involve that. Some major leader finally sees the light. Condoms merely slow the progress and allows the disease to creep around as a hidden menace to everyone. There are many ways of dealing with this, and in the end I think it will depend on the individual nations to figure out what method is best for them. HOWEVER, at the very least some sort of "registry" is necessary at the very least at the top gov't level. Those carrying the virus must be identified so that they may receive treatment and become responsible for containing the spread.Obviously hard physical quarantine (like leper colonies) is an option, and maybe it'd work great, but I don't think it's necessary at all.To my mind one of the best methods would be introduction of mandatory testing (for HIV) of all people that seek medical treatment for anything. It should be routine, and there is no reason not to do this. In addition free testing should be available to the public and backed with some sort of incentive. Compulsory would be better, but being a rights buff I agree that might be a bit over the top, except in communities where it has become a rampant problem (some African communities might fit that).Okay so that would start identifying the scope of the problem in a routine way. Those that have it should be placed on a list of some kind which is available to medical officials. That way tracking and treatment become easier. I do think serious sentences should be imposed on those who know they have the disease and continue to engage in risk activity with noninfected persons.In any case, it would be a great idea to set up a system so that people can understand the health status of their partner. One of the best solutions would be quick and accurate home tests people can use themselves. At least one test already exists but is restricted because doctors fear the psychological result of an HIV positive person finding out they are positive without a counselor right there MORE than the physical and psychological results on an HIV negative person who becomes positive via the resulting sexual activity because they lacked the knowledge which would have definitvely prevented the act.Alternatives would be a sort of dial up (or online) database. An individual would obtain a health id #. It would technically not even need names or addresses (on the public end). One partner reveals their id # and the other may check the current status (last date tested and its result) via phone or internet. This can be improved using a password system, so that it may be assured a person is not hijacking another person's health id#.In lower tech societies neither might be available and so a simple card with last test date and result could be handed out. While someone could destroy the card so as not to have others discover their status, in this and the previous method it is encouraged that people do not have sex with anyone who does not allow them to see a card or ID for proof of recent testing. In societies where illiteracy is rampant color codes or some sort of symbology code be used.This way it is not a red lettering of HIV positive people, but a way to white letter HIV negative people to prospective sexual partners... that could even and especially help prostitutes. I do believe this should be done for other STDs, that is to say include results for any and all STDs. And the system could be used for future pandemics of a nonsexual nature.On a smaller community level, any open (multi-partner) sexual community ought to be putting such devices in place themselves. They could screen people impersonally (anonymously) using such a system at the doors of saunas and clubs, thus people within would not have to further screen for each individual circumstance (though they could).I do believe the gay and bi community (which still has a bad track record for STD prevention) ought to be encouraging mass testing and change in sexual habits to stop the spread of STDs. Instead of whining about the complacency of republicans, focus their ire on the complacency of fellow gays and bis for not doing THEIR part which would solve more problems than anything someone in washington (or any other seat of gov't) could ever do.I say this as a part of the bi and open sex community. It shocks me to see what goes on there, even with condom usage. That is not enough. You find people who are sexually active while fearing they might be positive and yet NEVER getting tested.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I have already asked you this. Why should this be a part of instruction on sexual health? That is a psycho-social item that will differ based on cultures and essentially come down to the individual.Is there some objective and teachable FACTS regarding relationships that have any similarity to the objective and teachable FACTS regarding how sexual systems function and are impacted by disease?How would such an ideal instruction deal with masturbation (within and without relationships), prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, child sex, marriage, polygamy, love and lack of love?You are conflating two separate issues in support of an ethnocentric idea of what sex is about. To my mind it is just the same as what Faith is arguing. If you believe that people can be instructed on cultural beliefs, then abstinence only becomes viable. It will all depend on your point of view.Lets say after such programs prostitution, extramarital sex, and acceptance of porn is seen to increase (and by the way I believe there is evidence to that effect) would you view those involved in that as having failed to understand a good message being taught, or a failure in trying to teach people not to do such things in the first place?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

How can that be done? Indeed why don't you explain what the objective emotional and psychological repercussions of sexual activity are.I'm still waiting for someone to explain this idea and how it relates to actual sexual health to me. If you don't think that has anything to do with shaming people into not having sex, you are not being honest. It is often the case that an antisex message, particularly with regard to early sex, is sent along with the facts. It is not surprising to see that this is acted on.The reason abstinence only may not work as well (with regard to delaying sex) is that it may leave a bit of mystery and sense of rebellion intact. Pointing to something and saying "don't do it" often increases its appeal. Or at the very least it draws attention to it as something to be excited by.Though I should say that some of the evidence is not that there is so much an increase in sex with abs-only as compared to other methods, just that it does not seem realistically more effective in doing so.The biggest problem, and I think where criticism actually hits home is what abs-only does for the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I find it funny to watch left and right try and point to WHEN kids start having sex as some sort of objective marker. The reality is whether earlier or later, married or not, with abs only there appears to be a greater level of STDs and unwanted pregnancies due to the ignorance of preventing these physical issues.Although I like you, I have to back up Faith's statement that the types and amount of issues you detailed fall far outside the realm of sex education. Personal emotional counseling seems much more appropriate and I don't see why you should take that as an offensive statement. Unless you believe most people go through the traumas you apparently had?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheheh... I am aghast at what you have taken away from my posts. Seriously there is a major miscommunication happening here. Well its' sad to hear you think I'd say that I would say that because I wouldn't. What I am pointing out is that:1) Sex education is not just within this nation and so an "ideal" sex education program is one that fits into all cultures.2) Even within this nation or "western culture" there are a vast number of subcultures with polar opposite views on things like what respect for onesself or one's partner actually means.3) Because of these vast differences trying to add them into a sex education program is not just superfluous but frought with problems.Its that second point that really needs to be stressed. Faith could agree with that exact sentiment that respect for onesself and one's partner must be taught and come away with a totally different meaning for how that would be taught. I have already tried to give examples of this to you. Let me try again.To Faith respect for onesself may mean not masturbating or having sex with a person unless one is in love and has gotten married. To you it may allow for masturbation and sex with another when that a person is in love and is certain of an egalitarian and commited relationship whether in marriage or not. To me it may mean masturbation as well as sex whether in a serious relationship or not, as long as one treats one's partners with honesty and courtesy. There is absolutely no objective way to judge one as right and having one's kids taught the other's position might very well be offensive.Is a homosexual relationship healthy or respectful? Well based on objective measurements of a variety of illnesses and problems (which is like what you are doing with abs only education) it ISN'T. And certainly Faith would have a valid position to feel and want to teach her kids that it isn't healthy and it does not involve respect for onesself or one's partners.To you or I we would likely judge it to be healthy and respectful. But that does not make our position superior nor worthy of being taught. The same goes for things like prostitution and porn (which you have made clear in the past you feel does not involve respect), or mixed race relationships, etc, etc. It is easy to use code words but the devil is in the detail of how you will actually instruct them.I agree with the sentiment that children SHOULD be taught about respecting one's self and one's sexual partners, but I am of the opinion that that is best done by the family. There is no teacher who is more qualified to discuss this than a caring family of whatever moral persuasion.And I disagree that morals and social-psychological issues have anything to do with a proper sexual education. It would be like having to teach etiquette and gezelligheid when discussing the biology of digestion, because when we eat we'll have to deal with those puely social phenomena which are culturally defined.There is the physical and there is the psycho-social... and heck just for Faith, for some there is a spiritual element. These are all separate and they should not be combined into the same curricula.Sex education is about letting kids know how their reproductive systems work, and how they can manage them so that they do not face unwanted pregnancy or STDs. Whether one is in the most disrespectful relationship or the most respectful relationship, one that makes them happy or one that makes them sad, the way to avoid pregnancy and STDs remains the same. And those methods, those skills, are the only fact based things a teacher can objectively teach to all cultures for use by all cultures equally.If I am wrong it is very simple. Unpack those very simple words like "love" and "respect" by outlining a program of what kids will be taught in an objective (non culturally biased sense), and show how it will deal with the issues I raised above. And I might ask what you would think if the fundies got in control and argued that in fact this culture does not like homosexuality and believes it is unhealthy and disrespectful and so teaches sex ed that way? Wouldn't you rather they left it up to you to tell your kids about that kind of thing and have sex ed focus on education regarding sex itself?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)