Parents Want Abstinence Taught, Not More Sex Ed.

[Colossus_500]

While six states have announced their intent to refuse federal funding for abstinence-only education, a new Zogby poll points to just how out of touch those state leaders are with the people they serve. Despite leftwing pressure to abandon abstinence-only education, a survey of over 1,000 parents found overwhelming support for the programs. When the differences between comprehensive and abstinence education were explained, moms and dads supported abstinence by a two-to-one margin. Not only do 83% of parents want their children to save sex until marriage, but a majority of families believe that programs should reinforce the abstinence message when broaching sex ed. Not surprisingly, two of three parents think the potency of the "waiting to have sex" message is lost when programs demonstrate contraceptive use. As FRC prepares to meet with Capitol Hill members and staff on May 22 for Abstinence Day, this poll is yet another reason why Congress should be persuaded to reauthorize funding for Title V abstinence education this June. Already, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and others have openly attacked abstinence programs and made clear their intentions of redirecting that money to groups like Planned Parenthood. Their push for birth control over self-control will be mightily challenged by FRC's vice president for government affairs, Tom McClusky, who was just named by The Hill newspaper as one of "The Greatest in Helping the Grassroots Grow." As Tom says, his voice would carry very little weight on the Hill without yours. Urge your congressmen to uphold the wishes of parents across America who believe in abstinence education as the way to promote healthy and happy futures for kids.

[Decker]

"Abstinence" should be taught right along side sexual health/contraception.  Let parents rely on the effectiveness of their parenting skills for influencing the decisions made by their children with respect to handling the teen-age sexual impulse.

More choices in sex education, not less, is the answer.

[Colossus_500]

"Abstinence" should be taught right along side sexual health/contraception.  Let parents rely on the effectiveness of their parenting skills for influencing the decisions made by their children with respect to handling the teen-age sexual impulse.

More choices in sex education, not less, is the answer.

I'd prefer to see abstinence thought and nothing else.  It wasn't until sex education was introduced that teen pregnancy numbers began to rise.  Even with all of the sexual health/contraception that is provided today, we're still seeing an incredible increase in STD's.  Plus, I believe this causes confusion for young people.  Boundaries exist for a reason.  The younger you are, the tighter your boundaries should be.  This, imo, produces a more well-rounded adult who can make more mature decisions and encounter less mistakes. 

[OzmO]

It's the right idea, but perhaps the wrong execution of it.  Real teaching begins at home, not in the class room.  If you don't teach sex ed, where will they learn it?   At home and where?

[Colossus_500]

It's the right idea, but perhaps the wrong execution of it.  Real teaching begins at home, not in the class room.  If you don't teach sex ed, where will they learn it?   At home and where?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, OzmO.  It's up to the parents to teach our kids about sexuality.  We shouldn't leave that up to the government. 

[OzmO]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, OzmO.  It's up to the parents to teach our kids about sexuality.  We shouldn't leave that up to the government. 

Yeah, the bases of most of the best solutions are at home with parents.  The problem however, is that the parents fall short in many cases.

I remember sex education when i was 14 in 1979 it was for 1 semester.  It was really about learning the process of conception and the anatomy of the parts involved.   I don't remember anything beyond that.  But maybe that's changed.

[Decker]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, OzmO.  It's up to the parents to teach our kids about sexuality.  We shouldn't leave that up to the government. 

Why should the academic subject of sexual health be treated any different than geography or math?

Isn't more knowledge better than any well-intentioned prophylactic measure?

Isn't it better to teach facts rather than order students to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend sexual health is out-of-bounds?

As for parents teaching anything, on the whole, parents are not experts in even remedial educational topics.  They are a poor substitute for academic pursuits.

[OzmO]

Why should the academic subject of sexual health be treated any different than geography or math?

Isn't more knowledge better than any well-intentioned prophylactic measure?

Isn't it better to teach facts rather than order students to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend sexual health is out-of-bounds?

As for parents teaching anything, on the whole, parents are not experts in even remedial educational topics.  They are a poor substitute for academic pursuits.

Becuase if they screw up in math they don't get pregnant.

And yes, the parents aren't educated.   They need to be.  But we are 400 billion in debt so now we are screwed. 

[Decker]

Becuase if they screw up in math they don't get pregnant.

And yes, the parents aren't educated.   They need to be.

Your observation is facile.  How does screwing up in sexual health ed. result in pregnancy?

I am arguing that more facts about sexual health are better. 

How does factual information about pregnancy and STDs cause teens to become more promiscuous?

I don't buy that at all. 

To me, the 'abstinence only' crowd moralizes in a vacuum.   

[OzmO]

Your observation is facile.  How does screwing up in sexual health ed. result in pregnancy?

I am arguing that more facts about sexual health is better. 

How does factual information about pregnancy and STDs cause teens to become more promiscuous?

I don't buy that at all. 

To me, the 'abstinence only' crowd moralizes in a vacuum.   

Yeah,  you have a point.

Parents should teach abstinence and where they fail, the schools should pick up the slack. 

In theory, the best education begins at home.  But in reality, it doesn't happen.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Your observation is facile.  How does screwing up in sexual health ed. result in pregnancy?

I am arguing that more facts about sexual health are better. 

How does factual information about pregnancy and STDs cause teens to become more promiscuous?

I don't buy that at all. 

To me, the 'abstinence only' crowd moralizes in a vacuum.   

I agree and excellent post. There seems to be a certain percentage of parents that are deathly afraid of their children learning anything in regards to sex. It's as if they believe education is a license to become sexually active. IMO the more knowledge (good and bad) a child has the less likely he is to do something rash. Isn't it a good thing for kids to know the dangers of being sexually active?

And let's not bury our heads in the sand, certain kids are going to be sexually active no matter what they know or don't know. It's the nature of the beast.

[headhuntersix]

Its not the governments job..pure and simply. The government should not be involved. Uncle Sam wether on the local/state/ or federal level is way to involved  in everything. And its generally stupid crap like a permit to have a yard sale.

[Decker]

Its not the governments job..pure and simply. The government should not be involved. Uncle Sam wether on the local/state/ or federal level is way to involved  in everything. And its generally stupid crap like a permit to have a yard sale.

It is the government's job to educate its citizenry. 

It is in the country's best interest to have an educated citizenry.

Why is sex ed. any different?

[Camel Jockey]

Its not the governments job..pure and simply. The government should not be involved. Uncle Sam wether on the local/state/ or federal level is way to involved  in everything. And its generally stupid crap like a permit to have a yard sale.

Agreed.

Smack your kid in the back of the head and tell him to not fuck a chick without a rubber.

[OzmO]

Agreed.

Smack your kid in the back of the head and tell him to not fuck a chick without a rubber.

In the heat of the moment it's easy to forget the smack and the rubber......

[Camel Jockey]

Don't be a pussy, BEAT YOUR KID!

And I don't blame your for forgetting the condom.

[Dos Equis]

Not only do 83% of parents want their children to save sex until marriage, but a majority of families believe that programs should reinforce the abstinence message when broaching sex ed.

You mean the federal government wants to endorse an idea that an overwhelming majority of parents support?

It is obvious that the whole liberal condom emphasis has been a complete failure.  They don't stop the spread of disease, they haven't slowed the pregnancy rates, and I doubt guys use them consistently.  And you're absolutely right that abstinence and condoms/birth control send mixed messages to kids.   

[OzmO]

You mean the federal government wants to endorse an idea that an overwhelming majority of parents support?

It is obvious that the whole liberal condom emphasis has been a complete failure.  They don't stop the spread of disease, they haven't slowed the pregnancy rates, and I doubt guys use them consistently. And you're absolutely right that abstinence and condoms/birth control send mixed messages to kids.   

Have any studies, polls, or links on this?

[Dos Equis]

Have any studies, polls, or links on this?

Not handy.  Hedge posted a link once that showed STD rates have either remained constant or increased over the past 20 some odd years.  I don't believe pregnancy rates have slowed.  And re guys using condoms?  C'mon.  You know good and well that a man, particularly a young man, who experiences sex with and without a condom will quickly abandon condoms. 

[Decker]

You mean the federal government wants to endorse an idea that an overwhelming majority of parents support?

It is obvious that the whole liberal condom emphasis has been a complete failure.  They don't stop the spread of disease, they haven't slowed the pregnancy rates, and I doubt guys use them consistently.  And you're absolutely right that abstinence and condoms/birth control send mixed messages to kids.   

Condoms do what they are supposed to do: reduce the risk of pregnancy and of contracting/spreading STDs.  They do that job quite well.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf

"Abstinence only" is a laudable goal but in the real world it is highly impractical.

In short, your analogical worries about whether 'guys use them consistently' or sending 'mixed messages to kids' are unfounded and fall before real empirical evidence of the obvious success of condoms in america.

[Dos Equis]

Condoms do what they are supposed to do: reduce the risk of pregnancy and of contracting/spreading STDs.  They do that job quite well.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf

"Abstinence only" is a laudable goal but in the real world it is highly impractical.

In short, your analogical worries about whether 'guys use them consistently' or sending 'mixed messages to kids' are unfounded and fall before real empirical evidence of the obvious success of condoms in america.

Guys don't use condoms.  Have you ever spent time in a male locker room?  College campuses?  Unless there has a been a sea change since I was in those environments as a student and athlete (or athlete-student  , there is no consistent, widespread use of condoms.

I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but Hedge posted an article once that showed STD rates have either remained constant or increased. 

I am one who believes kids can actually exercise self control.  They aren't animals.  Throwing in the towel on sex is just a copout.  As the story Colossus posted shows, the vast majority of parents want their kids to remain abstinent.  That's where our focus should be.

[Decker]

Guys don't use condoms.  Have you ever spent time in a male locker room?  College campuses?  Unless there has a been a sea change since I was in those environments as a student and athlete (or athlete-student  , there is no consistent, widespread use of condoms.

I try not to hang out in locker rooms but I do like gladiator flicks...my goodness Scraps is a boy dog.

I haven't looked at the numbers lately, but Hedge posted an article once that showed STD rates have either remained constant or increased.

Even if that were true, it still does not change the fact that use of condoms can be a lifesaver--HIV, HPV.

I am one who believes kids can actually exercise self control.  They aren't animals.  Throwing in the towel on sex is just a copout.  As the story Colossus posted shows, the vast majority of parents want their kids to remain abstinent.  That's where our focus should be.

I understand your point.  But children do act like animals.  Hell, adults act like animals when it comes to sex--anyway, anyhow.

As far as the parents' wishes, well, if I had a daughter, I'd wish that she'd be a virgin forever.

That is wishful thinking and purposeful ignorance.

[Dos Equis]

I try not to hang out in locker rooms but I do like gladiator flicks...my goodness Scraps is a boy dog.
Even if that were true, it still does not change the fact that use of condoms can be a lifesaver--HIV, HPV.
I understand your point.  But children do act like animals.  Hell, adults act like animals when it comes to sex--anyway, anyhow.

As far as the parents' wishes, well, if I had a daughter, I'd wish that she'd be a virgin forever.

That is wishful thinking and purposeful ignorance.

Condoms can be a lifesaver, but they don't, in reality, prevent STDs.  And they really don't have much relevance to HIV.  A while back, I posted excerpts from Tony Brown's book "Black Lies, White Lies," which argues non-IV drug using heterosexuals have little AIDS risk.    http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=95759.25

It isn't wishful thinking, nor is it ignorance.  It's simply the right thing to do.  Giving kids condoms, which they won't use anyway, as part of "sex education" actually encourages kids to have sex.  We shouldn't be encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior.
   

[Decker]

Condoms can be a lifesaver, but they don't, in reality, prevent STDs.  And they really don't have much relevance to HIV.  A while back, I posted excerpts from Tony Brown's book "Black Lies, White Lies," which argues non-IV drug using heterosexuals have little AIDS risk.    http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=95759.25

It isn't wishful thinking, nor is it ignorance.  It's simply the right thing to do.  Giving kids condoms, which they won't use anyway, as part of "sex education" actually encourages kids to have sex.  We shouldn't be encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior.
   

Of all the diseases affected by condoms, HIV is the posterchild for showing its's effectiveness.  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/condoms/HQ00463
Here's an excerpt:
"Do condoms reduce the risk of STDs?
Yes. By blocking the exchange of body fluids that might contain infectious agents, latex condoms provide the best protection available against STDs. Used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)..."


How is educating teens about condoms and STDs/pregnancy "encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior"?

I know I used a condom my first time.  How's that for analogical evidence?

The "right thing to do" is not expose your teens to contracting HIV from of a momentary weakness of the flesh simply b/c the parents want enacted some lofty ideals disconnected from the operations of the real world.

Knowledge trumps willful ignorance.

I believe in cultivating informed judgment.  Anything less than that begs for scorn and ridicule.

[Dos Equis]

Of all the diseases affected by condoms, HIV is the posterchild for showing its's effectiveness.  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/condoms/HQ00463
Here's an excerpt:
"Do condoms reduce the risk of STDs?
Yes. By blocking the exchange of body fluids that might contain infectious agents, latex condoms provide the best protection available against STDs. Used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)..."


How is educating teens about condoms and STDs/pregnancy "encouraging kids to engage in detrimental behavior"?

I know I used a condom my first time.  How's that for analogical evidence?

The "right thing to do" is not expose your teens to contracting HIV from of a momentary weakness of the flesh simply b/c the parents want enacted some lofty ideals disconnected from the operations of the real world.

Knowledge trumps willful ignorance.

I believe in cultivating informed judgment.  Anything less than that begs for scorn and ridicule.

The problem is kids don't use them.  You used a condom your first time?  How about the 5th, 15th, 50th time?    And I think you mean "anecdotal" evidence?  My position is once a kid experiences sex with and without a condom that the condoms will be discarded, like they routinely are.   

I think the HIV threat is a farce.  Check out the link I posted with the excerpts to Tony Brown's book.  The typical heterosexual isn't really at risk for HIV through normal heterosexual sex.

Telling a kid to abstain from sex while handing him a condom is essentially telling the kid to have sex.  In other words, telling a kid that behavior is wrong, then showing the kid how to engage in that very behavior is a mixed message.  At the end of the day, it makes no sense.  Either you tell the kid to abstain or you tell the kid to get his freak on.