Rationale behind abstinence only programs?

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: sao123
I have no problem controlling my kids and preventing them from having sex.

I went to school with some people who's parrents felt exactly that same way; man were their girls wild in the sack.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: sao123
I have no problem controlling my kids and preventing them from having sex.

I went to school with some people who's parrents felt exactly that same way; man were their girls wild in the sack.

No problem with going wild in the sack... as long as they only have 1 lifetime partner ever. which usually involves a marriage of some sort.

 

[dmcowen674]

I see have multiple threads on this.

As I posted in other thread:

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How to you go from that quote to "religious groups in the US are organizing to oppose vaccinations"?

Let's examine the quote:

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims."

She's absolutely right. If a vaccine for HPV leads to more promiscous sexual contact, it would result in a higer incidence of AIDS and other STDs.

More proof positive the Religious Zealots are totally insane.

They would rather see people die from a natural part of life than acknowledge their beliefs are off the wall.

:| :thumbsdown:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you think the pros and cons are for premarital sex are specifically relating to teens?

Can you list them out for me in two columns?

Still waiting 3chord.

The pros are whatever the people involved think they are - whatever positive value you place on sex, whether it's 'fun', 'expressing love and affection', 'making babies', or anything else.

The cons are a series of risks WRT pregnancy, disease, emotions, etc.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Condoms have a 1 in 6 failure rate. Abstinence works 100% of the time.


Why give your kids a revolver to play with ??

Many, many studies that have examined condom usage have concluded that the large bulk of pregnancies resulting from condoms is improper usage, not condom failure. And if you don't teach people correct condom usage, guess what? That's right, they don't know how to use them properly. And guess what abstinence-only programs teach about condom usage? That's right, nothing. So guess what happens when kids who have received only abstinence-only training decide to use condoms? That's right, they don't know how to use them. And guess what percentage of kids who receive abstinence-only training decide to be abstinent? The most generous figure I could find is 54%

So when you combine 46% abstinence non-compliance with ignorance in the use of condoms, guess what you get?

Abstinence works 100% of the time that kids don't engage in sexual activity.

Abstinence-only programs work only 54% of the time. They're a loaded canon.

 

[krcat1]

Abstinence-only programs are the biggest work of fiction outside tax policy currently going.

Abstinence is a lifestyle, not a class. You can teach someone all about the mechanics of sex and STD prevention in a week of one hour classes.
Abstinence must be constantly re-enforced by moral values, work, goals, etc. This takes a lot of hard work the Abstinence-only people don't do.

Abstinence-only programs are designed to applease soccer-moms by making the big, bad sex wolf go away.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you think the pros and cons are for premarital sex are specifically relating to teens?

Can you list them out for me in two columns?

Still waiting 3chord.

The pros are whatever the people involved think they are - whatever positive value you place on sex, whether it's 'fun', 'expressing love and affection', 'making babies', or anything else.

The cons are a series of risks WRT pregnancy, disease, emotions, etc.

Let's see a few moments of pleasure versus the potential of getting AIDS, STDs, and/or an unwanted prgenacy, not to mention the psychological impact of engaging in sex before most teens are emotionally prepared for it.

A simple pro/con analysis makes it pretty clear what the emphasis of sex ed should be.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you think the pros and cons are for premarital sex are specifically relating to teens?

Can you list them out for me in two columns?

Still waiting 3chord.

The pros are whatever the people involved think they are - whatever positive value you place on sex, whether it's 'fun', 'expressing love and affection', 'making babies', or anything else.

The cons are a series of risks WRT pregnancy, disease, emotions, etc.

Let's see a few moments of pleasure versus the potential of getting AIDS, STDs, and/or an unwanted prgenacy, not to mention the psychological impact of engaging in sex before most teens are emotionally prepared for it.

A simple pro/con analysis makes it pretty clear what the emphasis of sex ed should be.

No it doesn't.

But a value-judgement heavy analysis like the one you just gave makes it appear obvious.

Is a few moments of pleasure all you get out of sex? If so I'm sorry... there's a lot more to sex than orgasm, and a lot of us unmarried folks are aware of that.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Condoms have a 1 in 6 failure rate. Abstinence works 100% of the time.

Why give your kids a revolver to play with ??

Hmmm, maybe because males born with one and females born with bullets catcher???

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
King County???

Anyway, here's an interesting article:

"HPV is passed from partner to partner. HPV is a skin virus, which means that a blood test won't detect it. There is no direct test for HPV, actually: Pap smears do not detect the virus, they detect changes the virus causes in cervical cells. HPV lives in the skin cells, and genital skin-to-skin contact is the most likely path of transmission. This means CONDOMS WILL PROBABLY NOT PROTECT YOU! If the virus is present in skin not covered by the condom, and that skin touches your skin, you're out of luck.

That's what happened to me. I used condoms everytime, but I still got it."

Life with HPV is not very easy

God forbid you touch another human in an intimate way :roll:

 

[ZeGermans]

Uh... you guys seem to have digressed from my original question. Obviously, abstinence is more effective at preventing STD spreading... but it DOESN'T WORK. It assumes that everyone in the world has the same moral principles as those that came up with the policies. It's the same reason why communism would probably be the most effective way of running a government, if eveyone shared the idea of working for the common good.

Anyways, I'm still waiting for a reasonable explaination.

 

[Riprorin]

On the contrary, abstinence works perfectly.

Everyone doesn't have to have the same moral principles. Just look at the pros/cons and do a risk analysis.

 

[ZeGermans]

you're being purposefully obtuse. Obviously, if abstinence is practiced, it works perfectly. That's not in any sort of debate. The point is, study after study shows that downplaying condoms is less effective at combating STDs than an even ABC approach.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
On the contrary, abstinence works perfectly.

Everyone doesn't have to have the same moral principles. Just look at the pros/cons and do a risk analysis.

Why? You didn't.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
you're being purposefully obtuse. Obviously, if abstinence is practiced, it works perfectly. That's not in any sort of debate. The point is, study after study shows that downplaying condoms is less effective at combating STDs than an even ABC approach.

No, the problem is overplaying the effectiveness of condoms. They are a poor susbstitute for abstinence and mongamy and their promotion can lead to an increase in promiscous sexual contact. Clearly, as the number of casual sexual encounters/partners goes up, so does the rate of sexual diseases.

Condoms fail and they don't prevent transmission of STDs transferred from skin to skin contact.

 

[ZeGermans]

yes, that's a reasonable position, but the problem is, it's not supported by the facts of studies that show triple emphasis programs work best

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
yes, that's a reasonable position, but the problem is, it's not supported by the facts of studies that show triple emphasis programs work best

The emphasis should be on abstience and monogamy with condoms as a a fall back, albeit a poor one, for those who lack the self-control to practice the former.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
yes, that's a reasonable position, but the problem is, it's not supported by the facts of studies that show triple emphasis programs work best

The emphasis should be on abstience and monogamy with condoms as a a fall back, albeit a poor one, for those who lack the self-control to practice the former.

but the issue is still why "abstinence only?"

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
yes, that's a reasonable position, but the problem is, it's not supported by the facts of studies that show triple emphasis programs work best

The emphasis should be on abstience and monogamy with condoms as a a fall back, albeit a poor one, for those who lack the self-control to practice the former.

I think the problem is that you try to humiliate those who do not practice abstinence and are not married.

You use words like "the poor one" "those who lack control" bla bla bla. Don't act like you are righteous and all in that sense, in the end you judge no one...

 

[Jhhnn]

Damn, did I just read that even Rip supports what is basically the ABC program advocated by people who've studied the issue dispassionately and in depth? The mind boggles...Reason over religion, science over superstition... what's the world coming to, anyway?

A- abstinence

B- Be faithful

C- Condoms as a last resort...

The rationale behind Abstinence only programs? Ignorance is bliss, or the world needs more examples of what happens to sinners, take your pick...

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Damn, did I just read that even Rip supports what is basically the ABC program advocated by people who've studied the issue dispassionately and in depth? The mind boggles...Reason over religion, science over superstition... what's the world coming to, anyway?

A- abstinence

B- Be faithful

C- Condoms as a last resort...

The rationale behind Abstinence only programs? Ignorance is bliss, or the world needs more examples of what happens to sinners, take your pick...

he does, but he is too scared to come out directly and admit it.

Come on Rip, just say the words you obviously feel : "Sexual Education should include instruction on using condoms" .

Thus you would also have to admit that abstinence only education is not the best method.

 

[Riprorin]

I think that I've made my position clear.

 

[Kenazo]

sex is good.

That's all I have to add to the discussion.