Should sex education just consist of telling teenagers to abstain?

Bigots and reactionaries are like small children, in that when they ask a question over and over again, it's usually because they don't like the answer. "How do we stop teenage girls having sex?" is one of these questions. The answer that “we can't" is unacceptable to those moral crusaders and religious freaks who become incensed when any policy is proposed that appears to prioritise young girls' safety over those old failed methods of preventing teenage pregnancy - shame and ignorance.

Those on the religious right treat sex as a sin. They act as if their god created the torso, head, legs and arms, but the devil slapped on the genitals. They would rather their children be taught superstitious mumbo-jumbo about the creation of the world than Darwinian proof that the world has evolved over 4.6 billion years, and they are determined that schoolchildren should remain ignorant of sex. They prefer it if children draw pictures of babies coming from the clouds or from under cabbage leaves. Yet all the evidence is that the girls who are ignorant of family planning, and are in that sense “innocent”, are the ones who end up getting pregnant in their teens. People who believe that abstinence-only sex education works have a perfect example of its failure in Sarah Palin's daughter.

A scheme piloted on the Isle of Wight has allowed girls as young as thirteen to have access to a month's supply of the contraceptive pill over the counter in pharmacies. ‘The Daily Mail’ went berserk at the idea, which might seem surprising given the suggested attitudes of its readers both to teenage pregnancy and to abortion. All becomes clear, though, when one understands that the greater social evil is teenage girls having sex at all. That must be stamped out by any means necessary, as long as those means don't involve actually providing useful sex education.

Simply perpetuating the fear of pregnancy by making contraception harder to access will not stop teenagers copulating. For some, the main objection to contraception being made available in pharmacies is that it means that young girls will be able to access condoms without first talking to their parents, who are of course the proper gateways for all teenage sexual behaviour. Of course parents are the last people with whom most teenagers want to discuss sex.

There are others, including Stephen Fry, for whom the entire concept of females being sexually active of their own volition is incomprehensible, much less young girls. Surely they should be satisfied with being passive objects in a culture that surrounds us with images of adult women posing as schoolgirls in order to make men excited? Surely actual pleasure doesn't register on the radar of these creatures, who are, as we know, comprised entirely of sugar and spice and all things morally circumscribed?

Then there are those who believe that shame and the fear of pregnancy should be enough to keep girls from saying yes. Nobody seems to have any problem with the idea of teenage boys having sex, although several recent studies have shown that in nearly all cases of underage pregnancy, a male was involved at some stage. There has been no outcry about young boys buying condoms, which can and does occur at every chemist in the country. Teenage boys who buy condoms are responsible, teenage girls being allowed to have control over their own fertility is an outrage and morally wrong.

There are, unfortunately, other reasons why some very young women might need access to contraception. Some will be being pressured into sex they don't want to be having. Some will be the victims of violently coercive as well as statutory rape. And some will be being sexually abused. Approximately 15-25% of women, alongside 5-15% of men, are sexually abused as children, usually by family members or family friends, another valid reason for some young girls not wanting to ask their parents for the pill. ‘The Daily Mail’ and other moral tub-thumpers have lots to say about paedophiles and playground perverts, but nobody wants to talk about the even more uncomfortable fact that sexual and physical abuse of minors by the people who are meant to be responsible for them is endemic in our society. So far, our only comprehensive response to this architecture of abuse has been to heap shame upon the sexuality of women and children, as if it were somehow all their fault.

Objecting to young girls having easier access to the pill is part of frantic cultural paranoia about female sexuality in general, particularly developing female sexuality, which is treated as a horrifying disease rather than a natural part of growing up. If we really wanted to protect the "innocence" of young women and girls, we would stop trying to shame them and reserve our outrage for the adults and young men who rape, intimidate and abuse them as a matter of routine. It is about control, and nothing else.

On 4 May this year, Tory MP Nadine Dorries proposed a bill to require that sex education in schools should include content promoting abstinence to girls aged 13 to 16. While sex education already mentions the option of abstinence (but this is placed in the context of young people’s choices and no judgement is passed), this bill would require active promotion of abstinence to girls, with no such requirement of the education provided to boys. Dorries said: “Some of the evidence I have heard is that if a stronger ‘Just Say No’ message was given...there might be an impact on sex abuse. When sex abuse takes place [the girls] don’t realise that that was a wrong thing to do”. The bill passed its first reading and will be read again in January next year.

According to Wikipedia, in 1996 the USA had by far the highest combined rate for teenage pregnancies and abortions among western countries (at over 80 per 1,000 girls), and the liberal Netherlands the lowest at 11.6. A recent study showed that teen pregnancy and STD rates rose sharply in the USA during George W. Bush's presidency. Can abstinence-only sex education ever be taken seriously? Teens weren't having more sex, they were just dismally educated about how to handle its natural risks. One obvious problem with an abstinence-only education approach is that it ignores both biology and the emotional pressures of adolescence. On balance, isn't it far better to teach children how to protect themselves and how to have safe sex?

Your body tells you to procreate from an early age, and all society can hope to do is teach people how to deal with it without denying it. A child given a frank education on sex and relationships may be more likely to have sex, but they are also more likely to approach it in a mature manner, with regards to pregnancy and STDs. Consensual, over-age sex is not unhealthy; it's only "wrong" in the warped minds of certain religions. The best we can hope to do as adults is to help children manage those risks effectively. That probably means just saying no - to the priests, pastors and Nadine Dorries.

Most humans are equipped to ensure continuation of the Human Race. This is probably not an accident, and indeed some humans display no other skill.

Arguments against the natural process are inevitably based on selfish objections predicated on too many people reducing the availability of essential resources. Paradoxically, Mother Nature's response to famine and disaster has always been to boost the birth-rate.

Go figure.

That probably means just saying no - to the priests, pastors and Nadine Dorries

--------------------------------------

and the local Scout Master!! (Whoops)

I don't think that a society should teach children unable to provide for a child if they create one that it's "ok" to play with fire. While I do believe that children should get a proper education about sex, I do NOT believe that we should give them a wink and a nod by giving them contraceptives.

It's a "chicken and egg" debate...with no real answer. Do we, as a society, turn a blind eye to teen sex and basically condone it by giving them contraceptives "cause they're gonna do it anyway" and we might as well try to prevent as many bastards as possible; or do we teach them to be responsible and to be more evolved than merely being slaves to their primal urges and wait to have sex until they are ready and capable to deal with any "unintended consequences".

I can see the merit in air-dropping planeloads of condoms in Africa...I don't see much merit in supposedly "enlightened" societies.

It's a "chicken and egg" debate...with no real answer. Do we, as a society, turn a blind eye to teen sex and basically condone it by giving them contraceptives "cause they're gonna do it anyway" and we might as well try to prevent as many bastards as possible; or do we teach them to be responsible and to be more evolved than merely being slaves to their primal urges and wait to have sex until they are ready and capable to deal with any "unintended consequences".

No, we do both. Does buying your children a car equipped with seat belts and airbags mean you condone reckless driving? Does putting a smoke detector in your child's room mean you condone playing with matches? Contraceptives are nothing more than a safety precaution, like dozens of others we use all the time, but we don't believe they all condone the behavior they are trying to protect us from. Parents just have to be responsible enough to sit down with their kids and explain to them what they are for: They are NOT meant as an indirect way of condoning promiscuity, but rather a precaution against defiance. In essence, it's the same thing as parents saying to their kids, "I do NOT want you to get involved with alcohol until you are old enough to drink, but if you ever are in a situation where you, or your friends, are too drunk to drive, call me!" Parents have to face the difficult choice of deciding what is worse - their children having protected sex or their children getting pregnant or catching a disease. Parents can drill abstinence into their children's heads for years, but realistically, it's a good bet they are not going to stay virgins for long. That is just the nature of life, and the old adage of "better safe than sorry" applies very well here. By not providing a ready form of contraceptives, then parents really are playing with fire and placing far too much hope in their own parenting abilities. Such a basic instinct like sex, especially when both genders are filled with raging hormones and a burning need to be popular, will more times than not override any lectures they were given by their "uncool" parents.

While in full agreement with what Ivan as posted,
.another reason for so many teenage pregnancy's is points that councils give out to get a house.
In the past baby was looked after by grandparents.Mum could go to work.
they all lived together.Not now.Today they want it all on a plate.

You can't teach kids to be responsible and give them an open door to be irresponsible...it just makes you look stupid to send them mixed messages.

You can't teach kids to be responsible and give them an open door to be irresponsible...it just makes you look stupid to send them mixed messages.

It's only a mixed message if you just tell them not to have sex while handing them a pack of birth control pills. The actual parenting part, which is so often ignored, is explaining what both messages mean and getting them to understand that readily available contraceptives does NOT mean they have permission to run off and have sex. Any parent who puts all their faith in "abstinence-only" lectures are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Teaching kids to simply abstain is pointless, it would not work, and it would be like burying your head in the sand and pretending that most kids would take notice, when of course they would not.

Youngsters need to be taught that for every action there is an outcome, and some actions do not always go according to plan, resulting in consequences, the key word is "responsibility".

Those that preach complete abstainence are living in cloud cuckoo land, it does not work, never has, and never will, the Conservative / radical Christians who preach such rubbish need to live in the REAL world, and not in some kind of idealistic fantasy land.

If you tell someone not to walk on the grass - they will walk on it

OK It's question time guys and girls.
 
Why is it that the left wing and PC crowd say that we can't insult anyone at any time for any reason because that would not  be politically correct. However, you people seem to think that it is quite acceptable to beat on Christians and other people of faith. Why is that?
 
You all make me want to puke.
 
gator

gator wrote:OK It's question time guys and girls.......

You all make me want to puke.

gator

That's your privilege, but can you just do it on your own shoes, please?

gator. It’s one thing to attack faiths of all kinds, which some of us feel are just superstitious mumbo-jumbo conjured up in primitive societies, and which mislead simple souls by preaching creation in the face of all the scientific evidence. It’s quite another thing to make personal attacks on individuals for any reason. It’s also a bit rich when those on the right object to receiving some of the medicine which they so frequently hand out to benefit claimants, those in social housing, those who can’t get jobs, and in the case of Michele Bachmann, those without teeth.

Now, sex education anyone?

Now that I have your attention Ivan, if I would have substituted ANY minority group where you wrote the word "Christian", the left would have been all a-twitter and demanded my head on a platter. And yet you guys seem to think that you can just beat on the not-left with impunity.
 
Someone on another forum rephrased Pascal's Wager and I think it is proper that I repeat it here.
 
I would prefer to live my life as if God existed and then discovered that He doesn't rather than living my life as if He didn't exist and then discover that He does
 
Eternity is such a long time.
 
Enjoy your final swirl around the toilet bowl. I'm outa here.
 
gator

The Pease Pottage Conservative Club has clearly lost a potential member...

To gator

I respect any persons right to follow Christianity or any faith, I personaly respect your beliefs if they are held with a strong conviction and / or what you believe to be good moral grounds.

What annoys me, is when you get people of one particular faith or group telling us how we should live our lives.
I also take exeption to hypocrits, particular churches for example that constantly condemn homosexuals, whilst at the same time half their priests are sexualy abusing young boys.

Choice is the key word here - people have the right to accept, or not to accept religious doctrine, therefore religion should play no part in the moral argument about under age sex or sex before marriage.

gator. I’ve just re-read my two postings on this thread and I can’t find any mention of the word “Christian” in them. Maybe you were referring to the thread about Christian fundamentalists (who take the Old Testament literally) and genocide, but even then I conceded that “most modern preachers wouldn’t defend the instruction in Deuteronomy 20:13-15”. I also said that “the bottom line with the Bible OR the Koran seems to be that we are meant to believe those books as true because they say they are true”.

I accept that religion is a very delicate subject – on our last forum, an ongoing argument about atheism and agnosticism became heated enough to cause a schism – and maybe I haven’t handled this as sensitively as I could. If my remarks have caused you personal offence, I apologise. I also accept that it’s safer to criticise some religions than others, as was shown by the murder of Theo van Gogh in 2004, after he made a film about Islamic violence towards women.

However, first you accused Dawkins of wanting to destroy Christianity, when he is against all religion, and then you suggest that I’m singling out Christians for abuse, which is also incorrect. Dawkins argues that it’s pernicious to teach children that faith itself is a virtue. He describes all faith – not just Christianity, not just Islam – as an evil because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you want, even if there is no logical reason to believe it, though your belief in God sounds more like an insurance policy. Nevertheless, nobody has to respect something they regard as at best absurd and at worst evil.

You must forgive me a wry smile after you came here in the first place “to cause the liberals some grief” and instead appear to have received some yourself, though that certainly wasn’t my intention. I hope you’ll continue to share your views with us.

I think sex education should start early. Teaching about birth control, std's and abstinece does not cause any teen to have sex. Education is never wrong. We are sexual beings plain and simple. If we start young and talk honestly about sex with our young then maybe we can prevent some of these teen pregnancies. Why do some ignorant ones believe if you talk about it they will run out and have sex? Parents who have a honest open conversations about the dangers of unprotected sex and kids know they can ask anything will do more to lessen teen pg's than any other thing we do.

Posing this question to a question to a teenager of our acquaintance, the reply was, "If you're not playing the Game, you can't make the Rules."

....after the event.

RockOnBrother wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:
Posing this question to a question to a teenager of our acquaintance, the reply was, "If you're not playing the Game, you can't make the Rules."

Famous last words.

Last time I checked, HIV, herpes II, gonorrhea, and syphilis “make the Rules.”

Is there evidence that teenagers engaged in sexual activity either know or care about the diseases you have listed?

There is first person testimonial evidence that teenagers that are HIV positive as a result of having engaged in sexual activity tend to know and care about at least one disease I have listed.

AFTER the event. No?

You see, every person is one person unto herself/himself, so there is no 5% success rate or 95% failure rate within any one of the twenty. For the ones that did not heed, the success rate is 0%; for the one that did heed, the success rate is 100%. No in betweens.

I'm calling shenanegans on this one, Rock. You know that statistics are not measured in that fashion.

I'd certainly recommend that teenagers abstain from death.

Oddly, none of my reference books equate the word "death" with "sexual activity", though one Dictionary does refer to the latter as la petite mort.

Amazing how some people know so much about the lives of others.

To teach abstinence only does a disservice to their children. I do not know why so many are against giving their children information. The child is going to need an open discussion on sex and the knowledge that if they do have a question it will answered truithfully . I wanted my children to have the information they needed to make the right choices. I look back and I should maybe had been a bit more proactive. Neither of my children had children real young. Where they having sex? My daughter came to me when 17 and asked for birth control. She had her child at 21.

Information is never wrong. And having a talk about sex with your child will not make them go have sex but your talk may save them from a life ending disease. Too bad so many opt for ignorance as we see from so many very young Mom's and Dad's.

witchfinder. I an an Atheist, born and raised Roman Catholic and chose to leave the church. That said, I sereously do not believe any church turns ordinary people into noncing paedophiles. I believe that these sexual misscreants join the church as it offers them the oppertunity to carry out their evilness . As a kid I attended Sunday School and was an alter boy in Westminister Cathedral, and never met a Priest who's intentions where anything other than honerable. As I said the job brings the nonces not the other way round.

It's just possible that some Priests find their oath of celibacy to be more difficult to maintain than do others.

oftenwrong wrote:It's just possible that some Priests find their oath of celibacy to be more difficult to maintain than do others.

This is no about celibacy this is about pedophiles who targeted children. If a Priest had issues with celibacy he would of turned to an adult not a child. I wish people would stop making excuses for these men who hurt so many and did so much damage. That does not even include what the churches minitries did to the natives which is horrible in itself. No excuses they damaged children no excuses IMO>