Thread: Abstinence only education?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I little kidding on the square here: but I think it might have something to do with the Jehovas witnesses and the Mormons.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons each have, uh, unique beliefs that don’t mesh very well with those of other faiths that call themselves “Christian.” I know I’m treading dangerous water here, but let me put it this way: I have attended Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches so far in my life. I am involved with an interdenominational Christian organization on campus. Often members of one denomination disagree with the views, beliefs and interpretations of another denomination. In the case of the Catholic/Protestant spit the disagreements can be points of major doctrinal contention and the arguments can be quite heated. However, at the end of the day, all but the most bigoted individuals can agree that, while they may still feel that their opponents are in grave error, other denominations are still fundamentally Christian. I have never encountered anyone who felt that Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism where Christian faiths other than those who practice them. My own (limited) examination of the doctrines of these faiths supports this observation.

If I have offended anyone, it is not my intent. I can only present things as I see them. Please feel free to PM me if you have evidence that can show me this assessment is erroneous, I will happily review it and change my opinion if that is the case.

-Michael

I will definately commend you gentlemen for
keeping this topic very civil. I speaks very
highly of all those who have posted comments....


Terry

Abstinence only is theoretically the only surefire way to avoid sexual issues of all kinds including STD, unplanned pregnancy and sometimes broken hearts. Abstinence only is also THE least effective manner of avoiding all those problems in practice. There is no denying human nature and when people start turning into young adults they're GONNA have sex. Not all of them and not all the time, but it'll happen. Trying to avoid it is living your life with your head in the sand. Facing it and teaching about it will help them make the best choice.

Abstinence only and even abstinence centred education based on religious or moral imperatives is the wrong thing to do in my opinion. One of the reasons our kids are having sex earlier is that they are not exposed to it as an acceptable topic, their sexuality as a natural process and their drives and desires as a good thing. Here's the part where I introduced the so far unmentioned separation of chuch and state. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Noone can be persecuted for failing to comply with the dominant religion or sect of the day. This is not only as it should be, but as it must for a progressive and free society. With this as a framework for education, my god, your gods, anybodies gods and the doctrines they follow should be left at the front door of their temple. If a parent or religious community wishes to stress abstinence inside the confines of their community, I'm all for letting that happen, but our kids and our society need all the information they can get to make the best decisions in their lives. That's what public education is for. It helps us all as a larger group, inclusive of all denominations or lack therof.

I would like my kids to have all that information and I will encourage them not to feel insecure or 'dirty' about their budding sexualities. There is a natural progression to life and I don't want my childrens' progress impeded by somebody else's moral, religious imperatives. I will however, encourage my kids not to rush themselves. There are so many adolescent pressures that get pushed around like dangerous drug use and other criminal behaviour. Having sex would be a relatively small concern. Unprotected sex would worry me. Teach them everything. Give them a strong sense of themselves and community awareness, support them when they need it and let them be when they need to start flying from the nest. Tell them you'll worry if they drink, but make sure they feel comfortable enough to call home for a drive if they've indulged. Hard choices sometimes, but I'm convinced they're the right ones to make. Try to put a teenager in a box and all you get is a broken box.

X

X


Basically all the digression into religion was just off topic. I feel that the best way to teach sex ed is to make the decision as a society to represent abstinence or at least dedicated monogamous relationships as the societal norm. It has nothing to do with religion though that is the original reason for this stance it is now a safety imperative if we are to stop the spread of diseases that hurt society as a whole. That doesn't mean that we need to or should ignore instruction in the proper use of protective measures, in fact this is necessary if we are to provide a compete and useful education and incidentally stop said diseases.

It is also those who are the most secure in themselves who are the most likely to heed such instruction, they are more likely to conform to societies norms rather than feel compelled to buck them just to try to "prove" themselves.

My own feelings on this matter come not as much from my religious upbringing as from the way I was taught sex ed. It gave no weight to different methods only instruction in their use and a vague feeling that the whole subject was bad and mysterious. It should be taught in a way that offered sensible priorities to the available options, guidance in the ideal direction (abstinence), and clear open communication.

X and Wildtim - no disagreement from me on these things. The religion discussion was purely my curiosity. I seem to have a knack for off topic-ing threads

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

X and Wildtim - no disagreement from me on these things. The religion discussion was purely my curiosity. I seem to have a knack for off topic-ing threads

James.

And for carrying us right along with you LOL

I think the religion thing was the meatier end of it we all seem to be very close to agreeing on a sex ed curriculum if not the reasons to choose it. Now to get the board of Ed to think logically and actually look at learning theory when designing classes.

Religion aside then ...

I guess we're on the same page for the most part, Tim except, abstinence is not a societal norm as far as I can see. Once people enter adolescence they start the social dance of sexual interaction and it always eventually culminates in intercourse. Telling young people to abstain for whatever reason, however smart it might seem to you, is like telling a thirsty man not to drink. That's pretty far from 'ideal' as near as I can see. I believe it is ideal to let our young people learn and grow in a socially supportive environment. Rather than 'abstinence', I would promote 'restraint'. I would encourage respecting your partner's growth and respecting oneself, having dignity. Failing in these things causes social problems.

As far as the disease argument goes, it's a non starter really. I think it's just a way for the religiously motivated to win the concerns of non fundamentalist types. Attempts to enforce abstinence in Africa against the common sense practice of using condoms is actually contributing to the spread of AIDS. The best way to deal with STD's is to encourage the use of condoms. The best way to encourage happy sexually healthy human beings, is to talk to them and let them learn with their peers, one lesson at a time until they become adults and need to start acting like them. Again I feel a need to say, this is not an easy choice to make, but one that must be made for the health and happiness of our kids.

X

I relate abstinence mostly with religion, as only the religious seem to promote it.
It sounds great in theory, but it doesn't work because humans are humans. It is a bit like communism in that regard.

I have a little daughter. When the time comes to have 'The Talk' I'd rather she understands the reality so that she can make the decision properly when the time comes that she has to make it.

I think sex should not be taken lightly, but neither do I see the point of waiting until you are married. The reason is that sex changes a relationship. It makes it more 'serious' for want of a better word. I believe you only get to know each other completely if your relationship has reached that level.
It is for that same reason that I think living together before marriage is a good idea. You have no idea IF your marriage has a chance of survival otherwise.

For the rest I agree with X on his ideas of the official church position on sex.
Only last month was the Belgian Cardinal Daneels chided by the Pope himself because he had said in an interview that using condoms is a good idea if you have aids and your partner doesn't. He justified this by invoking the 'thou shalt not kill / murder' commandment.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that this does not mean that I am not religious, or have no respect for religion or religious persons. On the contrary. But I don't agree with a lot of the doctrine from most major religions.
Sorry for taking this further off topic.