or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at School › Abstinence Only sex "education"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Abstinence Only sex "education" - Page 11

post #201 of 221

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother in Mercy View Post

 

The main problem I have with pro-contraception sex ed is that it doesn't actually give ALL of the facts about contraception. I just learned the other day, actually, that the statistics we all use constantly to compare the various "success rates" of the pill, condoms, or natural methods of family planning are all actually describing the number of unplanned pregnancies that survive in a woman within ONE YEAR of her becoming sexually active. After that year, the numbers go downhill. I'd been thinking all this time that, if two people used a condom, or the pill, at any point in their sexual lives, they actually had that 99.-whatever chance of preventing pregnancy in every sexual act! But in reality, it all depends on how long they've been having sex, how long they've been on the pill, etc. And the "effectiveness" of the pill also depends on the woman taking it every single day, etc. So there are a lot more unplanned pregnancies WHILE people are on the pill, etc., than the people using them are led to expect... as a young woman in my department recently discovered, and felt rather betrayed. She thought she was "safe." I don't know about you guys, but I took regular-ol' pro-contraceptive sex ed, and nobody ever told me that. The other problem with "facts" is that there are a lot more of them than we tend to remember when we are taking a pro- or anti- stance.

 

 

Have you had some of this "pro-contraception" sex ed?  Because the sex ed I recieved (and all the statistics I remember ever seeing) emphasized that the effectiveness rates for various forms of contraception are based on one woman for one year.    Of course, this is also covered in "anti-contraception" sex ed like NFP and FAM as well.   It would make no sense to do it per sexual act for a number of reasons:

1) the vast majority of instances of male-female vaginal intercourse actually have 0% chance of resulting in a prenancy even without contraception.  That's because, on average, a woman only has the ability to concieve based on intercourse in the 5-6 days leading up to, and including, ovulation.  That means for approximately 22/28 days all women are infertile. 

2) with a 99% effectiveness rate, the chances of becomming pregnant in any one single occasion are actually much LOWER (not higher, like you are implying) than 1%.

 

I'll explain more about this in the next post, lol.  I don't want to get it deleted again!

 

post #202 of 221

This would make an excellent spin off thread about schools and what their function should be.  Even as a student, I always felt my education was lacking.  I was expected to get so many years of math and science that I knew I wouldn't use again in my life but nowhere was I getting a class on different savings options (stocks, basic savings accounts, cd's etc) or information about buying houses or what a 401k is.  I knew how to write out a check but many of my peers were somehow confused (although I think it is pretty straight forward myself.) 

I always thought high school should be about preparing me for being an adult but mostly they were just preparing me for doing busy work and knowing far more about the 'proper' way to write an essay than I'll ever actually need in my life.  I valued the classes that actually had relevance to a more general lifestyle rather than a specific one based on what a student might major in/have a career in.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post


 


ITA.  The purpose of public education, that I know of, is to prepare children to be fully functioning members of society.  Part of being an adult is making decisions about your sexuality.  The way I have come to think of it is this way: most schools make it a goal that 100% of their graduating seniors are prepared for Freshman (in college) English. But, in reality, not even 50% of those seniors will actually go on to take a college English class.  Meanwhile, it's pretty safe to say that well over 90% will go onto have a sexual relationship.  So, for society, it is actually more important to prepare children to make *those* decisions.  I also would make this arguement for budgeting, financial literacy, basic household skills including cooking, and so on.


 



 

post #203 of 221

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

mother in mercy:

all I can say is wow...headscratch.gif Some of the stuff about contraceptives being less effective over time I don't think is right but I am also confused so...I don't believe for a second that the effectiveness goes down with the amount of sex you are having..That sounds like, I don't know, anti-sex propaganda (if there is such a thing?)...It's not like the condom you are using knows the difference as to how many times you have had sex. If you use a condom correctly and it doesn't break there is no reason to think your chance of pregnancy or STD increases over time...Maybe I am not understanding your point correctly...

 

Some of the assertions you are making are pretty intense. I hope that you are flexible enough to realize your kids might not agree with you when they get older because that is a very very real possibility.

 

You certainly bring up some interesting points but I think it would really REALLY help you to read the whole thread through.

 

I'd love to explain this, because it's actually quite interesting to me.

 

It is NOT that "all the numbers go downhill".  It's actually just statistical fact.   I'll give an example and then show how they apply to birth control.

 

The first example is coin tosses.  Tossing a coin has a 50% chance of landing heads and a 50% chance of landing tails.  Lets say you toss a coin and it lands heads.  Now, for the next throw what is the chance that the coin will land heads?  It's STILL 50%.  What if it lands heads again?  NOPE, the chance is still 50% that you will toss heads. 

 

That said, if you toss a coin 4 times in a row, what is the chance that you will throw *at least* one heads?  It's actually over 93%!  So, the  the individual 50% chance didn't change, but by doing it repeatedly the chances that heads will eventually come up goes way up.  Luckily birth control isn't 50/50!

 

In much the same way, lets say you use a form of birth control that is 97% effective.  Now, the first year you do not become pregnant.  So, what is your chance of becomming pregnant for the second year?  Still 3%.  How about 10 years later?  Your chance *for that year* would still be 3%.

 

To find out the chances that a form of birth control will never "fail" (result in pregnancy over a number of years, you simply mulitply the percent effectiveness (so, in our example .97) times itself for the number of years you will be using that form of birth control.

 

So, for a number of different years:

1 year = .97 = 3% chance of a single pregnancy in that year

2 years = .97 * .97 = .941 = 5.9% chance of a single pregnacy over those two years

3 years = .912 = 8.8% chance of a single prenancy over three years

and so on

 

The effectiveness of the birth control isn't going down, you are just having more opportunities for failure (or success).

 

Playing the lottery is the same thing.  If you play 1/100 odds, you have 1% chance of winning.  If you play the lottery 100 times, though, you have a higher chance of winning (not 100%, of course) than if you only play once!

 

Abstinance only education, meanwhile, often distorts these numbers.  They would simply add them together.  Now, that makes only a little difference when you are talking about very effective methods of birth control.  So, what they often do is seriously underestimate the effectiveness of a birth control method and THEN they simply add up the chance of failure each year (though they sometimes even say *per occurance of male-female vaginal intercourse).   If birth control really worked that way (simply multiply the failure rate times the number of times/ years used) then we would have a 100% effective "cure" for infertility--- ineffective birth control.

 

Does that make sense?  I think it was rather disjointed, but this isn't my computer and I ended up spending 1 hour 45 minutes actually getting that out and not deleted!

post #204 of 221



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

This would make an excellent spin off thread about schools and what their function should be.  Even as a student, I always felt my education was lacking.  I was expected to get so many years of math and science that I knew I wouldn't use again in my life but nowhere was I getting a class on different savings options (stocks, basic savings accounts, cd's etc) or information about buying houses or what a 401k is.  I knew how to write out a check but many of my peers were somehow confused (although I think it is pretty straight forward myself.) 

I always thought high school should be about preparing me for being an adult but mostly they were just preparing me for doing busy work and knowing far more about the 'proper' way to write an essay than I'll ever actually need in my life.  I valued the classes that actually had relevance to a more general lifestyle rather than a specific one based on what a student might major in/have a career in.
 



I'd certainly participate if you wanted to start it!  I know my views on this subject have vastly changed in the last 20 years!

 

post #205 of 221

I'm not sure that you're applying the stats correctly here but I could be wrong.  You do multiply the odds of one event by the odds of another event to get your overall odds but only when the events are dependent on one another.  For instance, if the odds that I'll get pg are 3% with one year of sex and the odds are 3% for the next year, I don't take 3% times 3% to get my odds for the second year.  My odds of getting pregnant the second year do not depend on the outcome of the prior year's events (unless, of course, I am now pregnant at the start of year two and can't get more pregnant).

 

Where we do multiply to get outcomes is in an instance like this:  What is the probability of having a girl child and then a boy child?  So, let's say that the probability of having a girl child first is 50% and the probability of having a boy child second is 50%.  B/c the second outcome is dependent on the first outcome, you would multiply 50% times 50% to get your overall probability of the entire event (g,b) as 25%.  It is dependent b/c, if you don't have the first outcome (girl), it doesn't matter what the second outcome is (boy or girl), you still won't hit your girl then boy outcome. 

 

It does get more complex than that.  In the coin instance, if you toss one coin four times, you've got 16 possible outcomes for the totality of your tosses:  HHHH, HHHT, HHTT, HTTT, TTTT, TTTH, TTHH, THHH, HTHT, HTTH, HTHH, etc.  The only one of these that winds up with no heads is the TTTT outcome.  Since only one of 16 has no heads, you've got a 1/16 chance of getting no heads or about 6% making the probability that you'll get a head in four tosses about 94% as TiredX2 said.  Those are still dependent outcomes, though b/c to get no heads it depends on each prior outcome being tails.  You can use the same dependent outcome formula as for the girl/boy example (.5 x .5 x .5 x .5) b/c, even though each toss is still a 50% chance of getting heads or tails, the overall outcome of no heads is dependent on each toss coming out one way or the other.

 

I don't believe that the same would apply to birth control efficacy.  Getting pg with each year or act of sex isn't dependent on the outcome of prior years b/c you're not trying for an overall outcome of pg one time not pg the next.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

I may not be describing this well.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post

 

The first example is coin tosses.  Tossing a coin has a 50% chance of landing heads and a 50% chance of landing tails.  Lets say you toss a coin and it lands heads.  Now, for the next throw what is the chance that the coin will land heads?  It's STILL 50%.  What if it lands heads again?  NOPE, the chance is still 50% that you will toss heads. 

 

That said, if you toss a coin 4 times in a row, what is the chance that you will throw *at least* one heads?  It's actually over 93%!  So, the  the individual 50% chance didn't change, but by doing it repeatedly the chances that heads will eventually come up goes way up.  Luckily birth control isn't 50/50!

 

In much the same way, lets say you use a form of birth control that is 97% effective.  Now, the first year you do not become pregnant.  So, what is your chance of becomming pregnant for the second year?  Still 3%.  How about 10 years later?  Your chance *for that year* would still be 3%.

 

To find out the chances that a form of birth control will never "fail" (result in pregnancy over a number of years, you simply mulitply the percent effectiveness (so, in our example .97) times itself for the number of years you will be using that form of birth control.

 

So, for a number of different years:

1 year = .97 = 3% chance of a single pregnancy in that year

2 years = .97 * .97 = .941 = 5.9% chance of a single pregnacy over those two years

3 years = .912 = 8.8% chance of a single prenancy over three years

and so on

 

The effectiveness of the birth control isn't going down, you are just having more opportunities for failure (or success).

post #206 of 221

You know, in thinking about this, I think that I might have been wrong w/ my prior post.  You are aiming for a not pg, not pg, etc. outcome so perhaps this is a dependent outcome where you would multiply.  Ignore my longer prior post ;) .

post #207 of 221

As some who studied statistics and probability in depth in university and who uses this type of stuff on a daily basis in my work, I can confirm that TiredX2's way of looking at the probabilities is correct.

post #208 of 221


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sourire View Post

As some who studied statistics and probability in depth in university and who uses this type of stuff on a daily basis in my work, I can confirm that TiredX2's way of looking at the probabilities is correct.

I decided to put these post together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post

Abstinance only education, meanwhile, often distorts these numbers.  They would simply add them together.  Now, that makes only a little difference when you are talking about very effective methods of birth control.  So, what they often do is seriously underestimate the effectiveness of a birth control method and THEN they simply add up the chance of failure each year (though they sometimes even say *per occurance of male-female vaginal intercourse).   If birth control really worked that way (simply multiply the failure rate times the number of times/ years used) then we would have a 100% effective "cure" for infertility--- ineffective birth control.

 


This is exactly what they did in the abstinence only program at our school. It was completely bizarre to me. It's why I was more OK with a program I didn't agree with BEFORE it happened than I was afterward. I honestly could not believe how twisted the numbers were. Had they stuck with facts but drawn a different conclusion from those facts, I could have respected it as presenting a different point of view. But that's not what they did. They twisted the information so it was all a big lie.

 

The also twisted the stats on the effectiveness of condoms at limiting the spread of STDs.

 

These programs do nothing but teach kids not to bother using BC or condoms.

 

(if their stats were true I would have 20 kids and be dead now)

post #209 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move View Post

This is exactly what they did in the abstinence only program at our school. It was completely bizarre to me. It's why I was more OK with a program I didn't agree with BEFORE it happened than I was afterward. I honestly could not believe how twisted the numbers were. Had they stuck with facts but drawn a different conclusion from those facts, I could have respected it as presenting a different point of view. But that's not what they did. They twisted the information so it was all a big lie.

 

The also twisted the stats on the effectiveness of condoms at limiting the spread of STDs.

 

These programs do nothing but teach kids not to bother using BC or condoms.

 

(if their stats were true I would have 20 kids and be dead now)

 

While it makes me really angry you and your classmates were exposed to this "education" I really appreciate you coming forward and confirming the misinformation that seems to be built into many sex ed programs.

 

I don't think ANYONE who supports comprehensive sex ed would argue that abstinance isn't the *safest* and only fullproof method.  But that simply isn't enough information.

 

I wish that sex ed classes would also more seriously address the possible consequences of non male-female vaginal intercourse.  I heard on NPR the other day that the largest cause of throat cancer in women (something like 18-49) is now oral sex.  That is something that I, as a fairly educated adult, would have never put together.  And it's something that teens who are staying abstinant by having oral or anal sex really, really need to know about.  I know that I have always downplayed (in my own mind) the importance of safe-sex outside of heterosexual vaginal intercourse, and that was a real wake up call for me!

post #210 of 221

whoa! Why does oral sex cause throat cancer?? I have never heard such a thing, I don't disbelieve you I just am kinda shocked...And the men of the world wept...

post #211 of 221



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post

 

I wish that sex ed classes would also more seriously address the possible consequences of non male-female vaginal intercourse.  I heard on NPR the other day that the largest cause of throat cancer in women (something like 18-49) is now oral sex.  That is something that I, as a fairly educated adult, would have never put together.  And it's something that teens who are staying abstinant by having oral or anal sex really, really need to know about.  I know that I have always downplayed (in my own mind) the importance of safe-sex outside of heterosexual vaginal intercourse, and that was a real wake up call for me!


I had to go straight to NPR's website about that one, because I was curious too.  Actually, it is the HPV virus that can lead to throat cancer.  Just don't want people to think that oral sex itself causes it, it is the transmission and cultivation of the virus that causes it.  HPV also has a direct link to cervical cancer (I think that is the primary reason that PAP smears are highly recommended these days).  Unlike other STDs, many people are silent carriers and will never know that they have it, nor will they have any symptoms, which means it can be transmitted easily and most people will never know they have it until 1) they have PAP smear, or 2) in the case of throat cancer, when the cancer is detected.  I don't ever remember hearing anything, though, from my various sex ed classes that there are risks with oral sex as well.  In fact, I don't remember hearing too much about HPV.  Maybe it always existed in the form of throat cancer but there was a time in our history when many, many people smoked or were around smokers, so it may have been overlooked or the cancer may have been blamed totally on smoking or other issues.
 

 

post #212 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

whoa! Why does oral sex cause throat cancer?? I have never heard such a thing, I don't disbelieve you I just am kinda shocked...And the men of the world wept...



HPV... The "oral isn't real sex" myth carries with it the "oral sex protects you from STD's" myth. Which means those who engage in oral sex generally don't take precautions in regards to STD's.

post #213 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post





HPV... The "oral isn't real sex" myth carries with it the "oral sex protects you from STD's" myth. Which means those who engage in oral sex generally don't take precautions in regards to STD's.

ohh derr, I knew that.. I'm really not as stupid as I appear... I was thinking of just some kind of spontaneous throat cancerBolt.gif
 

 

post #214 of 221



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

whoa! Why does oral sex cause throat cancer?? I have never heard such a thing, I don't disbelieve you I just am kinda shocked...And the men of the world wept...


 
Sorry, obviously over/misstated that.  Yes, there are forms of HPV that are linked to Throat cancer.  Something that makes sense, to me, but that I wouldn't have really thought of.  And as MusicianDad stated, there is such an emphasis on pregnancy & male-female penis/vagina STD transference that other issues are often ignored all together. 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post



ohh derr, I knew that.. I'm really not as stupid as I appear... I was thinking of just some kind of spontaneous throat cancerBolt.gif
 

 



LOL, obviously my fault.  That said, I think that more people need to know about it!

 

post #215 of 221


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post


While it makes me really angry you and your classmates were exposed to this "education" I really appreciate you coming forward and confirming the misinformation that seems to be built into many sex ed programs.


...I wish that sex ed classes would also more seriously address the possible consequences of non male-female vaginal intercourse.


Not me and my classmates, my kid.

 

No mention was made of non male-female vaginal intercourse in the program.  One of the assumptions was that everyone is hetrosexual, and will marry and then have babies.

 

There are really, really good reasons to be very selective about with whom and when one is sexual, even if pregnancy isn't a possible outcome. The focus on pregnancy and aids by-passes some very pressing issues for kids.  There are so many things to do other than put the penis in the vagina, but honestly you'd think that either the people who wrote the program don't know that, or that they are sure kids won't ever figure them out if we don't mention them.

 

And since most adults can't get their heads together enough to discuss intercourse, the conversation is completely lost when it comes to oral sex, which isn't seen as a big deal by many in the new generation. A lot of teens are having oral sex as a way to bypass fear of pregnancy, and I suspect that many believe they are following the advice to *abstain.*

 

Another thing that annoyed me is the message that it isn't possible to control one's fertility at all, but that doesn't matter once you are a married grown up. That is such an un-truth.

 

It also bothered me that these things were presented as FACTS by a SCHOOL.

post #216 of 221

Personally, I'm really grateful for Seventeen magazine. It was my primary basis for any kind of sex information. If I had listened to my friends, I'd have ended up in major trouble. If I had listened to my parents, I never would have known anything because their belief was in abstinence until marriage, which is something I didn't(and still don't) agree with. I did get some sex ed in school, and it did cover some birth control information, but it wasn't detailed enough for me to have had a working knowledge of things. 

 

I would not want my kids in an abstinence only class. I would have them sit it out. I think it's nice, in theory, to think that kids' parents should teach them about sex. But I can speak from experience that it doesn't work out, and I had super-involved proactive parents. But they believed in pushing their agenda, which was not in line with my beliefs. Fortunately, I found other sources, and so I never had to deal with STDs or unplanned pregnancies. It's also worth noting that I was also disallowed from reading Seventeen magazine. I snuck it. 

post #217 of 221

I really don't like giving oral sex on a good day, but as a teen I was dating a guy who wanted some and I was describing how much it sucks for me and added that the taste of a condom really didn't help matters.  He asked why on earth I'd do it with a condom on anyway.  I looked at him like he was insane and proceeded to NOT give him a BJ ever.

 

Most of my peers probably wouldn't have understood why I looked at him like he was crazy.

post #218 of 221

Wow I totally never thought of STDs being transmitted through oral sex. I mean it makes a lot of sense but the thought never even occurred to me! And I had the full sex-ed in high-school with all the birth control info, but they never mentioned anything about that!

 

I'm kind of scared now! I probably have HPV because I have had tons of abnormal pap smears, so DH has probably gotten it from me... thanks for the warning!!!!

post #219 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sourire View Post

Wow I totally never thought of STDs being transmitted through oral sex. I mean it makes a lot of sense but the thought never even occurred to me! And I had the full sex-ed in high-school with all the birth control info, but they never mentioned anything about that!

 

I'm kind of scared now! I probably have HPV because I have had tons of abnormal pap smears, so DH has probably gotten it from me... thanks for the warning!!!!



Oh what your health teacher didn't do a DENTAL DAM demonstration because ours did and I don't I laughed so hard in my life...

 

Those things are the funniest/most ridiculous product ever created. I haven't ever actually met a person who has used one let alone ever even seen where to buy one...

 

Now just picture a 45 year-old man in sweat shorts that are TOO tight holding a dental damn over his mouth poking his tongue into while he simultaneously tries to explain how it is used during oral sex on both partners to prevent diseaseROTFLMAO.gif

 

I'm sure they work and I appreciate his attempts to help us "stay safe" but oh man was it funny.

post #220 of 221

It took me forever, but I’ve read the whole thread!  Whoo!

For the record, I support comprehensive sex education.  Instead of responding to individual posts with that PITA quote feature, I’ll just share couple of thoughts.

  1. In doing some mandatory HIV/AIDS training for work, we watched a video, and I remember a woman saying something really compelling.  She gave her son some condoms, showed him how to use them, and told them that he was free to put them away until his wedding night.  No analogy is ever perfect, but I really like hers: You can inculcate into the heads of your young children that they should not EVER cross the street alone.  But you don’t withhold from them the fact that anyone who crosses the street needs to look both ways and wait for cars to go by.  Even if you make every effort to keep them from going across alone, and even if they have every intention of obeying you, they still need to know how to go across safely.  Do you catch where I’m going with this?
  2. For those of you who say that sex ed should be about the facts, and that comprehensive sex ed is the only way to convey the facts, I completely agree.  I also agree that the facts need to be accurate and thorough without any fear-mongering.  But the undertone that I’m reading in this thread is more of a  contention over values than facts.  None of us want our children to learn a different set of values—be they about sexuality or any other sensitive matter—than what we’re teaching them at home.  In a culture as pluralistic as ours, it is unfair to impose conservative, Judeo-Christian values of human sexuality on a classroom full of children whose parents wish to raise them differently. BUT……(and please don’t dogpile on top of me for saying this!  Let’s keep this conversation flame-free)……respect for pluralism works both ways.  As just one example, Planned Parenthood’s idea of sexuality education on masturbation is to teach that it’s healthy and normal “sex play.”  Personally, I’m OK with this.  But to various branches of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, masturbation is viewed as sinful.  So there are competing values, and the Planned Parenthood set of values shouldn’t be imposed on children whose parents disagree.  That’s where sex ed gets tricky.  Sometimes parents view a presentation of facts as an assault on their values.  Also, keep in mind that “facts” can be cherry-picked to uphold a particular set of values.  I, for one, would support discussing options in contraception AND allowing kids to view photos of what genetal herpes looks like.  Withholding either isn’t fair to them.

 

  1. OWL is a faith-based curriculum.  It is sponsored by the Unitarian and United Church of Christ teachings.  I just thought I’d say that for those of you who believe that religion should stay out of classrooms.

 

Finally, I completely agree with the poster who believes that NFP should be taught (with the caveat that it’s not the best method unless used in a long-term monogamous relationship!)  May I take this a step further?  Childbirth and breastfeeding are also part of the continuum of human sexuality.  I would love, love, LOVE to see both male and female students learning about options in childbirth, how breastfeeding works and benefits babies, and even social problems like the high cesarean rate.  Couples go into childbirth with so much fear, misinformation, and Tinseltown influence (“Birth is inherently dangerous,” “An epidural must just be a given”) that it would be nice to change the birth culture from within our classrooms, while they’re still young and childless.  But I’m opening a new can of worms, aren’t I?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at School
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at School › Abstinence Only sex "education"