Abstinence Only sex "education" - Page 5

[JavaJunkie]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

I think that sex ed is very important and SHOULD be taught in public school. If a religious fanatic doesnt want their child to know how to correctly put on a condom, use BC, or any other things that are taught in positive sex ed courses, maybe THEY should send THEIR child to private school, not the other way around..

This makes no sense and I find it highly offensive.

First of all, the term 'religious fanatic' (especially how you used it here) seems quite derogatory.

Second, many of us that are opposed to birth control believe it is IMMORAL. It's not just that sex before marriage is wrong and we don't want to 'condone' it by distributing condoms -- it's that the condoms themselves (and other forms of birth control) are immoral. It's similar to having a public school class on finances that teaches kids how to steal food properly -- sure, it may prevent them from not starving if they are impoverished, but it would just be WRONG to teach that in a public school, you know? (At least I assume most would agree with that...)
 

It would be wrong to teach stealing because stealing is ILLEGAL.  Using bc may be IMMORAL(in your eyes) but it is not ILLEGAL.

[JulianneW]

Originally Posted by Ambystoma 

Maybe kids who are told that condoms are always/mostly ineffective by their abstinence only sex educators feel there's no point in using them and will risk it. 

The CDC did a study on the programs (as have many other organizations).Whether given abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education, roughly 1/2 of 17 year olds have not engaged in sex. Abstinence only sex education does not decrease the likelihood of teens having sex. It does increase the likelihood that a teen will engage in risky behavior, like not using any contraception. Southern states that use abstinence only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

Also-comprehensive sex education INCLUDES abstinence. It is presented as, "the only 100% effective way is to not have sex, but if you choose to do so, here's how to protect yourself from disease and pregnancy". 

In HS we were presented with abstinence as an option included with all different forms of birth control should you decide to have sex. We made posters about the different kinds of contraceptives and their effectiveness(No we were not told their effectiveness we did our own research in the computer lab).  We also researched STD's. Abstinence was never presented in a you should refrain until marriage way or a religious manner. (Though I am pretty sure a private group came into speak about it.) It was included as an option. Personally, I don't see what is wrong with abstinence education as long is it is included in comprehensive sex ed. I have many non religious friends who chose to wait until they were in a serious relationship or in college before becoming sexually active. Abstinence is a valid choice for many. I would see a problem if abstinence was presented in a "you must refrain from sex until marriage way" but in my experience it is not as the various programs are not allowed to present religious views in school. In my experience scare tactics were never used. 

It is also 6th graders we are talking about here not HS I would hope all 6th graders are abstaining. Our comprehensive sex ed was not until 9th grade.

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by JavaJunkie 

It would be wrong to teach stealing because stealing is ILLEGAL.  Using bc may be IMMORAL(in your eyes) but it is not ILLEGAL.

yup that was my point...how am i supposed to care if your reason for it being immoral is based on your religion or NOT even, it's yours not mine... I am bothered by your logic regarding equating using bc *which is a pretty responsible thing imo* to various illegal activities..not cool..

storm bride does make an exceelent point I need to find the elusive atheist who thinks BC is immoral and pick their brains about it!

I personally don't use hormonal BC for a few different reasons but it being immoral is not one of them..

Sorry for appearing to assume you don't think about the WHY in your religion crunchy-mommy, not my intention at all. As a PP pointed out what bothers me is your equating something like BC with so many various illegal activities. That is not going to win you any points in my imaginary book, not that you care but you know what I mean it is an expression.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

<<p>I dont take bc, and I guess I could say that Im "against" taking hormonal bc (for me, and me only), but I think the difference is that I believe that you should have sex for a lot of reasons besides just to make babies. So, if I feel that way, then there would be no need to not use bc. But Im sure every time a prolifer or the pro abstinence only people have sex its to make babies, so I can see why they would believe there would be a need for bc.

I never said I believe the only purpose of sex is to make babies. Maybe some people believe that, but I certainly don't.

Originally Posted by choli 

Because they are being taught in Abstinence Ed that condoms and birth control don't work, and they have the kind of parents who equate birth control with stealing and using illegal drugs, so they can't discuss birth control at home and find out the truth.

That is the kind of parenting that tends to lead to unplanned pregnancy.
 

Wow. That was unnecessary and untrue.

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

Comparing teaching kids how to stay safe should they decide to have sex to doing drugs is faulty logic.  Drugs aren't a biologically normal part of life.  Our bodies don't hit a drug puberty where hormones tell us to go out and get speed and meth.

 
There are lots of hormones that might lead a teen to try drugs! Adolescence is such a confusing time & all those hormones pumping through can lead kids to be more likely to take risks, to search for something to improve or alter their mental state, etc.
And condoms and BC are certainly not a 'biologically normal part of life' either.

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

It is ridiculous to try to compare something human being are driven to do to keep the species alive to something humans do that has no vital or necessary purpose whatsoever.

If birth control is used, then technically sex would have pretty much the same purpose as drugs. Both can relieve stress, fulfill a desire, make you feel good, etc. and neither would do much to help keep our species alive.

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

Moreover, using birth control is not the same as stealing food.  There are many ways to acquire food legally, but there is only the use of contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and disease.  It is naive at best to expect ALL people to not have sex unless they are married.

Contraceptives are NOT the only way to avoid pregnancy and disease. NFP can help avoid pregnancy, for ex., with better rates of effectiveness than artificial BC... Actually, I would love if NFP were taught in schools because it can be so empowering to have that kind of knowledge about how your body works... Abstinence is another option and that doesn't mean JUST 'waiting until marriage' but could also include waiting until you know & trust someone 100%, abstaining during high-risk periods, etc. Maybe you don't like the abstinence option but it IS an option that can't be discounted.

Originally Posted by JavaJunkie 

It would be wrong to teach stealing because stealing is ILLEGAL.  Using bc may be IMMORAL(in your eyes) but it is not ILLEGAL.

OK smoking then??? It does serve a positive purpose (relaxing, keep a few extra pounds off, etc.), it's not illegal... I chose illegal examples only because they were the first to pop into my head and I thought maybe people could relate to it... It was meant to explain my point of view, not necessarily to insult anyone...

Hormonal birth control is not natural & can have tons of negative side effects. Even condoms contain chemicals, can cause allergic reactions, can break, etc.

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking people to control their impulses and not give in to every urge. Obviously it's possible, because most teenagers seem capable of waiting 'til they are alone, 'til the parents are gone for the weekend, etc. so it's not like it's impossible to have a little self-control. Maybe it's not easy but that doesn't mean it's pointless. BC basically says you can do whatever you want and there won't be any (or very small likelihood of) consequences. I don't believe that's a healthy attitude, and then when the BC fails (not just talking about unplanned pregnancy but also disease) it's a huge shock because "I was being safe, I was being careful, how could this happen?"

I'm not feeling well right now so I don't think I'm explaining this clearly at all. I will try to come back later to clarify or elaborate...

[ChristaN]

Crunchy_mommy, I think that you do have some valid points such as:

"Abstinence is another option and that doesn't mean JUST 'waiting until marriage' but could also include waiting until you know & trust someone 100%, abstaining during high-risk periods, etc. Maybe you don't like the abstinence option but it IS an option that can't be discounted."

Like I said earlier, I am teaching my girls about waiting just not necessarily waiting until marriage.  The issue I take with abstinence education when it is presented by pro-life groups, as it was in my dd's 7th grade class, is that these types of curriculum often contain scare tactics.  I reviewed the curriculum of some of the local crisis pregnancy centers that are affiliated with pro-life groups when I was writing a research paper in grad school and they contained segments on birth control that essentially told the kids that bc was not highly effective (condoms break, bc pills are ineffective unless you take them at the exact same time every day, etc.).  All of these things are true to an extent, but they didn't go into how to make these bc methods more effective rather overplayed the ineffectiveness to the point that it made them sound worthless. 

They then went on to include a bunch of stuff about how bc was harmful to your health and could cause long-term infertility.  Again, these risks were overblown to the point that it made using bc sound riskier than getting an STD or winding up pregnant when you were not yet ready to be.  I take issue with the approach primarily.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

Originally Posted by choli 

Because they are being taught in Abstinence Ed that condoms and birth control don't work, and they have the kind of parents who equate birth control with stealing and using illegal drugs, so they can't discuss birth control at home and find out the truth.

That is the kind of parenting that tends to lead to unplanned pregnancy.
 

Wow. That was unnecessary and untrue.

It may be unnecessary, but it appears to be fairly well documented that abstinence only education leads to more unplanned pregnancies than comprehensive sex ed does.
 

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

Comparing teaching kids how to stay safe should they decide to have sex to doing drugs is faulty logic.  Drugs aren't a biologically normal part of life.  Our bodies don't hit a drug puberty where hormones tell us to go out and get speed and meth.

 
There are lots of hormones that might lead a teen to try drugs! Adolescence is such a confusing time & all those hormones pumping through can lead kids to be more likely to take risks, to search for something to improve or alter their mental state, etc.

That's a far more indirect process, though. We don't have a biological imperative to do drugs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

It is ridiculous to try to compare something human being are driven to do to keep the species alive to something humans do that has no vital or necessary purpose whatsoever.

If birth control is used, then technically sex would have pretty much the same purpose as drugs. Both can relieve stress, fulfill a desire, make you feel good, etc. and neither would do much to help keep our species alive.

Drugs don't improve your health, though. Sex may have its risks, but it also has actual physical and emotional benefits. Feeling good through drugs doesn't generally have a beneficial effect on one's health. Feeling good through sex does.

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

Moreover, using birth control is not the same as stealing food.  There are many ways to acquire food legally, but there is only the use of contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and disease.  It is naive at best to expect ALL people to not have sex unless they are married.

Contraceptives are NOT the only way to avoid pregnancy and disease. NFP can help avoid pregnancy, for ex., with better rates of effectiveness than artificial BC... Actually, I would love if NFP were taught in schools because it can be so empowering to have that kind of knowledge about how your body works... Abstinence is another option and that doesn't mean JUST 'waiting until marriage' but could also include waiting until you know & trust someone 100%, abstaining during high-risk periods, etc. Maybe you don't like the abstinence option but it IS an option that can't be discounted.

Nobody is discounting abstinence as an option. We're discounting abstinence only "education". Those are two different things.

 

Originally Posted by JavaJunkie 

It would be wrong to teach stealing because stealing is ILLEGAL.  Using bc may be IMMORAL(in your eyes) but it is not ILLEGAL.

OK smoking then??? It does serve a positive purpose (relaxing, keep a few extra pounds off, etc.), it's not illegal... I chose illegal examples only because they were the first to pop into my head and I thought maybe people could relate to it... It was meant to explain my point of view, not necessarily to insult anyone...

Personally, I think smoking is stupid (and that's from someone who smoked off and on for about 10 years). But, I don't think it's immoral. It's just stuipd. It's also inherently self-destructive, which sex is not.

Hormonal birth control is not natural & can have tons of negative side effects. Even condoms contain chemicals, can cause allergic reactions, can break, etc.

Neither of those things are the same as birth control being immoral, though. Taking risks (side effects, allergic reaction, condom failure, etc.) isn't immoral.

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking people to control their impulses and not give in to every urge. Obviously it's possible, because most teenagers seem capable of waiting 'til they are alone, 'til the parents are gone for the weekend, etc. so it's not like it's impossible to have a little self-control. Maybe it's not easy but that doesn't mean it's pointless. BC basically says you can do whatever you want and there won't be any (or very small likelihood of) consequences. I don't believe that's a healthy attitude, and then when the BC fails (not just talking about unplanned pregnancy but also disease) it's a huge shock because "I was being safe, I was being careful, how could this happen?"

The bolded part is funny to me. IME, as someone who both had sex as a teenager, and as someone who had sex with my now-dh when we'd both sworn up, down, left, right and sideways ahead of time that we were going to be purely platonic, these things are very rarely an issue of "waiting" for the right situation. It's usually more a matter of finding themselves in a situation where sex is possible. Sure - sometimes people manufacture those opportunities, but that's not the norm, ime. And, nobody is talking about whether or not people give in to "every urge". I had the urge to have sex about 20 times a day throughout my teens. I can't imagine anybody realistically suggesting that anybody, ever, just drop everything and have sex every time they have the urge to do so. There's a difference between finding appropriate times, places and partners, and waiting from the onset of puberty until marriage, whenever that may be. In my case, that was about 11 years, but it obviously varies. Having a bit of self-control and waiting 10 years are two very different things, and suggesting that being able to wait for the right situation has anything to do with abstinence makes about as much sense to me as saying that if you can wait to eat until dinner's ready, it shouldn't be a problem to go a month without eating - two totally different situations, which only have the delay of food in common. (I can also tell you that it's not always about trashy sex, the way a lack of self control usually seems to be portrayed. I the case of dh and I, it was about the fact that he was going back home for a couple of months the next day, and I just couldn't stand the idea of losing him for so long, and it made me desperately, desperately want to be closer to him. The couple from ds1's class that had the baby last year - she's been the only girl for him since a case of "puppy love" in fifth grade.)

As to the latter part, the fact that birth control can fail, and people don't bother to take that into account doesn't make birth control immoral. It means that people can be stupid. This isn't news. People make stupid decisions, and having sex while being completely sure that you can't possibly get pregnant is not using your brain (or not having good information/education). And, it also doesn't really relate to abstinence only education, as there are plenty of married people who also use birth control, for various reasons. Heck - NFP is birth control.

[treeoflife3]

My point is, the act of having sex isn't wrong.  We are designed specifically TO have it.  Whereas doing drugs, while some might argue isn't wrong either, is not something we are specifically designed to do.  Comparing something we are designed to do with something we are not designed to do is faulty logic.  Using birth control allows people who's bodies are ready for sex to have sex with their life isn't ready for children or handling STD's.  I think people who feel ready to have sex and don't desire to wait any longer should absolutely know about all their options rather than just hoping nothing undesirable occurs.  I probably still would have had sex even if I couldn't gain access to pills and condoms.  I might have waited a bit longer, but I don't think I'd have waited til after I graduated high school.  I had too big a sex drive for too many years to ignore it any longer.

The risk of teaching NFP to a bunch of 15 year olds (give or take a year or so) and not teaching bc and condoms because of 'moral issues' is that NFP is far more complicated to use correctly.  I absolutely would not have been able to keep up with watching my body for sure signs of ovulation.  As it was, it was a struggle just to remember the pill which is why I switched to the shot.  It would be highly short sighted to trust teenagers, or anyone really, with only NFP.  Many adults won't commit to it either for exactly that reason.  It certainly would come with the same risks you outlined of other methods failing.  Teens would still think that because they are watching for ovulation, they can do anything.  they know their body and never mind that they might make mistake (as adults do too) and up with a baby they aren't prepared for.

As for abstinence being taught for being used until you trust someone 100% or during high risk times, that is not what we are talking about.  Abstinence ONLY education specifically teaches that you absolutely should not have sex til marriage.  This is where the problem is.. teens are given NO option or education beyond 'everything fails and your life will be ruined so don't do it!'  I DO like the abstinence option though, that is why I feel strongly it needs to be taught... but it is naive to ONLY teach abstinence.  I only had sex with people I trusted 100% and I didn't have sex during times where I wanted zero risks, but it would have been asking too much to expect me not to have sex at all until marriage which is why I needed to know about my other options.

I understand the moral reason against BC and condoms and the concerns about their health affects.  I myself won't take hormonal BC anymore because i've had issues with it.  However that doesn't mean teenagers in a public school setting should be taught not to bother because it is immoral and could hurt them.  Religious ideals are nice if you are within that religion, but they shouldn't be taught to the general public except as an option, ONE of many options.  Knowing the risks of using hormonal birth control and latex condoms as well as sheepskin condoms is also vital information for teens to learn about... teens should know ALL of it.  I don't know anyone who doesn't want teens to not know about abstinence or that BC itself has health risks.  Everyone I know wants teenagers to have ALL the information and to then use that information in a way that best suits them.  Some will choose to ignore it just as adults do, some will choose to not have sex because they worry about the risks of BC and don't want to use condoms alone, some will be just fine using only one method and some will only have sex using a hormonal BC and condoms (this was me fyi.)

I think all people should be able to skip out of a sex ed class, but I do not think sex ed classes should be watered down just because it goes against some people's beliefs.  Everyone should be given the maximum amount of education with the right to opt out... it shouldn't be that everyone is given only part of the information and have to seek out the rest on their own.  It is corny but it is true, knowledge IS power, maximum knowledge should be the norm.

[Storm Bride]

Joking side comment...if people really want to push abstinence, they should get more girls on the pill! When I was on it, my libido tanked, and if I hadn't been in a long-term relationship, I probably wouldn't have even thought about having sex in the first place. While I know that's not universal, it's also not uncommon, as far as I can tell.

I intend to teach my kids a lot about birth control, including the downsides of the pill. I didn't even realize how much it had screwed me up, until I went back off it to have ds1.

[Adaline'sMama]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

<

I dont take bc, and I guess I could say that Im "against" taking hormonal bc (for me, and me only), but I think the difference is that I believe that you should have sex for a lot of reasons besides just to make babies. So, if I feel that way, then there would be no need to not use bc. But Im sure every time a prolifer or the pro abstinence only people have sex its to make babies, so I can see why they would believe there would be a need for bc.

I never said I believe the only purpose of sex is to make babies. Maybe some people believe that, but I certainly don't.
Okay, so now that you have said that there are other purposes for sex besides having babies, please explain to me what the harm in keeping the semen inside a condom instead of having it go into the woman's body is. How, exactly, is it immoral? Im really curious to know how this line of thinking is processed, because its just something I just.cant.understand. I can understand you not thinking condoms are okay if you are someone who believes that sex is for baby making, but if you dont, how is it wrong. You are having sex for pleasure, so what does it matter whether ejaculation happens inside? Does this "birth control is immoral" stance also include the pull out method?

[imogenlily]

I was just reading about the OWL curriculum, which a previous poster suggested that, while awesome, most parents would not approve of. (PP - I don't disagree with you, I'm just pointing out how ludicrous it is that that's true)

The OWL curriculum covers such dangerous territory as: healthy sexual relationships, gender and sexual orientation, equality, sexual harassment, sexualization and media awareness.

Scandalous! That actually sounds pretty much like what was covered in my public school sex ed class. I don't think it would fly now, though.

[pers]

Originally Posted by RLoth 

 I don't know, showing condoms and doing "demonstrations" for young children is like giving a toddler a pistol and telling him not to shoot himself with it. They're going to get curious. 

Well, no, actually it is giving them a penis or a vagina to puberty age kids is like giving a toddler a pistol and telling them not to shoot themselves with it.  They get curious.  

Probably a pretty foolish idea, and penises and vaginas should be withheld until they are old enough to prove they are responsible enough for them, but alas, they already have them and you can't really undo that.  

Go ahead and encourage parents to teach kids at home morals, whatever theirs may be, and to wait until an appropriate time, whether that is adulthood, committed relationship, ready to face the potential consequences such as a baby, marriage, or some combination thereof.  Knowing how to properly use a condom isn't going to magically undermine that, a brief demonstration of how people who do have sex can minimize the risk of pregnancy and disease is not going to magically erase all the values taught by parents.  It's also not going to make kids who are uninterested in sex want to do it because condoms are just so cool.  

What it is going to do is make sure they have accurate information on methods of preventing pregnancy and disease and the risks that still remain when they do decide to have sex, whether that is as a teenager, when they go off to college, in their twenties, or even when married but not ready for children.    Unlike smoking,  - which the hope is that kids will never do, even when they are adults - sex is expected to be a part of life for the vast majority of humans at some point or other.    

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 

OK smoking then??? It does serve a positive purpose (relaxing, keep a few extra pounds off, etc.), it's not illegal... I chose illegal examples only because they were the first to pop into my head and I thought maybe people could relate to it... It was meant to explain my point of view, not necessarily to insult anyone...

Hormonal birth control is not natural & can have tons of negative side effects. Even condoms contain chemicals, can cause allergic reactions, can break, etc.

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking people to control their impulses and not give in to every urge. Obviously it's possible, because most teenagers seem capable of waiting 'til they are alone, 'til the parents are gone for the weekend, etc. so it's not like it's impossible to have a little self-control. Maybe it's not easy but that doesn't mean it's pointless. BC basically says you can do whatever you want and there won't be any (or very small likelihood of) consequences. I don't believe that's a healthy attitude, and then when the BC fails (not just talking about unplanned pregnancy but also disease) it's a huge shock because "I was being safe, I was being careful, how could this happen?"

I'm not feeling well right now so I don't think I'm explaining this clearly at all. I will try to come back later to clarify or elaborate...

Hmm I actually agree that abstinence can be a good and healthy choice, it isn't wrong or bad to learn about but it certainly is not the most effective method of preventing teen pregnancy (the teaching of abstinence I mean, obviously not having sex means no pregnancy) otherwise the the teen pregnancy rates wouldn't be so high. It's been shown over and over that abstinence only education is really not working in preventing teen pregnancy. It's got to be part (as another PP said) of comprehensive sex ed.

I guess my issue with the above you posted is that you are basically pushing YOUR morals onto everyone else. They aren't bad at all for you personally but I don't see where it is ok to dictate to others what they should do. I am not horrified by teen sex, it's a part of life and I find the whole idea of virginity more and more....what's a good word, I guess I would say meaningless...

I don't think BC says that you can do whatever you want without consequences. We see BC in a fundamentally way in regard to teenagers. I see it as my daughter (or any kid) making the RESPONSIBLE, ADULT decision to do their best to prevent something that they don't want to happen. Personally, if my daughter is smart enough to be vigilant about BC then she is mature enough for sex IMO (although I fully expect her to obey the laws regarding age of consent etc, as I say this I think about how many laws I obeyed).  BC failing is a risk but as a mama who had a daughter young (23) and that daughter was a super big surprise, I can say with confidence that there are much MUCH bigger "risks" in the world ( know STDs can happen too but that can have as much to do with the partner as the efficacy of BC)..

My point I guess is, if a person is using BC to prevent an STD or pregnancy I see them as personally acknowledging and accepting the risks associated with sex in an informed manner, regardless of age.

[lauren]

Whew! Such a lively discussion! PLease stay focused on the educational aspect of this topic because you are in Learning at School. You can take discussions of personal value systems about birth control to other forums-- Personal Growth, Talk Amongst Ourselves, Religious Studies. 

Thanks for returning to staying on educational topics!

[Sourire]

What an interesting topic :)

I am so glad that most schools in Canada teach about all the options for contraception. If I ever ended up in a situation where my children were being taught abstinence only, I would probably use it as an opportunity to teach them the value of not blindly accepting everything you are told and doing your own research and forming your own opinion (though I would point them in the direction I wanted on the research!)

One thing I really wish they did better in schools was teach girls about their cycles in more detail. I gave up hormonal birth control about 4 years ago for health reasons. When my teenage sister told me she wanted to get off the pill too, because she saw what it did to me and didn't like it, I was totally supportive of her choice. However she then told me that she had heard that you couldn't get pregnant in the first 2 weeks of your cycle and so she was having sex without any contraception during that time I was really upset by how misinformed she was!!!! That's when I was like... let me explain a few things to you!!!! I had been charting my cycles for a while so I explained to her that if she wants to have sex without risking pregnancy she MUST have a reliable way of knowing when she is ovulating and only have sex starting a few days after O. I also gave her a book on the topic....

It is really astonishing how little most women know about their bodies and their cycles and I find it very sad... it is so empowering to understand our bodies properly. And really for a teenager they have absolutely no way of getting this info because they don't learn it in school and very few parents speak to their daughters about it... my mom also used charting as a method of birth control for many years, yet she NEVER mentioned it to me and my sisters and I only found out about this when I started looking into charting as a method of birth control myself a few years ago.

[CorriJ]

I'd just like to toss my 2 cents in. 

I grew up in Canada, and the school(s) I went to taught sex ed, starting in grade 5 I believe. Starting with anatomy and hormone changes and such. By high school it was a safe sex course, they taught about condoms, birth control and abstinence and the pros and cons of each option. Between what was taught at school, conversations with my mother who was very open with me, and reading I did on my own I think it's safe to say I learned enough about sex to make up my own mind. And I didn't end up having sex until I was 20 (though I did fool around with one previous partner). With my first time we used a condom, and I made sure he had proof he was clean of anything. After that I went on BC. On top of that in my 25 years of life I've had 3 sexual partners, of those I've only gone all the way with 2, one of whom is my husband.

Because I had been taught about sex I never felt pressured about it. I knew what happened, and I knew I had the right to say no. I also knew what I could do to be safe when I did make that decision.

I'd also like to add that I don't consider myself religious and my beliefs are more neopagan then anything. I've had those beliefs since I was 12, although during my teen years my grandmother did push her Christian faith on me. 

For me knowing about it, that it was a normal part of life and that it was my choice was the reason I waited to have sex. It wasn't forbidden, it wasn't scary. It was just sex.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy 



Second, many of us that are opposed to birth control believe it is IMMORAL. It's not just that sex before marriage is wrong and we don't want to 'condone' it by distributing condoms -- it's that the condoms themselves (and other forms of birth control) are immoral. It's similar to having a public school class on finances that teaches kids how to steal food properly -- sure, it may prevent them from not starving if they are impoverished, but it would just be WRONG to teach that in a public school, you know? (At least I assume most would agree with that...)

Obviously, kids need to know what's going on with their bodies. And obviously, many parents (whether or not they believe in birth control) largely fail at the task of teaching their kids basic facts about sex & sexual development. So I do understand the conundrum that school are in -- they feel that SOMEONE needs to take responsibility for this aspect of education. While I don't expect public schools to promote any one religious view, I do expect them to avoid promoting something that many people feel is immoral -- whether it's birth control or stealing or whatever. There are abstinence-only programs that don't promote moral/religious views and have high efficacy. There are ways to present information on the body & sexuality that don't take any moral stance. I have my opinions and scientific support for them but I know that there aren't many options that will make EVERYONE happy, and just the fact that I'm religious will discredit my views in many of your minds, which is a frustrating judgement to be on this end of.

(I have no intention of sending DS to a public school anyway, but this is a larger issue than just what MY kid learns...)

Even when parents find BC to be immoral (which is a valid belief), it is possible that their children will not feel the same way when they get old enough to be having sex, or to be interested in having sex.

I think that all teens should have access to information about safe sex, and BC and how to use it.  Not b/c I want to promote teens having sex (I didn't until college), but b/c teens DO have sex and I want them to know and understand how to be safe about it.

Teens can be educated about condoms, BC, and safe sex/STI's and choose to abstain until marriage and not use BC because it goes against their moral beliefs.  Thats completely valid - educating a teen about sex and safe sex doesn't mean promoting teen sex and pregnancy, it just means educating them about it.  Abstinence only education doesn't (IME) teach kids not to have sex, nor does it teach them anything about it. 

Regardless of the choices teens make, its important that they make educated, and informed choices - which means not only understanding their families beliefs about BC, but also the other side.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

The risk of teaching NFP to a bunch of 15 year olds (give or take a year or so) and not teaching bc and condoms because of 'moral issues' is that NFP is far more complicated to use correctly.  I absolutely would not have been able to keep up with watching my body for sure signs of ovulation.  As it was, it was a struggle just to remember the pill which is why I switched to the shot.  It would be highly short sighted to trust teenagers, or anyone really, with only NFP.  Many adults won't commit to it either for exactly that reason.  It certainly would come with the same risks you outlined of other methods failing.  Teens would still think that because they are watching for ovulation, they can do anything.  they know their body and never mind that they might make mistake (as adults do too) and up with a baby they aren't prepared for.

Well, the other problem with NFL is that it works best (according to my VERY limited knowledge of it) when a woman has a regular cycle, and isn't in puberty.  I seem to remember that in high school my cycles were all over the place, and I never would have been able to track it.

[ChristaN]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Well, the other problem with NFL is that it works best (according to my VERY limited knowledge of it) when a woman has a regular cycle, and isn't in puberty.  I seem to remember that in high school my cycles were all over the place, and I never would have been able to track it.

And then there is my body which seemed to take the approach of, "she's having sex, quick ovulate!"  Dh and I got pg twice within days of my period ending (our two kiddos both conceived while I was in my 20s).  Whenever I was sexually active, my periods would come every two weeks and I'd ovulate immediately following a period.  When I was not, my periods and ovulation were on a more normal cycle. 

I wouldn't be relying on NFP with younger women either especially if their bodies work anything like mine and do whatever can be done to get pg!

[Drummer's Wife]

Bristol Palin is a shining example of abstinence only sex education. 

[MusicianDad]

Can I just say to the "but it'll just encourage them to go out and have sex" crowd: A recent study in Canada showed that teen pregnancy rates dropped by 44% between 1996 and 2006, the other occurrence in that time is schools moved towards comprehensive sexual education more and more during that time. Make what you will out of the correlation, but it seems to counter indicate the idea that telling teens about sex will result in teen pregnancy.