Abstinence Only sex "education" - Page 7 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-27-2011, 07:21 PM
 
treeoflife3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tennessee/kentucky
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

yeah, I never heard 'you probably won't abstain.'  actually, we spent more time on how to say no so we COULD abstain.  our sex ed wasn't great and lacked quite a few things but it definitely wasn't a message to have sex.  Half of my friends were virgins upon graduation.  Not everyone has sex but everyone does need to know how to be safe when they DO start having sex, even if all they learn is that they don't want to risk the side effects of hormonal birth control.  I will agree though that comprehensive sex ed often still leaves out information due to time and funding constraints.  My school needed more as well, but we definitely weren't told that most people won't abstain and to not bother.

treeoflife3 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-27-2011, 08:18 PM
 
physmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have to agree with what eclipe wrote.  Mother of Mercy, it sounds like you definitely did NOT have a comprehensive sex-ed class.  Now, my sex-ed class in middle school was far from ideal (it was taught by a grump PE teacher who acted like every second of it was pure torture for him) but I distinctly remember getting a sheet with all forms of contraceptives discussing their effectiveness (and what percentage of time they were effective) and it was ALWAYS emphasized that abstinence was the only 100% effective method.  There was also a lot of discussion that most people don't use contraceptives correctly 100% of the time so that the statistics are if anything somewhat inflated.  There was never once a single mention of "oh, you'll probably have sex anyways" at all. 

 

BTW, I was a kid who got ZERO sex-ed from my parents (very, very conservative household).  Basically, I was told that it was evil outside of marriage.  Eventually my stepmom (she's not particularly conservative like my mother) asked at one point if I need any protection when I was already in college but that was the extent of it. 
 

Ldavis I'm guessing the decrease in effectiveness is entirely due to user error.  Couples probably become more relaxed after a year of not getting pregnant and start getting lazier about how they're using it.  Besides maybe some couples are actually TTC during that time, who knows? 

 

physmom is offline  
Old 04-27-2011, 08:25 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by physmom View Post

I have to agree with what eclipe wrote.  Mother of Mercy, it sounds like you definitely did NOT have a comprehensive sex-ed class.  Now, my sex-ed class in middle school was far from ideal (it was taught by a grump PE teacher who acted like every second of it was pure torture for him) but I distinctly remember getting a sheet with all forms of contraceptives discussing their effectiveness (and what percentage of time they were effective) and it was ALWAYS emphasized that abstinence was the only 100% effective method.  There was also a lot of discussion that most people don't use contraceptives correctly 100% of the time so that the statistics are if anything somewhat inflated.  There was never once a single mention of "oh, you'll probably have sex anyways" at all. 

 

BTW, I was a kid who got ZERO sex-ed from my parents (very, very conservative household).  Basically, I was told that it was evil outside of marriage.  Eventually my stepmom (she's not particularly conservative like my mother) asked at one point if I need any protection when I was already in college but that was the extent of it. 
 

Ldavis I'm guessing the decrease in effectiveness is entirely due to user error.  Couples probably become more relaxed after a year of not getting pregnant and start getting lazier about how they're using it.  Besides maybe some couples are actually TTC during that time, who knows? 

 

Hmm ok I see that.

Maybe I am just not getting the wording, eh I don't know really I'm tired it's past my bedtime!nut.gif

 

I do know that my sex ed class in high was pretty high up on the abstinence will guarantee you don't get preggo or an STD...it was repeated a lot. 

 

 

Ldavis24 is offline  
Old 04-27-2011, 08:37 PM
 
MamaofLiam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post



Hmm ok I see that.

Maybe I am just not getting the wording, eh I don't know really I'm tired it's past my bedtime!nut.gif

 

I do know that my sex ed class in high was pretty high up on the abstinence will guarantee you don't get preggo or an STD...it was repeated a lot. 

 

 


Ditto the bolded part. Abstinence was included in our sex ed class as well and presented as the definitive way not to get pregnant / STDs.  

 

MamaofLiam is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 07:17 AM
 
Adaline'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To people who think abstinence only education should be in public schools:

Witholding information from children is immoral to me. You dont keep secrets from curious bodies that could be damaged because of lack of information. This is education we are talking about. Jeeze. The information is out there. They will find out, I promise.
I think the following things are immoral: CIO, blindly formula feeding, vax (to some extent), genital mutilation, divorce at the drop of a hat, lying, and a long list of other things. But I know about all of them. I know a lot about all of it, because in order to form my opinion, I did all the research.

Dont you want your children to learn the same critical thinking skills that you have? By withholding information from your children you are teaching them to make decisions based on YOUR beliefs, YOUR research, YOUR opinions. Secrets dont make the issue go away. Wouldnt you rather the issue come up now, while they are young and you can talk to them about it? Because if they dont learn about it until they realize that their college campus will sell anyone who walks in the door birth control for $10 a month, do you think they are going to ask you to talk to them about it then?

Here's a list of misinformation that my high school's abstinence only program did not correct because we never discussed it:

You cant get an STD from giving blowjobs.
You can just take 7 birth control pills in a row if you had a condom break and you need to make sure you arent pregnant.
Condoms work (not in a wallet, not in a glove box, not in extreme heat of any kind)
STD's are nasty and you will die from them. Ummm, no there is treatment for most STD's. You arent going to die from crabs.
You should like to the nurse at the health department and tell youve already had sex because they wont give birth control to virgins.
You cant get pregnant if you have sex and put a condom on right before ejaculation.
Birth control works as long as you take it at the same time every day.

And if only someone had addressed that last one, and told me that bc doesnt always work, even if you take it at the same time every single day. If only someone had told me that it didnt work when you took antibiotics, maybe I would have made completely different choices. Maybe it wouldnt have led me to make the decisions that led me to make other decisions to have an abortion (no flaming please) because I thought I was safe, but I wasnt. You know why I thought I was safe? Because no one ever really told me anything about what I was doing. I had to figure it out on my own because there was no one to tell me how shit worked.

So, yeah, I think abstinence only programs are crap. For the birds, way out of date, completely unrealistic, and dangerous.

By the way, my mother doesnt believe in birth control and was very pro abstinence only education. My sister has already been pregnant twice, shes 19.

Holly and David partners.gif

Adaline love.gif (3/20/10), and Charlie brokenheart.gif (1/26/12- 4/10/12) and our identical  rainbow1284.gif  twins Callie and Wendy (01/04/13)

SIDS happens. 

Adaline'sMama is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 08:28 AM
 
Linda on the move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: basking in the sunshine
Posts: 10,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mother in Mercy View Post

 

Since my kids are only 18 mo. and 2 months old, I haven't really thought about this yet, but my initial feeling is to say that

 

Part of my extreme annoyance at this point is that I have TEENS who've had sex mis-education in public school. I'm there, in the trenches, in the real world.  Your views are unconsidered and don't have anything to do with what is going on in public schools today. 

 

The main problem that folks have with sex ed, whenever the program disagrees with their beliefs, is not that their kids will get information (I should hope not anyway) but that they get advice--that is, they get told what to do.

 

That statement is one of the reasons why some parents are against abstinence only education. The goal is advice.

 

The problem with emphasizing the innocence of all the "facts" they get in sex ed is that it's not just an open-minded, informative experience. It's a context which inevitably involves pressure on impressionable kids through either the benevolent guidance of authority figures or the goading of peers.

 

I think that kids are more likely to get neutral facts if the goal is neutral facts. Abstinence only doesn't have that goal. The goal is to tell kids to not have sex, so they twists facts and lies to make a case for that.

 

Pretty much the blaring message every teen hears from childhood in this culture is "USE CONDOMS AND THE PILL OR YOUR LIFE WILL BE OVER. You can't possibly choose not to have sex--that's ridiculous! Nice try, you'll be pregnant next month."

 

And this is based on what? Your kids were told this in public school?

 

Seriously, you might try listening to those of us who currently have kids in public school. You are so off base. 

 

My local public high school, which has a day care center for the babies of students, can't have a poster in the nurses office that says were kids can get real information about BC and access to BC. The glaring message kids get about sex from school and home is, for the most part, "Don't talk to us about it."

 

 

Which leads me to my second point: anti-abstinence parents, don't worry about it. If they didn't hear it from you they'd hear it from TV. Abstinence is not the norm, people. Stop acting like your kid might up and wait 'till marriage, despite all of your sage advice.

 

I don't have a problem with my kids knowing that some people value virginity. To me, that is simple a fact. I was more OK with abstinence only education BEFORE my child went through the program. Afterwards, I can really see how the program would stop someone from using BC and condoms. I feel and hope and pray that I thorough counteracted that message at home. But it is an extremely dangerous message. We as a nation are teaching our teens that they can't control their fertility.

 

In conversations I have with other moms of teens, I'm shocked at how many parent cant'/won't talk to their kids about sex. The notion that parents should talk to kids about sex is SO true, but most parents drop the ball. It's far easier to say that parents should talk to their kids than to actually talk to your kids. Many parents can't even bring themselves to say "to make a baby, the penis goes in the vagina,"  much less get to the real nitty gritty, and explain that it feels so good that people do it a lot, far more times than the number of children than can afford or care for.

 

My kids have access to good information at home, but most kids don't.

 

 

stop worrying if you want your kids to know about sex. Information about biology/preventing its natural goals is not hard to come by in our TV/internet age. If you want your kids to know how not to get pregnant/get their "partners" pregnant, tell them yourselves or (if you're too shy) give them the addresses to websites you approve of.

 

Seriously? You think TV is a good source of information about sex? You think a teen looking for information about sex on the internet is a good idea? Holy cow, I can't imagine the sites they would bring up with that kind of goggle. (Oh, right, your kids aren't old enough to goggle, so you aren't dealing with the possibility of porn popping up if they phrase a question the wrong way.)  As you said before, you haven't really thought about it.

 

Oohh-kayy, I'm feeling a little personally attacked at this point.. .....

Basically, I think the problem is that people tend to react against what their parents did wrong --

 

My views don't have anything to do with my parents. They have to do with sex mis-education in public schools today, a subject which you don't know anything about, which may be why you feel attacked. You are arguing about a subject that you don't know anything about.

 


 

 


but everything has pros and cons  shrug.gif

Linda on the move is online now  
Old 04-28-2011, 08:32 AM
 
Linda on the move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: basking in the sunshine
Posts: 10,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

You know why I thought I was safe? Because no one ever really told me anything about what I was doing. I had to figure it out on my own because there was no one to tell me how shit worked.
 


hug2.gif  I'm very sorry for what you've been through.

 

 

 


but everything has pros and cons  shrug.gif

Linda on the move is online now  
Old 04-28-2011, 08:40 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move View Post




hug2.gif  I'm very sorry for what you've been through.

 

 

 

I want to second this and thank you adalinesmama for sharing your story! It is an important one to hear, it helps connect that kids are or are not taught about sex has real consequences for those kids.
 

 

Ldavis24 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 10:20 AM
 
Chamomile Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: West of the Sierras East of the Sea
Posts: 2,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok, I have read the whole thread and here is my observation:

I don't have time to go back and provide multiquotes to support this premise (although the evidence is certainly there) but what I am seeing from the pro-abstinence education camp is not just a problem with what is being called "pro-contraceptive" sex education, but public education in general. Off the top of my head I believe that something akin to: I don't want some self appointed expert telling stuff to my kid that our family values don't jive with.

So I think there is a deeper issue at work here: A complete disregard for the effectiveness of the public school system. So honestly folks it doesn't matter if the kids are being taught about sex or being taught about American imperialism, nobody is going to get anywhere with this discussion without the understanding that its really the whole concept of public education that is being debated.

Granted as a public school teacher I am biased, but the insular argument (our family is an island that needs to be kept free from damaging outside influence) in support for homeschooling drives me batty.

And for what it is worth my husband grew up in one of those families where sex was a taboo subject. He never got any kind of sex talk from his folks. This coupled with the very, very damaging religious education he received at church left him hating himself for wanting something so dirty...for years. Years. And I think that kind of self loathing has a very negative impact on one's sexual identity for the long term. Way to go family irked.gif.
Chamomile Girl is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 01:31 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

In light of recent posts, I want to mention that my son got comprehensive sex ed last year. He already knew most of it, as I've been pretty open and upfront about this since he was a very young child. His sex ed involved doing a lot of his own research on the effectiveness of various methods of contraception, both with respect to pregnancy prevention and the prevention of STDs. He had to research the risks and benefits of each kind of contraception, including percentage success rates. This all included research on abstinence, which was very easily determined to be the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy and/or STDs. There was absolutely no advice about what sexual choices he or his classmates would/will make - none. There was no assumption that they were going to have sex, no matter what, so here's what they had to do. There was no assumption they weren't going to have sex, so none of this applied to them. There was research and there were facts. There was discussion about why one source might say such-and-such method was 75% effective, and another source might say 80%. There was research and discussion about what was required to improve effectiveness (eg. taking the pill at the same time every day, making sure the condom was put on correctly, etc.). They also researched the "rhythm method", although I don't think they did actual NFL...I may find out who to talk to about that. (I don't think my other kids will be going to public school, but it's still important information for all teens, imo.)

 

I expected not to like the sex ed curriculum, but I had absolutely no issue with it at all. It was totally fact-based, and made no assumptions about what the teens were or weren't going to do. DS1 has a couple who are friends of his going back to elementary school, who now have an almost one year old baby girl. DS1 is, I believe, still a virgin. Teens are people, and they're all different, and they're all going to make their own decisions.


Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 02:08 PM
 
objet_trouve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cham girl- Well said!

I, like your husband, got my sex talk from church, and a few basics from parents. Having a high sex drive and being bisexual, I had to go through years of therapy to recover from some of the stuff I had been told about my desires and identity, and my husband and I still have to deal with my break downs and rage over being made to feel bad about myself growing up. My promiscuity after high school (lost my virginity at 19 or so, believing that I was just doomed to be a horrible person because of my attractions. My partner was very helpful and kind, and we were very much in love, but I still believed I was sealing my fate by doing it) should have tipped people off that I was suicidal...seeing as how I still believed almost all sex results in AIDs, and most other STDs are fatal.

I know the solution is not insulation, and I just wanted to mention that when I said homeschooling, I more meant for the younger years, particularly when opposing viewpoints are just kind of accepted because a grown up said it. I also like the idea of a co-op, though I'd have to judge based on the particular co-op, and choose based on our needs. My idea is that around JR. High, my kids have to make a choice for high school: homeschool, private school or public school. If they say homeschool, they'll be getting their GED and starting community college, because I don't think my husband and I can give them a good high school education on our own (super smart as we are) and they NEED to socialize. It won't solve all the problems I have with this stuff, but it will keep my kids from getting taught too much religious/politically slanted stuff (public schools in Texas can be pretty bad) until they can think more independently and come to their own conclusions. I have nothing but respect for most of the teachers I have met, and if there was a high school composed of you, my husband's aunt and the really nice biology teacher who had to sub for one of my classes in college once (poor thing didn't know how to teach adults and we wound up coloring pictures of ducks), I'd likely be fine. But that's not how it works, especially where I'll be in Texas.

So just wanted to tell you your husband isn't alone, and hopefully to drive you a little less batty with the home school talk. I am aware of the problems it can bring about (I was homeschooled first grade to HS grad, had to take a bunch of remedial courses in college), and know to be flexible and base my decision on my kid, rather than my fears (not that they are invalid, just that fear-based decision making can lead to disastrous results). Hopefully this might calm a little bit of your concerns. I hate the insulation is the only solution mindset too.

TTC #1 My chart: http://www.fertilityfriend.com/home/329153
 

objet_trouve is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 04:36 PM
 
marinak1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 1,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother in Mercy View Post

Which leads me to my second point: anti-abstinence parents, don't worry about it. If they didn't hear it from you they'd hear it from TV. Abstinence is not the norm, people. Stop acting like your kid might up and wait 'till marriage, despite all of your sage advice.


Wow, just wow. Up until now I was just lurking in this thread but this yikes2.gif
It simultaneously insults people objecting to "abstinence only" sex-ed, and makes their point.
First of all, just because I oppose to teaching someone's religious views to teens in public schools instead of facts that doesn't make me "anti-abstinence" or hoping that my kids have sex. The "sage advice" I hope to impart to my kids when they are old enough would be to make informed choices and consider consequences of their actions. This statement is twisting people's words and is rude and uncalled for. nono02.gif

Second - if abstinence is not the norm, shouldn't we provide teens with factual information rather than lie to them about the use of birth control and hope that they stay scared enough? Sheesh


 sleepytime.gif
marinak1977 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 04:57 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi all!

 

Just a reminder to keep the conversation polite.  Disagreement is welcome, insults are not.  I'm only on page 4 so far, lol.

 

Please feel free to PM me with any questions or concerns!

 

Thanks,

TiredX2


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 05:14 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 8,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post

Hi all!

 

Just a reminder to keep the conversation polite.  Disagreement is welcome, insults are not.  I'm only on page 4 so far, lol.

 

Please feel free to PM me with any questions or concerns!

 

Thanks,

TiredX2


I wish you luck. 

 


malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:01 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by philomom View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

sure it was, it was just much more dangerous as you were likely to get it in a back alley.




My mom was an ER nurse back in the early 1960's.. she could tell the most heart wrenching stories of girls who died because they'd let some butcher "help" them or they tried to force a miscarriage themselves. Either they ended up bleeding out or they had slow, horrible deaths of sepsis. No one wants to go back there.
 


Except for the GOP which wants to outlaw abortion entirely again.  There has been an assault on women's reproductive rights this year, and its disgusting.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:27 PM
 
treeoflife3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tennessee/kentucky
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

yeah, I'm not sure if they just don't CARE that women will still be having abortions, only dying from it a lot more often or if they honestly sincerely believe that if it is illegal, no one will do it.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post




Except for the GOP which wants to outlaw abortion entirely again.  There has been an assault on women's reproductive rights this year, and its disgusting.

 



 

treeoflife3 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:41 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

yeah, I'm not sure if they just don't CARE that women will still be having abortions, only dying from it a lot more often or if they honestly sincerely believe that if it is illegal, no one will do it.
 



 



Actually, I don't think its either.  I think its really to decrease the already very little reproductive health access there is to poor underprivileged teen girls and women.  This keeps them poor, uneducated, and unable to pull themselves out of poverty.  It continues the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, and further decreases the middle class.  For the GOP, I think its an economic strategy to put the rich far and away above the poor - its just labeled as a moral argument to get people all up in arms, while disguising the actual motivations.

 

ETA - I just wanted to add that this is my own personal opinion, and as I am not a member of the GOP I really don't know what their intentions are - I'm also not trying to start a debate.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:42 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

yeah, I'm not sure if they just don't CARE that women will still be having abortions, only dying from it a lot more often or if they honestly sincerely believe that if it is illegal, no one will do it.
 



 


Well, I'm sure they realize that they will create more of a class/race schism if they do manage to outlaw it. The wealthy will take their daughters on a plane ride to someplace where it is still legal and safe. The flip side I leave to your imaginations.. mine can be quite lurid on this issue.

Okay.. we aren't supposed to debate abortion on MDC so I'm stopping now.

philomom is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 11:08 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



I'm going to reply to each quote individually.  I've spent close to an hour replying and accidentally deleting!!!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post

To me, the only solution -- at least the only one that I can think of, though I don't even know if it would be logistically & financially feasible for some school districts, would be for each school to offer 2 programs (simultaneously or consecutively) and allow parents to choose which program their child attends. This would guarantee that all -- all but a few who still choose to opt out, that is -- would get sex ed, but would avoid infringing on people's personal or moral beliefs & religious freedom.



To me, though, that would be like offering two basic arithmatic classes---- one that only covered addition and one that covered addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.  To say that the first gives a full education of arithmetic would be, quite simply, wrong. Abstinance *only* education is not a full reproductive options education. 

 


 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 11:13 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

Personally I don't think a teenager should really have a choice in whether or not they receive comprehensive sex ed. they NEED to receive it. Period.

Maybe some of them think they don't need it or don't care but I would make it mandatory. It is health issue. It can be a PUBLIC health issue when it is related to STDS, they don't get to opt out of learning how to prevent the spread of diseases at the very least.

 


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.


 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 11:20 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

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!

 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 11:37 PM
 
treeoflife3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: tennessee/kentucky
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


 



 

treeoflife3 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 11:44 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

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!


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2011, 11:45 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

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!

 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 04-29-2011, 06:54 AM
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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).

ChristaN is offline  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:15 AM
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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 ;) .

ChristaN is offline  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:36 AM
 
Sourire's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,525
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

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.


Me (32), married to DH (35)

3 years of TTC #1, M/C @ 6wks in May 2013 angel1.gif
Mom to Liliana born May 8 2014 bfinfant.gif
mdcblog5.gif www.babythehardway.com

Sourire is online now  
Old 04-29-2011, 09:03 AM
 
Linda on the move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: basking in the sunshine
Posts: 10,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)


 

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)


but everything has pros and cons  shrug.gif

Linda on the move is online now  
Old 04-29-2011, 12:58 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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!


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 04-29-2011, 01:15 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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...

Ldavis24 is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off