Quantcast The Red and Black
College Media Network

The Red and Black

Search the Archives

 

County must teach teens abstinence

Abstract:
Last week, the Clarke County Board of Education announced it is planning to switch from abstinence-only education to comprehensive sexual education, which would teach methods such as birth control and condom usage. The board believes moving toward a system of more comprehensive sexual education will lower the teen pregnancy rate....

  • Displaying 1 - 44 of 44

About that...

posted 3/04/08 @ 6:31 AM EST

"Some argue abstinence education is old-fashioned and out-of-date. But with the rising rates of HIV and other STDs, we need to encourage our children to wait until marriage. With the rising teen pregnancy rates and the destruction of the family structure, we need to encourage our youth to wait until marriage and make a commitment for the rest of their lives."

That's all well and good and I realize you have nothing but the best intentions when writing this article, HOWEVER, you need to stop to think that these are adolescents we're talking about, not 7-year-olds. Adolescents have hormones, secondary sex characteristics and lots of pressure from the media (and peers) to have sex. I honestly do not feel that teaching them the safe way to prevent them from getting an STD or becoming pregnant is a bad thing. And what would you say to the gay population in the US? Just sweep them under the rug? Because they aren't allowed to get married, should they just abstain for life? Like I said, the idea of teaching adolescents that sex is "bad, naughty, nothing to take pleasure in, only to be done with a husband/wife" is good in theory, don't get me wrong. But, this just isn't realistic. If parents (not schools) do not instill the values they wish for their children to have at an early age, there isn't much the school can do to change that. I think by only teaching abstinence-only the STD/pregnancy rate would just rise (because, like it or not, there will always be those who are going to have pre-marital sex). I went to a school that had a comprehensive sexual education program and I feel much more knowledgeable about how to protect myself. Rather than having beliefs shoved down my throat, I was taught the reality that if you engage in certain behaviors there are risks and potential consequences. But oh well, I guess adolescents today just need to know what the powers-that-be decide they need to know, right?
Post a reply to this comment

Suzie Rottencrotch

posted 3/04/08 @ 7:03 AM EST

Dude, the only reason you are supporting abstinence is because you've never gotten laid. Be an American and get some.
Post a reply to this comment

buzzkill

posted 3/04/08 @ 7:14 AM EST

keeping the blinders on when it comes to teen sex is no way to go about formulating a sex education plan. regardless of your own values and beliefs, there are others, parents and teenagers, whose beliefs don't preclude extramarital intercourse. this is an instance of an attempt at lifting the beliefs of those on one side of the issue to a greater level of importance than other beliefs, giving short shrift to the kids who will actually need to know how to use protection.

i'm all for sex education that stresses that abstinence is the only way to protect from STIs and pregnancy 100%, but abstinence needs to be clearly defined. mouth to genital and hand to genital sexual contact can also spread STIs, so abstaining from "going all the way" won't necessarily be enough.

additionally, despite the "failure" cited for the "9 comprehensive sex education" programs, telling kids not to have sex until they're married will do nothing for kids who are going to do it anyway. go ahead, stress that abstinence is the only way to be totally safe, but don't do so at the expense of those who need information about safe ways to have intercourse.
Post a reply to this comment

Josh

posted 3/04/08 @ 9:03 AM EST

freshman shouldn't be allowed to talk.
Post a reply to this comment

Steven

posted 3/04/08 @ 9:18 AM EST

Greg,
There's no way you actually believe this. I say this because I believe you could pissibly have a bit of logic hidden under your neocon facade. Your argument doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Your metric for success is the age when youth become sexually active. The sexual activity rate is precisely the reason FOR comprehensive sex education sooner.

By withholding information from schoolchildren, you are condemning them to a further cycle of "out of wedlock births" and "destroyed family structures".
Post a reply to this comment

Daniel

posted 3/04/08 @ 9:36 AM EST

"Evaluation of these [abstinence-only] programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. NO PROGRAM was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time."

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

The simple fact, Greg, is that whatever criticisms you may have about comprehensive education, a turn-over to abstinence-only can only be worse. ALL available statistics indicate the summary failure of abstinence-education as a whole.

Not only does it fail to prevent the transmission of STDs, the development of unwanted pregnancies, and unsafe practices in general, but in a majority of cases, it actually INCREASES the activities it seeks to halt in a majority of cases.

The only reason the Neo-cons are so dead-set on abstinence-education in the face of all its failures is their simple fear and disgust for all things sexually liberating, invigorating, and satisfying.
Post a reply to this comment

local

posted 3/04/08 @ 9:53 AM EST

A-You're from Marietta and you've been here for a semester so please don't assume you have a full, clear understanding of the issues affecting the permanent residents of Clarke County.
B-"We need to encourage our children to wait until marriage" If you're a freshman with children maybe you needed comprehensive sex ed, too.
Post a reply to this comment

better to know

posted 3/04/08 @ 10:06 AM EST

Greg, I won't resort to personal attacks to let you know how completely wrong you are. You know what abstinence only education leads to? In the case of the Baptist school in town, it led to pregnancies and secret abortions in Atlanta. All the while, the holier-than-thou parents of these clueless kids support no sex ed... not even biology lessons regarding the reproductive system. I once had to explain what fallopian tubes were to a 20 yr old graduate of the school. Believe what you may Greg, but kids at least deserve to be fully educated when they make their choices. The girls in those tough situations deserved better.
Post a reply to this comment

Emily

posted 3/04/08 @ 11:19 AM EST

While comprehensive sex education programs have not been shown to delay the age in which teens first have sex, it does increased the rate of protected sex they practice. Unlike abstinence programs, real sex education allows teens to make smart choices about their bodies and lives.

Abstinence-only programs have actually been proven to be more detrimental. While it delays first intercourse, it actually leads to a younger ages of non-intercourse sexual activities such as oral sex. Teens taught abstinences only were also more likely to participate in more deviant or fetish sexual activities such as anal sex and group oral sex and mutual masturbation. These as we know can lead to pregnancies or worse, STDs.

All-in-all, I'd rather my teen wait until adulthood to make these choices. However, not being able to control that 100%, I will never withhold information about the natural act of sex and ways to prevent disease. It seems unethical to deliberately withhold education from any individuals anyway, reminds me of slavery codes.
Post a reply to this comment

better to know

posted 3/04/08 @ 11:25 AM EST

Exactly!


Originally posted by

Emily

 While comprehensive sex education programs have not been shown to delay the age in which teens first have sex, it does increased the rate of protected sex they practice. Unlike abstinence programs, real sex education allows teens to make smart choices about their bodies and lives.

Abstinence-only programs have actually been proven to be more detrimental. While it delays first intercourse, it actually leads to a younger ages of non-intercourse sexual activities such as oral sex. Teens taught abstinences only were also more likely to participate in more deviant or fetish sexual activities such as anal sex and group oral sex and mutual masturbation. These as we know can lead to pregnancies or worse, STDs.

All-in-all, I'd rather my teen wait until adulthood to make these choices. However, not being able to control that 100%, I will never withhold information about the natural act of sex and ways to prevent disease. It seems unethical to deliberately withhold education from any individuals anyway, reminds me of slavery codes.
Post a reply to this comment

Desiree White

posted 3/04/08 @ 11:41 AM EST

You're little early, it's not April Fool's Day yet. I don't see how this could possibly be anything other than a joke.

First of all the problem is primarily in society, because our culture as a whole is extremely sexually driven. On top of being sexually driven, we're also extremely sexually repressed. That's a recipe for disaster. Now, with that being an obvious fact, tell me how telling people to repress natural animal(because we are, in fact, animals) instinct is going to solve the problem?

The catch is that it's a very, very difficult problem to solve. While it's not good, and I confess I have no ideas for a solution to the problem, that people are becoming sexually active at progressively younger ages, slapping their wrists and saying "No!" isn't going to solve the problem either. I had an abstinence only sex education, and it didn't stop me from becoming sexually active. It didn't even teach me to be careful. I researched the STDs and their effects and cures. I taught myself all that I know, from STDs, their effects, and which ones can be cured to the psychological effects of sexual activity. I can also proudly say I am disease free, have never been pregnant, and am not promiscuous. You know what else? I'd bet four years of tuition that I'm not the only one.

Abstinence only eduction is a problem because it's entirely scare tactics. Has saying "Drugs are bad!" for decades stopped anyone from doing it? What about smoking? Drinking? No? Then what makes you think doing the same thing with sex will be any better? It's only going to make rebellious youth want to do it more. Would it not make more sense then, with the increasingly younger age of sexual activity and the rising rates of STDs an pregnancy, to give the youth the tools they need to understand and combat what threatens them? Abstinence only education also adds to the problem of sex being viewed as taboo. Let's stick with it, because it's brilliant to deny people the knowledge and the tools they need, and then to make it embarrassing for them to as for help. Absolutely brilliant. That'll solve the problem.

I also take offense to you claiming America is based on marriages and family. I come from a single parent household and I was an unplanned birth. Not to mention that outside your idealistic tunnel, there are people who refuse to marry, homosexuality, or people who fear commitment. Sex has and always will occur outside of marriage, and frankly, it's time we acknowledge and respond to that. Even if it did, what about divorce rates? They're rising because people aren't thinking carefully before marrying. I don't think using one poor choice to determine another is particularly clever.

We need comprehensive sex education. We need to teach youth about STDs, about their effect and their cures. We need to teach them about birth control, condoms, dental dams and similar devices AND how to use them. We need to teach them that while abstinence is the only foolproof method to prevent pregnancy and disease, it's not easy and they need to know this, just in case. We need to teach them that masturbation and homosexuality are not evil, dirty, or unnatural things to be avoided and that they are natural and commonly occurring. We need to teach them what happens during pregnancies and how to respond to it. We need to tell them there are options, like keeping the child, adoption, or abortion and how to go about those. We need to teach them where to get the resources, help, and information they need. We need, above all, to be realistic and to teach them responsibility for their actions.

Sex is one of many, many realms where ignorance is not bliss and I, for one, will applaud the Clarke County Board of Education for taking steps to solve a dire problem.
Post a reply to this comment

Adam Hebbard

posted 3/04/08 @ 11:43 AM EST

Greg,

I assume that your intentions here a wholly good, and I do not doubt that you have the best interests of ACC's youth at heart.

However, abstinence-only sex ed. is ineffective at best; it ignores the reality that the young people on the receiving end of this education are going to engage in sexual behavior.

Abstinence should be a part of sex ed. After all, it is the only 100% effective method of preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STI's. Given, however, that high-school and middle-school age children are going to engage in sexual behavior regardless of what education they receive, it is important to teach them that if they engage in this behavior, there are ways to be more safe and to protect themselves from disease and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Please see http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf and http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm for summaries of recent research into abstinence-only sex education vs. comprehensive (or abstinence-plus) sex ed.
Post a reply to this comment

Slutty Suzy

posted 3/04/08 @ 1:18 PM EST

There's no way any amount of "abstinence-only" education shoved down my throat would have stopped me from having sex as a teenager. Because sex is fun and feels really, really good...
Post a reply to this comment

Jeff

posted 3/04/08 @ 2:45 PM EST

Look at his picture to the right of the column. I'm just saying...
Post a reply to this comment

Kacie Versaci

posted 3/04/08 @ 3:17 PM EST

Wow...some of the most heterocentric, patriarchal, right-wing, "family values" fodder, empty, uniformed garbage I have read in a long long time.

Abortions aren't a solution? They are a reprehensible moral action? Really?

How dare you, a MAN, pass judgement on WOMEN who make those choices. You will never in your life EVER be pregnant, let alone pregnant and alone or unprepared or poor or scared. If you find abortion wrong, then don't have one. Not that you ever could, but you get the picture.

I find men who try to speak about abortion, let alone judge women who get them, the lowest of the low.
Post a reply to this comment

Jebus

posted 3/04/08 @ 4:32 PM EST

Originally posted by

Kacie Versaci

 Wow...some of the most heterocentric, patriarchal, right-wing, "family values" fodder, empty, uniformed garbage I have read in a long long time.

Abortions aren't a solution? They are a reprehensible moral action? Really?

How dare you, a MAN, pass judgement on WOMEN who make those choices. You will never in your life EVER be pregnant, let alone pregnant and alone or unprepared or poor or scared. If you find abortion wrong, then don't have one. Not that you ever could, but you get the picture.

I find men who try to speak about abortion, let alone judge women who get them, the lowest of the low.




Here's an interesting thought: If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant or can't support a child... she should make a responsible and informed decision and either A) not have sex... or B) use some form of contraception or birth control.

She should be using some form of protection in the first place or insist that her man wraps it before he taps it. You can take the measures to not get pregnant... don't be an idiot and go around having unprotected sex, then claim that you're unprepared to have a kid.


That still doesn't change the fact that this article blows and that you're a dirty rotten feminist.
Post a reply to this comment

me

posted 3/04/08 @ 4:49 PM EST

WOW Jebus WOW. You're a real thinker, huh? Pregnancies do occur because of failed contraceptives, FYI. Often. And does the man (who obviously wasn't an idle particpator in the conception) have any obligation to support the child he conceived? In fact, does he even have to bear any responsibility (social, financial, or otherwise) to that child that you insist is all the mother's fault? Well, no. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant, she can either have an abortion (and live with the scorn of society and her own personal guilt) or she can raise a child who may or may not receive the support of its father (and live with the scorn of society). It's not quite as black and white as "don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant and be prepared to deal with the consequences if you do."
Post a reply to this comment

Kacie Versaci (aka dirty rotten feminist)

posted 3/04/08 @ 10:37 PM EST

Originally posted by

Kacie Versaci

 Wow...some of the most heterocentric, patriarchal, right-wing, "family values" fodder, empty, uniformed garbage I have read in a long long time.

Abortions aren't a solution? They are a reprehensible moral action? Really?

How dare you, a MAN, pass judgement on WOMEN who make those choices. You will never in your life EVER be pregnant, let alone pregnant and alone or unprepared or poor or scared. If you find abortion wrong, then don't have one. Not that you ever could, but you get the picture.

I find men who try to speak about abortion, let alone judge women who get them, the lowest of the low.


Jebus--


I think I pointed out in my orginal post that men (or anyone) should not pass judgement on others on women who get abortions. When you tell women that having sex is a choice, and if they don't want a baby, then don't have sex, you are passing judgement. Do you think all these women who have abortions didn't think about the consequences? And a lot of times, NO choice was made to have sex (it's called rape--look it up). Women are human. We make mistakes. And I am sorry, a child brought into this world because its mother was forced to, an unwanted mistake baby, a baby created not in love but in miscalculations, yeah, that really upholds family values. What a great life!!!

Just so we're clear, also, many women who become pregnant are uneducated about sex, thanks to the type of programs that the author of this orginal piece is touting. Many of these women are lower income, young, minorities who don't have a lot of choices. How dare anyone say they should be punished with a child. "Oh you had sex! Bad woman! Raise this baby now! It's your own fault for having unprotected sex." Not all women are privelaged middle-to-upper class college girls who can swipe their dad's credit card and buy their birth control pills and have loving, responsible boyfriends who have no qualms about wearing a condom. Not all of us are lucky. I am lucky. I am angry on behlaf of those who are not.

And you call me a dirty rotten feminist like that might hurt me. Please. I didn't realize it was a crime to believe (and promote) the idea that half the world's population deserves the same rights as the other half.
Post a reply to this comment

clarifier

posted 3/04/08 @ 11:08 PM EST

Just adding one fact I think most people (pro- or anti-abortion) are unaware of: less than 1% of abortions are the result of rapes. Oftentimes, pro-choice advocates point to this circumstance in defending abortion, and while it does happen, it's not as often as they'd have you think. There was an issue of TIME about a year ago with a big story on abortion in the US, and they had a list of the top ten or twelve reasons given for obtaining abortions, and rape was at the bottom. Most aborted pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.
Post a reply to this comment

more

posted 3/05/08 @ 8:40 AM EST

Originally posted by

Kacie Versaci

 Wow...some of the most heterocentric, patriarchal, right-wing, "family values" fodder, empty, uniformed garbage I have read in a long long time.

Abortions aren't a solution? They are a reprehensible moral action? Really?

How dare you, a MAN, pass judgement on WOMEN who make those choices. You will never in your life EVER be pregnant, let alone pregnant and alone or unprepared or poor or scared. If you find abortion wrong, then don't have one. Not that you ever could, but you get the picture.

I find men who try to speak about abortion, let alone judge women who get them, the lowest of the low.


guess what? there's no such thing as perfect birth control; and all your comments apply to men as well - men should be making these decisions themselves, not relying on their men to "make them wrap it." Then there are the incidents of rape, stranger, date, or family, that certainly take these decisions out of a girl or woman's control...
Post a reply to this comment

woman's perspective

posted 3/05/08 @ 8:44 AM EST

Originally posted by

Kacie Versaci

 Wow...some of the most heterocentric, patriarchal, right-wing, "family values" fodder, empty, uniformed garbage I have read in a long long time.

Abortions aren't a solution? They are a reprehensible moral action? Really?

How dare you, a MAN, pass judgement on WOMEN who make those choices. You will never in your life EVER be pregnant, let alone pregnant and alone or unprepared or poor or scared. If you find abortion wrong, then don't have one. Not that you ever could, but you get the picture.

I find men who try to speak about abortion, let alone judge women who get them, the lowest of the low.


how about the stats on how many women who are married have abortions? or how many women who already have children have abortions? Nothing like the reality of having one to make that kind of decision. And not all women feel guilty - if they do, maybe they made the wrong decision. I was greatly relieved to be able to have one, even though I knew I could love that child. And I was using birth control.
Post a reply to this comment

Alicia

posted 3/05/08 @ 4:36 PM EST

Agreed, not to mention that he's probably thinking of a female when he discuss abstinence, because all know its ok for men to be sexual, but as soon as a women has the sex drive of a man, she's a whore. Double standard much?

People will have sex. End of story dude. Better be safe about it.

And the bigger picture- (should I whisper this?) What's the big deal about having sex anyway?!

Originally posted by

Kacie Versaci

 Wow...some of the most heterocentric, patriarchal, right-wing, "family values" fodder, empty, uniformed garbage I have read in a long long time.

Abortions aren't a solution? They are a reprehensible moral action? Really?

How dare you, a MAN, pass judgement on WOMEN who make those choices. You will never in your life EVER be pregnant, let alone pregnant and alone or unprepared or poor or scared. If you find abortion wrong, then don't have one. Not that you ever could, but you get the picture.

I find men who try to speak about abortion, let alone judge women who get them, the lowest of the low.
Post a reply to this comment

My 2 cents

posted 3/04/08 @ 3:26 PM EST

I wish we would put more emphasis on informed risk/reward decision-making in schools. If a person understands the risks taken on when having sex without contraception or without protection against STIs, they will have sex a lot more carefully. And improved decision-making abilities will hopefully lead teens to be in a better position career-wise and family-wise: one where they perceive they have a lot to lose.

One thing that changes the risk equation is the availability of abortion. Since we're posting studies, does anyone have a study that examines correlation of sexual activity among teens and abortion laws in a particular state over time? That would be interesting (albeit still unlikely to prove causation).

Jumping to a different topic: Christians who interpret the Bible to say that there should never be any sex before marriage (your reading, not mine) just come across as cruel:
- Don't have sex
- If you do you're automatically "promiscuous" (gasp!)
- If you get pregnant, you can't have an abortion...
- But you can have the wholehearted scorn of society

No wonder today's kids don't want to listen to that message.
Post a reply to this comment

Even more 2 cents

posted 3/04/08 @ 3:28 PM EST

Katie, we all hold plenty of opinions on subjects we won't personally experience. Think about it.
Post a reply to this comment

Jessica

posted 3/04/08 @ 4:07 PM EST

Originally posted by

Even more 2 cents

 Katie, we all hold plenty of opinions on subjects we won't personally experience. Think about it.


Yes, everyone can hold opinions on subjects they personally will not experience, but the abortion issue is much more than just an opinion. This is something that people are trying very hard to put into law. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to try to force your opinion on someone else in the form of a law.
Post a reply to this comment

Winfield J. Abbe

posted 3/04/08 @ 4:02 PM EST

Greg: I read your excellent statement. Then I read the many rude comments by the anonymous crowd. Then I read your statement again. It seems to me you are not against sex education per se; you simply are saying abstinence must rule in the end. Everyone must be informed about the well known biology of sex, the ways to prevent it and all the horrible sexual transmitted diseases like syphillis, gonorrhea, aids and all the rest. Frankly, kids today are probably better informed about many of the aspects of sex then we were in my generation years ago. After all, sex is everywhere now. We had pirated 8mm movies from the 1930's but you guys and gals have the internet! However, these sources do not inform about the dangers of sexually transmitted disease or the blow one suddenly faces of becoming pregnant for a few seconds or minutes of self gratification or whatever you want to call it.
Our society in America today is built upon the foundation of hypocrisy. Sex is everywhere, television, media, magazines, films, ... except legally available in brothels with a few exceptions like the state of Nevada. To tell a teenager not to engage in sex is like telling a police officer or police chief not to bother that million dollar pile of cash and drugs they just confiscated from a raid. But we permit the police to operate in secret so we fool ourselves into believing they weren't led into temptation.
Obviously our society learned nothing from prohibition. The war on drugs is a total failure. There is no shortage of drugs. And many people, young and old do not have the self discipline to say no to drugs as they do not have the self discipline to say no to sex. But as one of the rude commenters said, the only certain prevention of becoming pregnant and bringing a new human being into this world is abstinence. None of the other prophylactic methods are perfect. And if one happens to be Catholic, where that religion actually discourages any of the birth control methods, well, just look below the border (and here) at the consequences.
And also look at the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and their "Priests", who have been sexually harrassing children and teenagers with impunity, likely for centuries, but only recently exposed, and the "church" has been permitted to basically buy its way out of criminal prosecutions with money donated for religious purposes! And I just read that they are preparing a visit by the Pope soon! I am told Athens had an illegal brothel called "Effie's" years ago. Politicians, citizens, even police chiefs were observed going in and coming out of there. Some parents even encouraged their teenagers to go there. Prohibition failed. The War on Drugs is a patent failure. Most sex education is certainly not a failure, but as the rude commentators said, it is almost meaningless to tell teenagers not to engage in sex in today's wworld, regardless of what the parents may believe or do in their actions to their children. The pressures of society are too great. I don't think anyone is anymore ready to legalize brothels than they are to legalize drugs. But "legal" drugs are everywhere and some are just as deadly as the illegal ones. Again, our society is today based on a foundation of hypocrisy.
When I was a teenager in small town in California growing up in the 1940's and 1950's, once a medical doctor and his assistant a registered nurse were invited to the local theatre. At the end of the program they showed graphic pictures of what happens in the various states of, for example, syphyllis. Horrible, graphic consequences. A picture is worth a thousand words. No prophylactic is 100%.
And we didn't have AIDS then. And just remember, some of the antibiotics don't always work today because they are so overused by medical doctors. This was a valuable way to present this information by a medical doctor. Isn't funny none of the local medical doctors offer to talk to kids about sex?
But in the end, everyone must be made to understand the very serious matter of bringing another human being into this hypocritical world. Does a new mother, for examaple, have the "right", for example, to impair the intelligence of her child by smoking and drinking while pregnant? I say absolutely not and strict laws must be passed interfering with her privacy if necessary, to prevent this. Many of our problems with public education are likely traceable to this negligent behavior of babies having babies, not to mention illegal drugs too. Having a baby today is an enormous responsibility that even many married couples are not really ready to face, let alone adolescents. Enormous financial resources are required. Yes, society will pay for about 12 years of public education, but the parents are responsible for all the rest. Is it worth a few seconds or minutes of selfish gratification to bring a new life onto this already crowded planet, one which may be subject to a life of misery and pain and suffering, as many in many parts of thw world face, for your selfish gratification? Most animals leave the nest relatively soon after birth; not so for humans. Take a look at pictures of the various states of vinereal disease, ending with loss of reproductive organs and blindness and horrible death. If you must do it, do it the "Clinton-Monica" way.
Post a reply to this comment

David Abbe

posted 3/04/08 @ 4:35 PM EST

Dad, I actually got laughed at in class today because some of the other kids read all your stupid rants on here. They made fun of me for nearly 4 1/2 hours. Please stop... for my sake and yours.
Post a reply to this comment

Stacie Austin

posted 3/04/08 @ 5:30 PM EST

So, first things first, most of these kids that are being taught abstinence only have already had sex, and these youth stop listening when they are being taught abstinence only.

2nd, in an "abstinence" only choice, many youth are turning to oral sex as an outlet for sexual hormones that are raging inside their bodies. Many youth believe that oral sex is not actually "losing" your virginity. Whether you agree with this or not is not that argument. The fact is, people contract STI's with oral sex as well, and if students are being taught abstinence only and not safe sex options, then more STI's are being shared among youth having oral sex.

I am a Christian who would love to live in a world where abstinence was the popular following; however, you need to take off your blinders and understand that sex is going to occur among teenagers and people in general. In the long run, everyone needs safe sex education in order to protect themselves in the future.

What if you stay abstinent until marriage, and then get a divorce? Do you not believe that someone should still use contraceptives, something that person learned back in grade school?

You really, really, really need to take the Human Sexuality course here at UGA and have your eyes opened.
You seem naive to the fact that areas in the United States may be teaching to poor and out of control groups of students who have probably already had sex.


I come from a town, Rockdale County, that became famous for a major syphliss outbreak. You know what the parent's were teahcing their children? ABSTINENCE, when they should have been teaching SAFE sex, and enocouraging abstinence.


SO... to sum this up:
Teach safe sex methods, and encourage abstinence.
Post a reply to this comment

Stacie

posted 3/04/08 @ 5:51 PM EST

Originally posted by

Stacie Austin

 So, first things first, most of these kids that are being taught abstinence only have already had sex, and these youth stop listening when they are being taught abstinence only.

2nd, in an "abstinence" only choice, many youth are turning to oral sex as an outlet for sexual hormones that are raging inside their bodies. Many youth believe that oral sex is not actually "losing" your virginity. Whether you agree with this or not is not that argument. The fact is, people contract STI's with oral sex as well, and if students are being taught abstinence only and not safe sex options, then more STI's are being shared among youth having oral sex.

I am a Christian who would love to live in a world where abstinence was the popular following; however, you need to take off your blinders and understand that sex is going to occur among teenagers and people in general. In the long run, everyone needs safe sex education in order to protect themselves in the future.

What if you stay abstinent until marriage, and then get a divorce? Do you not believe that someone should still use contraceptives, something that person learned back in grade school?

You really, really, really need to take the Human Sexuality course here at UGA and have your eyes opened.
You seem naive to the fact that areas in the United States may be teaching to poor and out of control groups of students who have probably already had sex.


I come from a town, Rockdale County, that became famous for a major syphliss outbreak. You know what the parent's were teahcing their children? ABSTINENCE, when they should have been teaching SAFE sex, and enocouraging abstinence.


SO... to sum this up:
Teach safe sex methods, and encourage abstinence.



Okay, so ignore my typos :)
Post a reply to this comment

Stacie Austin

posted 3/04/08 @ 5:39 PM EST

You need to work on your journalism writing, or writing in general when trying to make a point. Starting with the paragraph about the Mayor, you seem to go off on a separate subject, and start chasing another rabbit.

You need to stick to your topic in order to make it strong and effective; as you introduce another topic, such as the education system in Athens-Clarke county having horrible graduation rates, then you have opened another argument, and have taken away from the strength of your first argument on abstinence.

You need to work on this if you are a political science major. This is not effected arguing, and you seemed to have started to argue a whole other topic while you are in the middle of another.
Post a reply to this comment

Not to be a complete cynic, but...

posted 3/04/08 @ 5:40 PM EST

"America is a society based on the family." According to what? "The American Dream"? Is there any statistical support that this statement is true?
Post a reply to this comment

Heathen

posted 3/04/08 @ 5:43 PM EST

"If you choose to make poor choices, you need to be ready for the ramifications of those actions."

Very true, everyone who makes the poor choice of having permarital sex gets STDs and/ or pregnant. Seriously.
Post a reply to this comment

Stacie..again

posted 3/04/08 @ 6:07 PM EST

Read this article:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/abstinencereport.cfm

This article is about "abstinence-plus" education, and is a middle ground between abstinence education and comprehensive safe sex education.

I am still shaking my head at your article though. First, you don't cover the opposing view, nor do you state if you are for abistinence only or encouraged abstinence, but since you do throw out some uneducated assumptions about America, I am also going to assume you meant abstinence only.

Here is another article, or STUDY (with facts) about this same argument: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/19/1529

"Abstinence intervention participants were less likely to report having sexual intercourse in the 3 months after intervention than were control group participants (12.5% vs 21.5%, P=.02), but not at 6- or 12-month follow-up (17.2% vs 22.7%, P=.14; 20.0% vs 23.1%, P=.42, respectively). Safer-sex intervention participants reported significantly more consistent condom use than did control group participants at 3 months (odds ratio [OR]=3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-9.16) and higher frequency of condom use at all follow-ups."
Conclusion.-- Both abstinence and safer-sex interventions can reduce HIV sexual risk behaviors, but safer-sex interventions may be especially effective with sexually experienced adolescents and may have longer-lasting effects.




I haven't even begun to argue the 901 million other arguments you brought up in your article that was suppose to be focusing on one aspect. You don't use facts, numbers, or any strong supportive material, just your opinon.

If you are majoring in political science, you have a long way to go before you can stand on an argument and argue your opinion effectively.
Post a reply to this comment

Lauren C.

posted 3/04/08 @ 6:57 PM EST

While the sentiment behind this column is admirable, it's also impractical. The fact of the matter is that the "children" you keeps mentioning are rapidly nearing adulthood, and they need to learn how to handle themselves as such. Today's society keeps pushing sex on us, but we rarely hear about the potential negative consequences. If young teenagers, who are especially vulnerable, don't learn how to protect themselves in school, chances are that they won't learn about it at all until it's too late.
Let's face it, teenagers have been having unprotected sex out of wedlock ever since cavemen first discovered puberty, and an "abstinence only" education is never going to change that. This isn't to say that every high school student in Clarke County is going to jump into bed with a fervor usually reserved for rabbits regardless of whether or not they receive sex ed, but those who do make that decision will be better informed as to what they may face afterwards if they're taught about that beforehand.
Yes, teen pregnancy and the risk of contracting HIV or another dangerous STD means that teenagers have to be careful. Yes, abstinence is the only absolutely foolproof way to avoid these consequences. Yes, the decision to have sex is something that should ideally wait until both parties are in a committed relationship and are aware of the potential consequences. But telling teenagers not to have sex and leaving it up to their parents to fill in the details is a flawed plan. Better that a student learn about how sex really works and how to be safe during it than to let him or her get the wrong ideas from friends or the Internet.
Post a reply to this comment

Nicole

posted 3/04/08 @ 8:50 PM EST

Greg should step down from his painfully obvious Christian moral soap-box and crack open some facts about abstinence programs, pregnancy rates and STD transmission rates. According to the World Bank and Advocates for Youth, the US has a higher prevalence of HIV, higher overall STD transmission rates, and higher teen pregnancy rates than any post-industrial democracy; and abstinence-only programs are shown to have no, or worse, negative effects on sexual behavior. Meanwhile in most of those other developed countries, a comprehensive plan is taught - Finnish 15-year-olds are distributed a condom because Finland knows that people who want to have sex (most youths) are going to do it no matter what you tell them.
A comprehensive plan gives you the full picture of one's options to protect oneself from pregnancy and STDs - good (condoms or birth control), better (condoms AND birth control), best (abstinence). There's no reason to leave out vital information for those youths who will explore their human sexuality.
Post a reply to this comment

Ryan

posted 3/04/08 @ 8:53 PM EST

For any interested the original report may be found at

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/comprehensive.pdf

I guess a few things that I thought were interesting. The report was requested from the Administration for Children and Families by Senator Santorum, and Senator Coburn. These individuals are pretty conservative.

While the tone of the report seemed skeptical of comprehensive education it never outright said the programs were failing. Instead it said something to the effect of "the gains were small." I could perceived the tone, but there was no information to consume/critique. I'll be brief; I speculate the report was affected by those that requested it.

Greg; I am a senior psych major. I did not come to college knowing how to read a journal article, so it would be unreasonable to expect that of you. I do now, and all I can tell you is that report would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal. My advice to you is this, expand your horizons. That report is more or less garbage; expand your intellectual diet.
Post a reply to this comment

Abby

posted 3/04/08 @ 11:10 PM EST

According to your facts in the article, 40% of children are born out-of-wedlock. This statistic in addition to the increasing number of teen pregnancies and the proliferation of STDs proves that abstinence-only education is NOT working. Although there may only be "small positive impacts" so far from the new, comprehensive sex ed., small steps are better than standing still; we will see the positive results once these programs become ubiquitous throughout the entire country.
Post a reply to this comment

Concerned

posted 3/05/08 @ 1:58 AM EST

Mr. Wilson, with all due respect, this is a condescendingly narrow-minded view that proves you cannot see beyond the scope of your own experience. Abstinence-only education is not education; it is ignorance. Your conservative ideology is detrimental to society, but I would never expect anything more from a Demosthenian.
Post a reply to this comment

WOW

posted 3/05/08 @ 3:38 AM EST

I agree with most of the responses already given. I just would like to add that the R&B should refrain from letting freshmen write articles on subjects in which they have no education or training. Mr. Wilson's major is listed as Political Science, yet as a freshman the most Mr. Wilson has taken is POLS 2000 which is by no means a policy class. Let's have debate in the R&B but lets make it informed and educated debate rather than the ignorant and poorly written article here.
Post a reply to this comment

Mary Anda

posted 3/05/08 @ 11:05 AM EST

School is where you get your education. Home or church is where you get your values.
it is not up to any school board to decide what is 'right' or 'wrong' for anyone.
We can't depend on public schools to "raise" our children for us, and I know when the time comes that I have children I will take the responsibility of telling them how I feel about the subject, and letting them know how I expect them to behave.
The problem with abstinance-only education is that there are a lot of parents who are too embarassed or frightened to talk to their children about the realities of sex, and these kids go out into the world unprepared.
Schools need sex-ed that tells them the facts. Let the parents do the rest.
Post a reply to this comment

Flying Speghetti Monster

posted 3/05/08 @ 12:20 PM EST

According to my god, there is no reason to wait until marriage to have sex. I don't see any reason to teach my children your religion.
Post a reply to this comment

TJ

posted 3/05/08 @ 3:12 PM EST

Hey kiddo,

Before ACC moved to comprehensive sex education FROM abstinence Ed, one out of every five women in Athens had been pregnant at least once before the age of 20. if you're of a lower socioeconomic background (which most of the PERMANENT county residents are, and not Bible-thumping bigots who are only here for four years), then that number jumped to 1 in 3.

Realize this: your morals don't fit the whole world. Sex runs rampant through the thoughts of 98% of most teens, that's just the way it is. Moral council and spiritual platitudes won't do the trick.

Kids are going to experiment whether your church likes it or not. Our best bet in a RESPONSIBLE society is at least to teach them how to best protect themselves in the inevitable, and not pretend like they'll never try.
Post a reply to this comment

Alicia

posted 3/05/08 @ 4:30 PM EST

"Our sexual education needs to encourage personal responsibility along with abstinence. If you choose to make poor choices, you need to be ready for the ramifications of those actions."

You just proved the Board's point: children should be taught the correct and safe methods, should they choose to engage in sexual activity. Or, we can just scare them away from it, hope they won't do it. But in all likelihood, let's get real, most kids are sexual active before marriage, so they should be educated on the potential risks, diseases, pregnancy issues, etc.

Instead of resorting to biblical theology to justify a GOVERNMENTAL policy, maybe you should think in reality, which is people are sexual, there are some risks involved, and so they should learn the proper safety precautions.
Post a reply to this comment

Natassia

posted 3/05/08 @ 8:23 PM EST

If women who get knocked up as a result of contraception or wahtever. Then someone who is in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt (which is illegal) should have to be left there. I mean, they knew the risks and didn't abide by them!
Post a reply to this comment
  • Displaying 1 - 44 of 44

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

 

 

Advertisement

Poll

Hmm, what to make of Kentucky vs. Georgia:
Submit Vote

View Results



Advertisement