There seems to be rash of "either/or" philosophies going around concerning what, for ease of labling, I will refer to as "abstinenece education." I believe this policy is actually what's holding us back. "We must teach ONLY abstinence," they say, or, "We must teach ONLY 'safe sex.'"
But condoms DON'T always work. Neither does birth control. The particles of most STDs are so small they slip right through the pores on a condom. Using birth control, at all but mostly for long periods of time, sometimes has negative effects on the child when you finally do get pregnant, or makes getting pregnant difficult when you actually want to. The only safe sex really is no sex. That still needs to be taught.
HOWEVER, I think they should ALSO teach about condoms, birth control, etc, but ONLY if it's done in the right way.
That is, it should be explained how most particles of STDs are actually smaller than the pores of a condom, which makes the condoms pretty useless. But how also you should be free to make your own choice, with the advice of friends, family, church, etc. I think "talk to your parents/church/whatever" is something that needs to be emphasized in any teaching on how to stay safe from unwanted pregnancy or STDs, or anything.
And since schools are so interested in the "triangle" or whatever it is of health, mental, physical, and emotional wellbeing, (at least that's what they always emphasized in my health classes) they also need to say something along the lines of, and are you really okay with being with a billion different people before you're married? Even if you only sleep with the people you date, how many people are you going to date? It's not just about health risks, it's about how many times over and over and with how many people you feel comfortable with sharing that most intimate part of yourself.
The other reason abstinence only education doesn't work is because it's taught incorrectly, and/or associated with religion, when it doesn't and shouldn't have to be. Lots of people reject perfectly good ideas just because they're into the whole "let's reject everything Christian" mindset, which is just as ridiculous as abandoning purely secular ideas because they didn't originate within the Christian framework.
Any decent "abstinence" program needs to have a few key elements.
1. The honest and practical reasons on how the only sure way not to be infected or impregnated or become a father is to avoid doing what causes those little problems to begin with.
2. The honest and practical facts on the benefits of condoms and birth control as well as their disadvantages.
3. The truth about abortion. In my personal opinion, we need to teach it's wrong, but just in general, as long as an abstinence class actually told the truth about what it does to the baby, what different stages of abortions are like for the baby, what the effects are on the mother, etc, and, this is very important, as long as it was emphasized that the students should seek advice from an adult they trust on the matter, parents, church, whatever, to help determine their views on abortion. But this portion of the program would have to be very, very neutral, or it wouldn't work at all.
4. The most important part of the program should be one thing I've already mentioned--the emotional health part. Bring out the triangle (as annoying as I found it in class, it is useful) of mental, emotional, and physical health, and ask the students to take a good long, hard look into what they believe and where they might see their lives going. Are you comfortable with sharing yourself with who knows how many people? Do you want to live with the responsibilities of your actions, whether that be the possibilities of pregnancy or STDs, and, since usually these programs are directed at high school/middle school students who live each day drowning in drama, heartbreak when, after all you've done for this guy/girl, you're dumped? I think this factor is often overlooked (I for one don't recall hearing it, and I sat through far too many of these things) and yet it's the most essential. Instead of preaching or even suggesting one value to the student above another, ask the students what their values are. How well do they know themselves, what are they prepared to take on in their lives, and how their actions regarding their sexual life is going to affect everything else.
The most important thing about abstinenence education is the attitude taken towards teaching it. I know how hard it is to get students to care, or to listen, but approaching the teaching of a subject like this with the right frame of mind and purpose can make all the difference in the world.
And last but not least, I'm not sure watching the statistics of teen pregnancy go up or down is a good way to measure the success of such programs.
This is because, for one thing, there are all kinds of factors out there determining what teens do, and an abstinence program isn't going to make or break that no matter how good it is. For example, at a debate tournament a few weekends ago I heard a girl explaining one part of her oratory was about how teen pregnancy is actually responsible. Changing attitudes and multitudes of circumstances aren't taken into account when abstinence only programs are said as failing completely just on the basis of rising teen pregnancy rates. I'm not sure yet what other factors should be taken into acccount when determining the success of the program, but I am giving it serious thought, and if and when I come to a workable solution, will probably do another post.
In the end, if the program is taught correctly, what harm does it do? None at all. And it might even help. It never hurts to try.












Where did you get your information on condoms being pourous and letting STD's through?
flectere si nequeo superos, Achaeronta movebo
Maybe pores is the wrong word, but the molecules of STDs are generally small enough they fit through the smallest spaces on condoms. I heard it at an abstinence lecture our school had this year. And somewhere before, too, probably an earlier abstinence class.
The man giving us the speech had been through it personally; used a condom but got an STD anyway. Lucky for him, it was curable.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Yeah, that's wrong. They are impermeablet to STDs. From what I know that is a scare tactic that is often used in Abstinence education. The statistics that are often quoted are quoted out of context.
flectere si nequeo superos, Achaeronta movebo
The guy was telling the truth when it said it happened to him. Condoms don't prevent STDs, whatever the reasons. If condoms stopped STDs, then there would be a lot fewer STDs in the world today. The big example is AIDS. Even if they stometimes help stop pregnancy, they don't stop other things.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
condoms arent 100% effective or impenetrable to STDs, it says it on the package. Go look if you dont believe me. They offer a huge amount of protection however, making it alot less likely that you'll get a STD.
Many times why condoms fail it is because the person put it on wrong: too tight, too loose, wrong side, etc.
Condoms also break if applied incorrectly.
And hey, even though with high tech stuff everywhere, condoms can still be made incorrectly or have physical flaws created by faulty manufacturing.
So therefore, condoms arent 100% effective, because of stupid users and because of messed up condoms or sometimes just bad luck.
Cigarettes packages promise pleasure not cancer, and sleep aids promise non-addictiveness. Guess how many times those claims are actually -true-. Go look at the official results if you don't believe me.
"Bad luck"? Ie = condoms don't do what they're supposed to.
I'm not saying they don't prevent SOME things, SOME of the time. But as an insightful commenter posted below, there is no such thing as "safe sex."
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Your plan seems like a good idea, but it is like many of the ones i've heard before. They all say lets just teach the facts of it all and then let the students make their own decisions. The thing is, even though it is a good plan, there are still going to be unhappy parents. Some will say I don't want my child knowing about abortion, and others will say I want my child to be taught only "safe sex."
The newest idea i see in your plan, however, is the triangle of physical mental and emotional health. I took health my freshman year and we were never taught anything about that. It sounds like it could actually help in this aspect of teenage health though.
Thanks. I know there's no way to please everyone, and I think that's a shame. It would have varying degrees of success based on where it was being taught and how it was being taught, but I for one would have been happier sitting through such classes/lectures if they had leaned more in this direction. : )
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
It seems everything is about sex these days. So to tell peolple to wait until marriage is unrealistic. These condoms and birth control are only technologies that can help, but everyone knows that they dont always work! I think once a person is responsible to take on the consequences, they should be free to have sex. Marriage is too big of a commitment, and I would hate for someone to get married, just so they can have sex.
Take Care,
Nikki
:) Check out my post:
http://www.progressiveu.org/232338-battle-of-the-sexes-especially-for-engineers
http://www.progressiveu.org/235117-military-appreciation
http://www.progressiveu.org/001148-remakes-keep-or-toss
Anyone who gets married just to have sex is, in my humble opinion, a moron. I wouldn't say marriage is too big of a commitment though. Marriage isn't for everyone of course, but if marriage in general is too big a commitment, there's something terribly wrong with our society.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
I don't think the waiting till marriage thing is completely unrealistic. Most of my friends and I plan on doing that. But I do believe that both ways should be taught becuase most kids wont chose that way. So good thought.
<3Rachael
I don't think the waiting till marriage thing is completely unrealistic. Most of my friends and I plan on doing that. But I do believe that both ways should be taught becuase most kids wont chose that way. So good thought.
<3Rachael
Telling kids they should wait until marriage kind of translates to them into "I am just an unhip middle-aged conservative, and I don't know what I'm talking about. There is a good chance my entire argument is based on the Bible."
Or atleast that's how a lot of the kids at my school think.
Thanks. And good for you. : ) Both ways should be taught because, first, it's a step, and possibly the only step, that is fair and yet might appease the less militant of either end of the extreme on this issue, and also it might give kids the information they need that they can't get anywhere else. It's amazing how few parents talk to their kids, and what you -can't- learn from cable.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
Condoms DO protect agaist MOST STDs, however, their reliance lessens if they tear/break. Also, you have to take into account the different types of conoms and the materials they're made of.
Just here to stick up for sex and promote anti-abstinence.
Insert Shameless Self-Promotion Here -- http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ada-castellon
Again, if condoms actually protected against most STDs, there would be fewer STDs in the world. However, aside from condom promoting companies, rather like cigarette companies pretending nicotine isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer, everyone seems to recognize they don't really help all that much. Otherwise the solution for Africa would be a giant condom selling spree, and I don't doubt for one minute the companies would go for that if they thought it would work, but the product doesn't deliver. I hesitate to bring forth personal examples, I doubt my friends would appreciate it, but I'm not just spouting this off--I've heard the reliable sources, and seen its effects in my own little corner of the world.
Why does everyone assume abstinence means being anti-sex? This could be a whole post in itself...
Abstinence = total safety from STDs and unwanted pregnancy and moral dilemnas and possible psychological repercussions
Sex = risk
Choose abstinence = a personal choice for however long you should decide to make it for to refrain from risky and/or immoral behavior (depending on your point of view) AND, this is the important part, recognizing for yourrself when and where sex is appropriate and safe for you in your life.
Constant and total and absolute self gratification gets one nowhere. Expect possibly a total collapse of civilization. Hey; it happened to the Romans.
--
~I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.~
I agree with the program, it is almost identical to what i was taught in health class some years back. It was insightful and all, but it still didnt stop kids from having sex. Teens are going to have sex eitherway, even if you tell them that you could die or have a baby.
They need to know about safe sex to at least give them some sort of protection. Condoms give some protection, about 97%-99% if applied correctly.
The is no such thing as safe-sex
Using condoms still doesnt make it safe.
the only way to be safe is through abstinence, which should be stressed in the program.
Some of your facts are wacky but I agree that both should be taught!
When I was in high school recently under bush, they use the same scare tactic in the abstinence only class. most of the student who was aware of the scare tactic by condom and birth control decided to not use condom and birth control when they had sex, this cause some of them to get pregnant because they felt guilty and were scare of using condom and birth control.
what would you said to those sexually active teenagers that are having sex but don't use condom or birth control because of the scare tactic use in their abstinence only class.
I don't know where you heard that condoms do not help prevent STD/STIs but you are dead wrong. True, condoms are not perfect, and true, abstinence is the ONLY way to be sure that you do not get pregnant or contract an STI. But saying that condoms do not help prevent STD/STIs is simply wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13999099/
http://aids.about.com/od/hivprevention/a/hivprevent.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/condoms/HQ00463
If you don't believe the first two, I can't believe that you'd argue with one of the best medical resources in the country.