NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's face it: humans are instinctual creatures. Teenagers are especially instinctual, with raging hormones and desires burbling under the surface in a sea of morass just waiting to spill out in spurts of creamy joy. I know, as I am a teenager. The sex drive is incredibly strong in teenagers, for, in general, teens are the healthiest people to have children.(Or at least this would be true were we still having a diet provided by natural foraging and hunting as opposed to the lovely processed foods made for us by dozens of corporations today in civilized society.) As such, teens will have sex, whether we like it or not. Refusing to face this fact is foolish and naive. Sexual education, therefore, must be centered on safe sex, not preventing sex. Further, birth control methods, such as the "pill" and the condom should be made freely available to teens. Some say this would encourage more sex. No, it won't. It will simply make what has, does, and will always go on safer.

But sex makes baby Jesus cry. :(

But seriously, I agree.

It I believe has been shown (although I do not believe I can find the figures now)

compared to groups of teenagers that had:

abstinance only education
no sex education of substance
preventative education

there was no substantial difference in either the rate of teenage sex or teenage pregnancy between the first and second groups.

There was a slight INCREASE in the rate of teenage sex, but a marked decrease in the rate of teenage pregnancy, in the third group, compared to the other two.

If the goal of abstenance education is to prevent pregnancy and STDs, it fails in both regards.

Preventative education is FAAAR more effective at preventing pregnancy and STDs, but has proven ineffective (and actually conversly the opposite) and reducing teen sex period.

If ones goal is to prevent STDs/pregnancy then for god's sake teach prevention. If the goal is to prevent teenage sex...well...save the tax dollars and do nothing at all for all the good abstinence only education does.

But sex makes baby Jesus cry. :(


What a terrible image. I agree about the sex ed though. The main problem is that the people in charge seem to think that sex itself is the problem, not STD's and pregnancy. They don't particularly care if people get sick or pregnant, they just think sex is dirty and evil. And how the hell od they manage to spend so much money on abstinence only education? If the only thing theyteach about sex is not to do it, then anone could teach the class, and it would only take a few minutes. Then they could use the money to give everyone free condoms like they do here.

abstinance only education
no sex education of substance
preventative education
Those aren't the only three options, however. Of far more importance to any of these is bringing an end to the sexualised culture in which we live. Only by ending the attitude that 'any kid who hasn't had sex by 14 is a freak' that dominates in school's today can we hope to end STD's/teenage pregnancy.

The constant exposure of children to adult material is what causes these infections to spread, not whether or not we tell them to wear a condom.

The constant exposure of children to adult material is what causes these infections to spread, not whether or not we tell them to wear a condom.

So you are saying pornography is infected with something?

Anyway, though not 100% the reason, one of the things is that it is blown out of proportion. In the past people were sexually active just as early or maybe just slighty later (and some cases younger) than they are today. All that happens now is we dont expect 14-18 year olds to be married or be responsible for anything. In the past kings often came of age by 14 (ie considered fit to rule), and plenty of wives were married by age 16 (hell there is at least one occorance at age 8, but then they wouldnt have been expected to consumate the marriage just yet, but by age 14, yeah, I imagine so). Young people having sex is nothing new, its just that for a short period of history (late 19th century-60s) this was not as true, and now we seem to think it was always like that. All that has really happened is that the age when marriage normally happens has risen. Now I am not saying that concern about teenage underage sex isnt something to be concerned about, but we should stop blowing it out of proportion and also realise it is nothing new. Teenage sex is not a product of the modern world, if anything, at least for a time, the modern world reduced it.

Those aren't the only three options, however. Of far more importance to any of these is bringing an end to the sexualised culture in which we live. Only by ending the attitude that 'any kid who hasn't had sex by 14 is a freak' that dominates in school's today can we hope to end STD's/teenage pregnancy.

The constant exposure of children to adult material is what causes these infections to spread, not whether or not we tell them to wear a condom.
OH NO THE KIDS SAW SOME BOOBIES SO THEY'RE GONNA BE SCARRED FOR LIFE!

That is idiotic. You're talking censorship and "protection" of kids. I say grow up and learn that kids don't need to be protected and kept "innocent." Doing so typically makes that kid unprepared for life.

Those aren't the only three options, however. Of far more importance to any of these is bringing an end to the sexualised culture in which we live. Only by ending the attitude that 'any kid who hasn't had sex by 14 is a freak' that dominates in school's today can we hope to end STD's/teenage pregnancy.

The constant exposure of children to adult material is what causes these infections to spread, not whether or not we tell them to wear a condom.
I think I might sort of agree with you, maybe, a bit (indecisive, moi?).

If who's-shagging-whom stops being such a big deal, and sex stops being the Penultimate Goal of Humanity whilst also being demonised as the Ultimate Evil (both of which make it cool, I think), then people of all ages will be able to think about it a bit more rationally.

Giving good, accurate advice on contraception and STDs is absolutely essential, of course.

Fourteen, though? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration ;)

The same with the zero-tolerance attitude towards alcohol. Tabooing something only makes it more exciting. Many people seem to be trying to make their own morals prevail over natural instinct. Why... is another issue.

Let's face it: humans are instinctual creatures. Teenagers are especially instinctual, with raging hormones and desires burbling under the surface in a sea of morass just waiting to spill out in spurts of creamy joy. I know, as I am a teenager. The sex drive is incredibly strong in teenagers, for, in general, teens are the healthiest people to have children.(Or at least this would be true were we still having a diet provided by natural foraging and hunting as opposed to the lovely processed foods made for us by dozens of corporations today in civilized society.) As such, teens will have sex, whether we like it or not. Refusing to face this fact is foolish and naive. Sexual education, therefore, must be centered on safe sex, not preventing sex. Further, birth control methods, such as the "pill" and the condom should be made freely available to teens. Some say this would encourage more sex. No, it won't. It will simply make what has, does, and will always go on safer.

I think that it would be better to have better parents who not only teach you about sex, but about relationships, etc.

Then the state wouldn't have to worry about it as much.

I, for one, have already taught my children about "safe" (it's not as safe as the word implies) sex, and more.

Preventing sex is a foolish goal - people eventually get to the point where they have sex. Once again, parents have to be involved enough with their children to have a handle on when they're starting to have sex.

Thinking that the government can solve all your problems is the first step to disaster.

I think that it would be better to have better parents who not only teach you about sex, but about relationships, etc.

Then the state wouldn't have to worry about it as much.

I, for one, have already taught my children about "safe" (it's not as safe as the word implies) sex, and more.

Preventing sex is a foolish goal - people eventually get to the point where they have sex. Once again, parents have to be involved enough with their children to have a handle on when they're starting to have sex.

Thinking that the government can solve all your problems is the first step to disaster.
You can't teach people about relationships. You can tell them about your own experiences, but that's it. It's something everyone has to learn on their own. Sometimes with an extremely painful lesson...

You can't teach people about relationships. You can tell them about your own experiences, but that's it. It's something everyone has to learn on their own. Sometimes with an extremely painful lesson...

You can certainly help them by giving them a heads up, and helping them through the rough spots.

You can certainly help them by giving them a heads up, and helping them through the rough spots.
Let me tell you from my own experiences: people do not listen to head ups about relationships. Ever. At all. No matter how much experience you have with something, or how clear you make your case, they won't listen. I've been on both sides of this fence more than once, so I do know what I speak of here.

I have a question - and I think a sensible one - Why can't teenagers gave sex if they're protected from STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

"It's bad that teenagers have sex, even with condoms or whatever on" is a line that I've heard a lot, with no real reasoning behind it.

Why not let people express their love?

So you are saying pornography is infected with something?
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Full marks. :rolleyes:

I have a question - and I think a sensible one - Why can't teenagers gave sex if they're protected from STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

"It's bad that teenagers have sex, even with condoms or whatever on" is a line that I've heard a lot, with no real reasoning behind it.

Why not let people express their love?

Because sex is often not love.

And condoms and other means of preventing pregnancy are not 100%.

Say you end up pregnant - now what do you do? You're both 15 years old.

I have a question - and I think a sensible one - Why can't teenagers gave sex if they're protected from STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

"It's bad that teenagers have sex, even with condoms or whatever on" is a line that I've heard a lot, with no real reasoning behind it.

Why not let people express their love?
Because sex is bad! It's an evil sin made to tempt you into going to Hell! :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I wouldn't call most teenage sex expressions of love so much as carnal pleasure. That's okay too, though, since there is no god anyway so there is no sin. There are the occasional teenage acts of sexual love though. They are few and far inbetween, but they're there.

Because sex is often not love.

Maybe if people are getting taken advantage of, yes, but that's often not the case, and the people who do that will do it regardless of the law.

My partner and I were in a relationship, and a steady one, for what... 2 years before she reached her sixteenth birthday and was hence legal for consent. That's a fair bit of waiting, to be honest, especially when both people in the relationship were (and still are) pretty mature.

And condoms and other means of preventing pregnancy are not 100%.

The condom and the pill are about 99.9% effective at protecting against pregnancy, and it's not difficult to get emergency contraception or even an abortion, although I understand that that can be a hard choice for a person to make.

Say you end up pregnant - now what do you do? You're both 15 years old.

Get your parents/guardians to help out a bit, and try to get a decent education, whilst balancing it out with childcare. That way, when your child's at a school age, both parents can afford to get jobs and move away from their own parents.

The constant exposure of children to adult material is what causes these infections to spread, not whether or not we tell them to wear a condom.

I have made an assumption that you mean "adult material" to be pornography, or sex-filled mainstream film.

Well, prove it. Children do not go "I see boobies, therefore I must have boobies." Children have a "if you're a virgin you're a loser" attitude because of the combination of the inherent insecurity that overprotective personal-moral-pushers force on them (not willingly, of course), and competition for what their instincts tell thim is their ultimate goal in life. To blame the awareness of that little thing called sexual intercourse in culture on the presence of a single or a couple of sex-related objects that is seen with extreme infrequency by most people, let alone children, is absurd.

And anyway, do not blame culture for giving children an image of what their parents have the power to veto. It is the parents' responsiblity for how their children grow up, and to conveniently eliminate an entire object of a culture, whether anybody else other than you yourself dislike it or not, to push the morals of one person onto another, is closed-minded and ridiculously insecure in itself - the very thing that causes most of the world's problems on a psychological and instinctual level.

Because sex is often not love..
And so long as the distinction is made there is no problem.
And condoms and other means of preventing pregnancy are not 100%.

Say you end up pregnant - now what do you do? You're both 15 years old.
If you've had a halfway decent education in the subject, and have thought rationally about your actions, you 1) know no contraception is 100% effective and 2) know the options available should the worst happen.

Life involves taking risks. There is nothing anybody can do to avoid that, they can just make decisions on whether they think the risks are worthwhile. Thus, it is important that the risks are accurately given.

The condom and the pill are about 99.9% effective at protecting against pregnancy,
Incorrect. The pill and IUD are "over 99%" effective when used properly. Male condoms max out at 98% when used properly. This is according to BBC Health. I've heard lower numbers for condoms for "typical use" from other sources.

I have made an assumption that you mean "adult material" to be pornography, or sex-filled mainstream film.

Well, prove it. Children do not go "I see boobies, therefore I must have boobies." Children have a "if you're a virgin you're a loser" attitude because of the combination of the inherent insecurity that overprotective personal-moral-pushers force on them (not willingly, of course), and competition for what their instincts tell thim is their ultimate goal in life. To blame the awareness of that little thing called sexual intercourse in culture on the presence of a single or a couple of sex-related objects that is seen with extreme infrequency by most people, let alone children, is absurd.

And anyway, do not blame culture for giving children an image of what their parents have the power to veto. It is the parents' responsiblity for how their children grow up, and to conveniently eliminate an entire object of a culture, whether anybody else other than you yourself dislike it or not, to push the morals of one person onto another, is closed-minded and ridiculously insecure in itself - the very thing that causes most of the world's problems on a psychological and instinctual level.
Here here! This is why, when I have kids, I'll be as open-minded with them as possible. Good show, sir. Good show.

What I find interesting is the implicit assumption that kids haven't been having pre-maritual sex for pretty much the entire history of humankind. You'd think that this was only a recent thing! Or that people haven't been trying to cut down on it, increase 'virgin up to the marrage-bed' numbers, and all that for centuries.

If we haven't figured out a way to do that by now (beyond chastity belts and killing off non-virgins by angry husbands), isn't it about time to ask ourselves if we aren't trying for the impossible?

Incorrect. The pill and IUD are "over 99%" effective when used properly. Male condoms max out at 98% when used properly. This is according to BBC Health. I've heard lower numbers for condoms for "typical use" from other sources.

Ah ok. That's still very, very high as a percentage, though.

Let's face it: humans are instinctual creatures. Teenagers are especially instinctual, with raging hormones and desires burbling under the surface in a sea of morass just waiting to spill out in spurts of creamy joy. I know, as I am a teenager. The sex drive is incredibly strong in teenagers, for, in general, teens are the healthiest people to have children.(Or at least this would be true were we still having a diet provided by natural foraging and hunting as opposed to the lovely processed foods made for us by dozens of corporations today in civilized society.) As such, teens will have sex, whether we like it or not. Refusing to face this fact is foolish and naive. Sexual education, therefore, must be centered on safe sex, not preventing sex. Further, birth control methods, such as the "pill" and the condom should be made freely available to teens. Some say this would encourage more sex. No, it won't. It will simply make what has, does, and will always go on safer.

Well it's what encouraged many of my freinds to have sex:

Me: So you slept with her and now your mum is upset.
Friend: Well, I did have second thoughts, i know my mum would get upset but i learnt in school that i have a right and i should explore my body and my hormones or i will never learn.
Me: But your not with her anymore.
Friend: Yeah...
Me: The day after
Friend: Yeah...
Me: So you both lost your virginity to something meaningless...
Friend: Well, yeah...
Me: Cool!

Anyway, though not 100% the reason, one of the things is that it is blown out of proportion. In the past people were sexually active just as early or maybe just slighty later (and some cases younger) than they are today. All that happens now is we dont expect 14-18 year olds to be married or be responsible for anything. In the past kings often came of age by 14 (ie considered fit to rule), and plenty of wives were married by age 16 (hell there is at least one occorance at age 8, but then they wouldnt have been expected to consumate the marriage just yet, but by age 14, yeah, I imagine so). Young people having sex is nothing new, its just that for a short period of history (late 19th century-60s) this was not as true, and now we seem to think it was always like that. All that has really happened is that the age when marriage normally happens has risen. Now I am not saying that concern about teenage underage sex isnt something to be concerned about, but we should stop blowing it out of proportion and also realise it is nothing new. Teenage sex is not a product of the modern world, if anything, at least for a time, the modern world reduced it.
to go along with this...

a century ago (maybe a century and a half) the age when a girl got her first period was around 16. she was married by 20, probably by 18.

now the average age is 10, with many girls starting at 8 or 9. then they dont get married until they are 25. thats a hell of a long wait.

you may not have noticed this but the rate of teen virginity is UP and the rate of teen pregnancy is DOWN. my thought on this is that its because "abstinence" is about vaginal intercourse. advising teens to use alternate forms of sex--oral sex for example--satisfies those nasty nasty urges without making babies. (not that it stops stds but there is only so much you can do without giving out facts). just my thoughts of course but im suspecting that all those abstinence teachers arent as prudish as you are assuming they are.

What I find interesting is the implicit assumption that kids haven't been having pre-maritual sex for pretty much the entire history of humankind. You'd think that this was only a recent thing! Or that people haven't been trying to cut down on it, increase 'virgin up to the marrage-bed' numbers, and all that for centuries.

If we haven't figured out a way to do that by now (beyond chastity belts and killing off non-virgins by angry husbands), isn't it about time to ask ourselves if we aren't trying for the impossible?


Errr.... for a rather substantial part of our history, marriages were arranged prior to female puberty. ( And it still is done that way for a large part of the global population. )

Let's face it: humans are instinctual creatures. Teenagers are especially instinctual, with raging hormones and desires burbling under the surface in a sea of morass just waiting to spill out in spurts of creamy joy. I know, as I am a teenager. The sex drive is incredibly strong in teenagers, for, in general, teens are the healthiest people to have children.(Or at least this would be true were we still having a diet provided by natural foraging and hunting as opposed to the lovely processed foods made for us by dozens of corporations today in civilized society.) As such, teens will have sex, whether we like it or not. Refusing to face this fact is foolish and naive. Sexual education, therefore, must be centered on safe sex, not preventing sex. Further, birth control methods, such as the "pill" and the condom should be made freely available to teens. Some say this would encourage more sex. No, it won't. It will simply make what has, does, and will always go on safer.

I'm a teen too. Get over yourself. :headbang:

I'm a teen too. Get over yourself. :headbang:
Aren't you special.

All concensual sex is love in a more physically invigorating, possibly sadistic form. :)

Those aren't the only three options, however. Of far more importance to any of these is bringing an end to the sexualised culture in which we live. Only by ending the attitude that 'any kid who hasn't had sex by 14 is a freak' that dominates in school's today can we hope to end STD's/teenage pregnancy.

The constant exposure of children to adult material is what causes these infections to spread, not whether or not we tell them to wear a condom.

You are talking utter rubbish, and, I suspect you know it.

Children raised around nudity are no more likely to be 'sexual' than children raised around so-called 'victorian' values (which are a joke to anyone who looked at what the Victorians were DOING while they were 'preaching'). And yet, rightwing prudishness now means network tv gets punitive legal action if a nipple is seen.

We don't live in a 'sexualised' culture... we ARE 'sexualised' creatures... it is how we are built. It is nonsensical to suggest that we are MORE likely to be 'sexual' creatures because we once saw porn.... we ALL want sex, MOST of the time.

You are talking utter rubbish, and, I suspect you know it.

Children raised around nudity are no more likely to be 'sexual' than children raised around so-called 'victorian' values (which are a joke to anyone who looked at what the Victorians were DOING while they were 'preaching'). And yet, rightwing prudishness now means network tv gets punitive legal action if a nipple is seen.

We don't live in a 'sexualised' culture... we ARE 'sexualised' creatures... it is how we are built. It is nonsensical to suggest that we are MORE likely to be 'sexual' creatures because we once saw porn.... we ALL want sex, MOST of the time.
You see, this is called 'making an argument that wasn't there orginally because it suits me more.'

Where did I say 'raise children to Victorian values?' Or that legal action should be taken if a nipple is seen?

I argued that culture pressures children into sex, whether they are ready for it or not. It's nothing to do with whether they 'saw porn and wanted sex'; it is to do with teen magazines and television programmes that say 'if you're not having sex, you're weird'.

Because sex is often not love.

And condoms and other means of preventing pregnancy are not 100%.

Say you end up pregnant - now what do you do? You're both 15 years old.

I love sex, but have never been in love. If teenagers want to have sex then as long as they use protection I dont see the problem. Its the most fun thing someone can do, and it doesnt cost any money, and if you use condoms correctly nothing bad happens.

Because sex is often not love.

So, because some teenagers have sex without love, we should stop all teenagers from having sex?

No. Instead we teach them to have sex with people they love. We know they'll have sex whatever we say. But they can at least be intelligent about who they have sex with, and how.


And condoms and other means of preventing pregnancy are not 100%.

Say you end up pregnant - now what do you do? You're both 15 years old.
That's why there is emergency contraception, and that abortions are legal. For the off chance that the 99.99% effective combination of condoms AND the pill fail.

You see, this is called 'making an argument that wasn't there orginally because it suits me more.'

Where did I say 'raise children to Victorian values?' Or that legal action should be taken if a nipple is seen?

I argued that culture pressures children into sex, whether they are ready for it or not. It's nothing to do with whether they 'saw porn and wanted sex'; it is to do with teen magazines and television programmes that say 'if you're not having sex, you're weird'.

And, THAT is an artifact of your own imagination.

Kids say that EVERYTHING is 'weird'... it takes a particularly skewed perspective to try to argue that that is a 'sexualised' element of our culture.

Look at most other simian lifeforms. Hell, look at Bonobos. We're distant cousins of theirs, having evolved from a similar ancestor, and are just as sexual as they are. We just sometimes refuse to recognize it, and I don't see why. People say it's "immoral" but I ask: who are you to tell me what is moral and what is not? Why should I follow your morals? The only real moral that makes sense that would be acceptable to all is: "Do as you will, but harm none."

It gets me back to the whole teen sex thing. THEY WILL HAVE SEX WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. SHUT UP AND DEAL WITH IT. Give them the knowledge and ability to fend off STDs and all that jazz, and we'll see both teen pregnancy and teen STD rates go down.

...if anything...I think the Federal age limit in the U.S. should be lowered to sixteen...

Look at most other simian lifeforms. Hell, look at Bonobos. We're distant cousins of theirs, having evolved from a similar ancestor, and are just as sexual as they are. We just sometimes refuse to recognize it, and I don't see why. People say it's "immoral" but I ask: who are you to tell me what is moral and what is not? Why should I follow your morals? The only real moral that makes sense that would be acceptable to all is: "Do as you will, but harm none."

It gets me back to the whole teen sex thing. THEY WILL HAVE SEX WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. SHUT UP AND DEAL WITH IT. Give them the knowledge and ability to fend off STDs and all that jazz, and we'll see both teen pregnancy and teen STD rates go down.

...if anything...I think the Federal age limit in the U.S. should be lowered to sixteen...

I agree completely. And Bonobos are awesome.

...if anything...I think the Federal age limit in the U.S. should be lowered to sixteen...

What age is it?

I once saw an article about an abstinence only school with a pregnancy rate of something like 12%. That was enough for me.

Oh yes, this reminds me, they have developed a vaccine that prevents 70% of all cases of cervical cancer - the 70% gotten from HPV through sexual intercoure. The rightwing fucktards oppose the vaccination because.. you guessed it.. it encourages women to have sex! "Hey, I'm going to be more promiscuous because I won't be getting cervical cancer, because we all know I thought about that every time I fucked some one."

Perhaps my biology textbook had the right idea.

(paraphrased)
"The best way to avoid STDs is to abstain from sex before marriage. Failing that, a condom may be used."

If practiced, abstinence is 100% effective, but it isn't always practiced. So students should know about condoms and such.

Because sex is often not love.

And condoms and other means of preventing pregnancy are not 100%.

Say you end up pregnant - now what do you do? You're both 15 years old.
Well, you pool your money and go get an abortion.

[quote]
"The best way to avoid STDs is to abstain from sex before marriage.

Did it actually say sex before marriage? If so why? Why particularly before marriage. The only true way to be certain not to get an STD is not to have sex at all, not even if you are married to them. You dont know what they have been up to necessarily.

Personally I think it is probably best not to have random casual sex, but aside from that, if you take the pracautions, what should be wrong with that.

where i come from (plymouth uk) the school with the highest teen pregnancy rate is the major religious school in the area, a single sex environment that preaches abstinence. the schools with the highest teen sexual activity actually have much lower teen pregnancy rates.

what is so different about the children in these schools?

in the abstinence-school, the girls are relatively devoid of information, not just on sex, but on the male portion of the population in general. information spread via the student grapevine in this school is of the worst kind, absolutely ignorant information. these girls go nuts over every male teacher (its basically their only contact) and then when on holiday meet some guy and go nuts over him, end up having sex and get pregnant because they havent a clue what their doing. on top of that they arent prepared for the emotional turmoil that can occur because of sex, and have no one to talk to about it except their equally ignorant school friends

in the comparison school its a mixed sex environment. exposure to the opposite sex leads the children to be by FAR more blase about them. yes their is alot of sexual activity, but because of the more honest information espoused by the school (which does use the line, "dont do it, but if your going to, here is how to do it safely") the teenagers are by far more aware of the dangers, not just when it comes to STI's and pregnancy, but also emotionally.

now here's the thing, why not go for a total sexual education system. teach abstinence, as ONE method not only of contraception and disease prevention, but also as a path to emotional maturity, and praise those that succeed at it. on the other hand, also teach about contraception, and the emotional and physical side effects of sexual activity, and that not abstaining is NOT immoral, and not actually failing, but merely a different lifestyle choice. that way the teenagers can chose to abstain, not feel guilty if they dont, and be prepared for the roller coaster that their first relationships will undoubtedly be.

hell, in an ideal world I would espouse the tuition of sex on all levels, including the act itself by trained professionals (if you mention the pythons "meaning of life" here...). the thing is, so many people just arent ready for what sex means, and i dont just mean at 13 or 14, i also mean at 30 or 40 there are people who cant deal with it.

take the guilt away, the sexual "revolution's" of the last century have changed the western world forever. sex is fun, sex can lead to greater depth of interpersonal relationships (pardon the pun). it can also lead to illness, death, and major emotional fuckups.

the worst emotional problems ive seen come from the extreme's, the pro-abstinent individual who cant deal with the emotions that are connected with sex, and the person who uses sex to (erroneously) improve their self worth temporarily.

im sort of rambling here and i apologise, its an odd topic to discuss, ultimately abstinence tends to lead to guilt and feelings of self-loathing, 2 emotions that should NEVER be associated with sex, which although messy, noisy and ultimately ugly is at the same time beautiful, empowering and incredible.

darkside

BTW, as an addendum, condoms are not 100% effective yes, however that measure is worked out thus:

take lots of sexually active couples
give them free condoms and get them to sign an agreement to use them

1 year later 1% have fallen pregnant or acquired an STD
thats where the 99% comes from

additionally upon further research, of those that fell pregnant/caught STD's the majority admitted to errors in the use of the contraceptive, or that their was potential for a different vector such as oral sex.

darkside

What a terrible image. I agree about the sex ed though. The main problem is that the people in charge seem to think that sex itself is the problem, not STD's and pregnancy. They don't particularly care if people get sick or pregnant, they just think sex is dirty and evil. And how the hell od they manage to spend so much money on abstinence only education? If the only thing theyteach about sex is not to do it, then anone could teach the class, and it would only take a few minutes. Then they could use the money to give everyone free condoms like they do here.

where is that?:confused:

BTW, as an addendum, condoms are not 100% effective yes, however that measure is worked out thus:

take lots of sexually active couples
give them free condoms and get them to sign an agreement to use them

1 year later 1% have fallen pregnant or acquired an STD
thats where the 99% comes from

additionally upon further research, of those that fell pregnant/caught STD's the majority admitted to errors in the use of the contraceptive, or that their was potential for a different vector such as oral sex.

darkside
Really, no matter what the study was, 99% is about as close as you'll come to guaranteed protection. Would anybody really believe that a condom is 100% effective anyway? Think of the words human error and some of the people you know for a fact have sex lives. You know, the ones whos shoe laces are never tied properly?

Why not just have a sexual education program that says that if having sex, then condoms, the pill etc are very effective ways to avoid stds/pregnancy, and then also say that another option is abstinence which is 100% effective? Is it really that difficult?

yeah i know, it was just a point for reference, ive heard pro-abstinence groups point to the 99% on the side of a box of condoms and say "see they dont work that well neway"

and on another note, yes, most pregnancies my friends have had recently have occured due to stupidity or momentary lack of reason.

:headbang:

darkside

Oh, and the whole teaching them condoms dont work is about the only thing they pick up.

There was a survey of kids after a sexual education course based on abstinance, where they had been told that condoms were not 100% effective and that the aids virus could slip through.

Now... what was the response? "OH, maybe we shouldnt have sex?" Erm.... no, it was "Oh, there is little point using condoms then".

So... great... abstinance education is so useful. Doesnt stop people having sex, just teaches them to do it dangerously.

where is that?:confused:

Huddersfield (England). well the university anyway. just walk into the doctors and ask for condoms and they hand them over. you dont need a gun or anything.

Really, no matter what the study was, 99% is about as close as you'll come to guaranteed protection. Would anybody really believe that a condom is 100% effective anyway? Think of the words human error and some of the people you know for a fact have sex lives. You know, the ones whos shoe laces are never tied properly?

All the more reason to combine protections.

All the more reason to combine protections.
No! It's much better to pretend not to have sex, but secretly do it without protection! :rolleyes:

Oh, and the whole teaching them condoms dont work is about the only thing they pick up.

There was a survey of kids after a sexual education course based on abstinance, where they had been told that condoms were not 100% effective and that the aids virus could slip through.

Now... what was the response? "OH, maybe we shouldnt have sex?" Erm.... no, it was "Oh, there is little point using condoms then".

So... great... abstinance education is so useful. Doesnt stop people having sex, just teaches them to do it dangerously.

Forget condoms, I find using a Snickers bar wrapper and rubber band works fine. Plus I also get to eat the chocolate bar.

Sweet....