Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pure in heart abstinence only education

1246717

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Actually the religious right don't give two ****s about the size of the government, as long as its a murderous, autocratic theocracy.
    Just as well I'm not of the religious right (or left) then, I guess!!!:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    This is why people like J C are dangerous. He'll happily promote and endorse things like abstinence-only education, contributing to teenage pregnancies, STIs and a few abortions here and there, and then turn around and blame the symptoms instead of the cause, which is himself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    This is why people like J C are dangerous. He'll happily promote and endorse things like abstinence-only education, contributing to teenage pregnancies, STIs and a few abortions here and there, and then turn around and blame the symptoms instead of the cause, which is himself.
    ... Did you not read the quote I posted where 25% of the fall in American teenage pregnancy over the past 10 years was objectively determined to be due to Abstinence Pledges?
    ... and, like I have said, this isn't even taking account of the fact that 75% of teen births in America are to adult women aged 18-19 who are likely to be in stable relationships and have benefitted from an Abstinence Pledge already before they became pregnant as adults.
    ... or the effect that Abstinence Pledges are having on ensuring more responsible and effective use of contraception when teens wait to engage in sex in more stable relationships ... rather than in drunken high risk 'one night stands' in some back alley.

    The proof of which approach is most dangerous is in the results ... and your 'pseudo liberal' programmes are resulting in 100,000 teenage pregnancies in the UK with one fifth of teenagers infected with Chlamydia ... while Abstinence Pledges are independently credited with making a substantial contribution to reducing teenage under-age sex in America.

    ... and I'm not endorsing 'Abstinence only' programmes ... I'm endorsing Abstinence Pledges and any other peer-pressure influencing behaviour that leads to reduced dangerous (and illegal) under-age sex.
    I'm also fully supportive of age-appropriate sex education, including the advantages/disadvantages of all contraceptive methods.
    ... while you guys seem to be happy to sacrifice childrens childhoods and their future health and fertility on the altar of your pseudo-liberal pretensions ... even when such an approach has been evidentially proven to be a disaster!!!

    ... and I'll tell you one thing ... you may sacrifice your own children to such folly ... but Christians will ensure that their children aren't party to the inevitable results when sexually feral children are produced by indoctrinating them into under-age sexual immorality ... in the name of 'liberalism' ... and self-fulfilling ideas like 'they're going to drink, have under-age sex and do drugs anyway'!!!
    The reality is that they're largely not going to do these things, if adults and society at large does all in its power to discourage and prevent such behaviour .. rather than condoning and 'licencing' it.

    We don't make drink, cigarettes and illegal drugs available on demand to our children on the basis that "they're going to do it anyway" ... so why should we tell under-age children that they are going to engage in sex anyway ... and then give them the 'green light' to do so???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    [QUOTE=J C;88162227..........
    ... while you guys seem to be happy to sacrifice childrens childhoods and their future health and fertility on the altar of your pseudo-liberal pretensions ... even when such an approach has been evidentially proven to be a disaster!!!

    .....[/QUOTE]

    Remember this post?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88154764&postcount=69


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    I do ... and unfortunately the Dutch situation isn't as good as the teen birth figures might indicated ... the low Dutch teen birth rate is partially achieved on the back of a 65% Dutch teen abortion rate.

    ... and the incidence of Dutch teenage STD rates continue to rise.

    http://www.youthpolicy.nl/yp/Youth-Policy/Youth-Policy-subjects/Sexual-Health/Fact-and-figures

    While the situation in Holland is significantly better than in the US, there is no room for complacency as the American rates are coming down and are now at an historic low (in part due to Abstinence Pledges)
    http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm
    ... while Dutch STD rates are increasing
    http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/stds-rise-netherlands


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    I do ... and -netherlands

    None of which discounts the fact that the non-abstinence scandanavian model provides better results than abstinence programs.

    Please don't come back re-iterating now debunked nonsense about abstinence, pledges, or any of that nonsense. It's clear what works.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Nodin wrote: »
    None of which discounts the fact that the non-abstinence scandanavian model provides better results than abstinence programs.

    Please don't come back re-iterating now debunked nonsense about abstinence, pledges, or any of that nonsense. It's clear what works.

    While I am by nature and conscience totally against anything which promotes chastity amongst young women, if we are talking about promoting healthy lifestyles which guard against the proliferation of sexually transmitted disease then the idea of abstinence is far from nonsense. While the use of condoms and other preventatives is all very well (and should be promoted for high risk groups especially), their efficacy is proven to be far from what is desirable in the long term.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    While I am by nature and conscience totally against anything which promotes chastity amongst young women, if we are talking about promoting healthy lifestyles which guard against the proliferation of sexually transmitted disease then the idea of abstinence is far from nonsense. While the use of condoms and other preventatives is all very well (and should be promoted for high risk groups especially), their efficacy is proven to be far from what is desirable in the long term.

    It's a nonsense. And pointless, when its possible to have safe sex.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's a nonsense. And pointless, when its possible to have safe sex.

    To you and me perhaps it is pointless; indeed if the idea is to have the freedom to bang as many people as possible then it is an odious idea; but there are sections of society for which the idea of a conservative attitude towards sexuality is a real concern and if abstinence and conscientiousness works for them then who can say it is a bad thing, given that the promotion of "safe sex" through the use of condoms etc. is a dismal failure.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    To you and me perhaps it is pointless; indeed if the idea is to have the freedom to bang as many people as possible then it is an odious idea; but there are sections of society for which the idea of a conservative attitude towards sexuality is a real concern and if abstinence and conscientiousness works for them then who can say it is a bad thing, given that the promotion of "safe sex" through the use of condoms etc. is a dismal failure.


    Given the low rates of pregnancy in states I've mentioned earlier I'm not seeing how it's a "dismal failure".

    If religious folk wish to abstain, that's their own business. They should still be informed of all options however.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,173 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Seriously? You think they are all clued up and most guys know about a girl's menstrual cycle? Do some Googling of teenage based discussion forums and you may find some are more hungry for information than they are for sex.
    J C wrote: »
    ... all sex education programmes that I'm aware of comprehensively cover such 'nuts and bolts' issues ... Could it be that these guys are just bad at Biology ... as it is somewhat unlikely that they slept through the sex ed classes that discussed periods and other items of anatomical interest!!!:)

    The biggest issue is not one of information (although there may be limited exceptions) ... the big issue is one of risky and age-inappropriate sexual behaviour ... and this needs to change for the sake of all of our children.

    It sounds like such change will come first from Christian-ethos schools ... as the Secularists on this thread seem to be more interested in 'rubbishing' it.

    Information is a live issue. I don't know how you can suggest it isn't. The sex education I received was repeated over at least three different school years. We can't just do a one off information dump and hope for the best. It's not scientific, but take a look at a site like www.teenhelp.org and you'll see that sex related posts are marked male/female advice preferred. Both genders want information be it from being shy, or whatever. All options should be presented in an honest, consistent and common sense way. If not, too many will turn to alternate, perhaps less than sound sources.

    As for behaviour modification, see, this is a murky one for me because of how the abstinence camp tends to discusses it. It seems to disproportionately emphasise (and label) behaviour, possibly creating an information deficit on the rest of the issue. And who is the abstinence pledge ultimately serving the interests of? The children, parents, or the political wishes of those who want to continue funding it as the default option?

    I don't believe anyone here is in favour of increasing rates of sexually risky behaviour that'll comprise the emotional health of young people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    I don't believe anyone here is in favour of increasing rates of sexually risky behaviour that'll comprise the emotional health of young people.
    I would think so ... and I also agree that its a multi-fasceted problem ... and there is no 'magic bullet' solution.
    I agree that information is indeed very important but so also are initiatives that help change peer-pressure towards our children waiting until they are over-age before they become sexually active ... and when they do become sexually active, they should be helped to develop behaviours that allows them to do so in a responsible and safe manner.
    I think that we can all learn from each other about what is working and what isn't ... and we should be prepared to adopt ideas that work from all sides on this issue for the sake of all of our children.
    BTW, our only difference, if there is one, on information is that I believe that there is considerable quality information already being provided to our young people in relation to sex and sexuality and of course, where it is lacking, for whatever reason, it should be addressed in a comprehensive, age-appropriate manner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's a nonsense. And pointless, when its possible to have safe sex.
    Safe sex is a multi-fasceted issue ... I would characterise the use of condoms to be the same as a seat belt ... very useful and effective when other safe behaviours accompany its use ... but wearing a seat belt is practically useless and may even create a dangerous false sense of security, if somebody decides to do 200 Km per hour when drunk ... because they think they are 'safe' in all circumstances, when they are wearing a seat belt.

    Similarly, condoms may indeed allow safer sex ... but using a condom with multiple partners when under-age won't protect the young person from the emotional downsides of such behaviour ... and if they are used incorrectly both disease transmission and pregnancy may result.
    Indeed, many STDs may be transmitted even when condoms are used correctly ... because they have other transmission routes, that covering less than 1% of your body surface in micro-thin latex, will not affect.

    Condoms may have a role ... but they are not the 'magic bullet' solution that they are often presented as ... and if their use increases risky behaviour ... they may actually contribute to STD transmission and unwanted pregnancy rather than reducing it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    catallus wrote: »
    While I am by nature and conscience totally against anything which promotes chastity amongst young women, if we are talking about promoting healthy lifestyles which guard against the proliferation of sexually transmitted disease then the idea of abstinence is far from nonsense. While the use of condoms and other preventatives is all very well (and should be promoted for high risk groups especially), their efficacy is proven to be far from what is desirable in the long term.
    I agree with you.

    Abstinence Pledges apply to both boys and girls ... and a key issue in reducing peer pressure to engage in under-age sex is a change in attitudes and behaviour amongst teenage boys.

    It takes two to tango ... and instilling a more responsible, safe and mature attitude towards sex and a more respectful attitude towards young women is critically important, with young men.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Safe sex is a multi-fasceted issue ... I would characterise the use of condoms to be the same as a seat belt ... very useful and effective when other safe behaviours accompany its use ... but wearing a seat belt is practically useless and may even create a dangerous false sense of security, if somebody decides to do 200 Km per hour when drunk ... because they think they are 'safe' in all circumstances, when they are wearing a seat belt.

    When you advocate abstinence-only education, it's like advising someone to never to get in a car, ever.

    You think this keeps them safe from being killed or seriously injured by a car.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    When you advocate abstinence-only education, it's like advising someone to never to get in a car, ever.

    You think this keeps them safe from being killed or seriously injured by a car.

    I think that is a gross over-simplification of what the poster is describing and indeed a mis-representation of what abstinence education is about.

    I was about to post a bit earlier about how this subject is complicated, given that it deals with the real-world manifestation of sexual activity, but it seems that a lot of people just want to believe that "free-love" is the be-all-and-end-all of what sexual desire can be about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    catallus wrote: »
    I think that is a gross over-simplification of what the poster is describing and indeed a mis-representation of what abstinence education is about.

    I was about to post a bit earlier about how this subject is complicated, given that it deals with the real-world manifestation of sexual activity, but it seems that a lot of people just want to believe that "free-love" is the be-all-and-end-all of what sexual desire can be about.

    Who said anything about free love? What is it, anyway? I'm in a committed monogamous relationship for life and never took an abstinence pledge, nor did anyone I know, most of whom are also in committed monogamous relationships. Just because you don't take a pledge doesn't mean you're sleeping around. And what's wrong with not being abstemious anyway, once you're taking the right precautions and acting sensibly?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    When you advocate abstinence-only education, it's like advising someone to never to get in a car, ever.

    You think this keeps them safe from being killed or seriously injured by a car.
    I'm not advocating abstinence only education ... I'm advocating a comprehensive sex education ... including the moral, social and psychosexual reasons for Abstinence as a viable alternative to high risk under-age sexual activity.

    Your driving analogy is a good one ... no parent would give the keys of their car to a 14 year old and let them drive to a car park to meet up with other 14 year-olds to 'spin their wheels' to their hearts content, on the basis that they would find the keys anyway, if they weren't given them.

    All stages in learning to drive instill respect for other road users as well as an appreciation for both the dangers and priveliges of driving - and we have an 'Abstinence Pledge' of sorts that socially and legally sanctions under-age driving.

    Of course the objective of all of this is to produce safe responsible drivers who aren't a danger to themselves or anybody else ... and the objective of sex education should be to ensure that young men and women have sexual behaviour that isn't a danger to themselves or anybody else ... and this includes the ability to say 'no' and to show respect for themselves and those with whom they interact socially!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lazygal wrote: »
    Who said anything about free love? What is it, anyway? I'm in a committed monogamous relationship for life and never took an abstinence pledge, nor did anyone I know, most of whom are also in committed monogamous relationships. Just because you don't take a pledge doesn't mean you're sleeping around. And what's wrong with not being abstemious anyway, once you're taking the right precautions and acting sensibly?
    You're an adult Lazygal ... what we're talking about are vulnerable young people being peer-pressured into unwise and unsafe sexual encounters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    J C wrote: »
    You're an adult Lazygal ... what we're talking about are vulnerable young people being peer-pressured into unwise and unsafe sexual encounters.

    How do you know who's impressionable and vulnerable? How impressionable are those who take abstinence pledges?


    I never took one and never needed to. Who do you think needs to take such pledges? And how do they address the needs of those who want to have safe sex?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    The education is aimed at young people, who are all by definition impressionable; the system came about as a form of social control in the face of huge gathering pressure on the youths to become involved in sexual activity at ever younger ages and with the advent of widely available porn which glamourises all kinds of sexual activity (including unsafe practices) it is no real wonder that some parts of society would turn to a more conservative approach to youthful sexual activity.

    It all comes down to control; it just so happens that the current abstinence campaign is a reaction to the idea that kids should be made responsible for their own sexual activity when they have no real idea about how to protect themselves, regardless of all of the education thrown at them and all the free condoms available.

    Just because you didn't need it doesn't mean there are not a lot out there who benefit from it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    The education is aimed at young people, who are all by definition impressionable; the system came about as a form of social control in the face of huge gathering pressure on the youths to become involved in sexual activity at ever younger ages and with the advent of widely available porn which glamourises all kinds of sexual activity (including unsafe practices) it is no real wonder that some parts of society would turn to a more conservative approach to youthful sexual activity.........

    It's puberty. Unless there's a cure for that, I'd suggest once more the Scandanavian approach.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lazygal wrote: »
    How do you know who's impressionable and vulnerable? How impressionable are those who take abstinence pledges?
    Under-age children certainly fit into the 'vulnerable' category ... and even young adults who are being peer-pressured into engaging in sexual activity that they feel they aren't ready for.

    lazygal wrote: »
    I never took one and never needed to.
    Good for you ... and I never did either ... but we're living in different times, certainly to when I was a teenager.

    lazygal wrote: »
    Who do you think needs to take such pledges? And how do they address the needs of those who want to have safe sex?
    As I have said, Abstinence Pledges are only one initiative in a multi-fasceted approach to keeping our young people safe.

    Young people who are mature enough (and old enough) to enter a stable monogamous relationship are not the people likey to benefit from (or indeed need) to take an Abstinence Pledge.

    When it comes to under-age children there is no such thing as 'safe sex' ... it is unsafe and illegal.
    Abstinence Pledges 'buy time' for our young people to become more mature before having sex ... and are proven to work.
    They are not a panacea ... but they have a definite role.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's puberty. Unless there's a cure for that, I'd suggest once more the Scandanavian approach.

    Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

    The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    They don't work though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's puberty. Unless there's a cure for that, I'd suggest once more the Scandanavian approach.
    ... what has puberty to do with this?
    ... or are you saying that the age of consent should be reduced to the age at puberty ... about 12 years (or even less for girls)?:(


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    catallus wrote: »
    Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

    The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails.

    I only got pregnant when we stopped using contraception. As we were both educated on what was suitable and how to use it we didn't get pregnant until we no longer used it. Contraception doesn't inevitably fail, what a ridiculous statement. And not every pregnancy as a result of teenage sex is aborted in Scandinavia or anywhere else. And if a teenager decides she's not mature enough to be pregnant and give birth why shouldn't abortion be an option?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    Nobody is talking about "curing" anything, other than those who think medical intervention after repeated encounters involving "safe sex" to cure life-shattering diseases is "curing".

    The Scandanavian approach involves that thinking, the panacea being abortion when ultimately and inevitable the contraception fails.


    It does? Fascinating. Please provide a source.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    ... what has puberty to do with this?

    .....and there we have an example of why we need detailed sex education.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    lazygal wrote: »
    I only got pregnant when we stopped using contraception. As we were both educated on what was suitable and how to use it we didn't get pregnant until we no longer used it. Contraception doesn't inevitably fail, what a ridiculous statement. And not every pregnancy as a result of teenage sex is aborted in Scandinavia or anywhere else. And if a teenager decides she's not mature enough to be pregnant and give birth why shouldn't abortion be an option?

    From what your telling us here so, you were in a long-term stable monogamous relationship with someone you love and wanted to start a family with, which is the whole idea of the abstinence thing, I presume.

    It is odd then that you seem to be so critical of this form of education.

    Contraception does inevitably fail; condoms fail at least 1/400 times (at best), iuds and other female oriented forms of control need regular monitoring. This is without even beginning to talk about stds.

    My point about abortion was based on another poster using the term "curing" in the context of sexual activity. Of course it should be available as an option.


Advertisement