Abstinence-only programs

While it's certainly possible for an atheist parent to teach his/her child that sexual abstinence before marriage is a good thing, I think it's pretty obvious that teaching abstinence is mainly fueled by religions (especially christianity). The apostle Paul says in 1Corinthians 7: verses 2 and 9 that it's better to pursue marriage [as a sexual outlet] than to have sex before marriage.

It's one thing for a christian parent to teach their christian child that abstinence is good, but do you think that christians and/or abstinence programs are justified in trying to get atheist and other non-religious children into abstinence-only? For that matter, do you guys think that abstinence is a good thing or that abstinence-only programs are beneficial?

Ugh I hate how some Christians rush into marriage because of 1 Corinthians 7. Getting sexually frustrated is about the worst reason to get married that I can imagine and while most Christians marry for sound reasons there are too many crappy married relationships and/or parents who are falling apart because they married too hurriedly due to the religious prohibitions against sex before marriage. It is better to have sex before marriage than it is to ruin a relationship or your children's lives.

Anyways abstinence. I have nothing against teaching any children that not having sex will prevent pregnancy and stds etc. Actually every child and teenager should really know that. I do have something against excluding education about contraception though, it's irresponsible and ridiculous. No matter how much abstinence is encouraged there will always be some people that have sex at a young age and if they don't know about contraception then they are at a severe disadvantage. Every sex ed program should be teaching both abstinence and contraceptive methods, anything less is a stupid omission.

So abstinence-only programs aren't a good idea in my opinion and every child regardless of belief should have a full sexual education.

My issue with abstinence only programs isn't that they're fueled by primarily religious reasons. Rather it's that they're extremely counter-productive and simply don't work.

It doesn't matter how much you scare a kid into thinking that they should never have sex before marriage because sex is primarily controlled by biology. This is especially true for girls where their desire for sex peaks when they're most fertile (ie right before ovulation). As a result, most teens who have learned everything they know about sex through abstinence only programs don't have sex most of the time because their urges are still low enough to be controlled by the fear of getting pregnant/catching STDs. But then the girl hits the periovulatory phase of her period and her sexual desire goes through the roof, which is enough to make her willing to engage in risky sexual behavior. The boy is more than willing to oblige since guys are pretty much always at peak libido, and as a result they decide to have sex at the absolute worst time possible. Now if they knew about contraception this wouldn't be much of an issue, but because of their terrible sex education they aren't aware of the effectiveness of condoms or spermicide, so they wind up having sex in a way that is almost guaranteed to get the girl pregnant.

As with all things, it's best to acknowledge reality instead of trying to live in a fantasy land, even if reality sucks. The fantasy that a lot of conservatives want to live in is that teens won't have sex if they aren't taught about it. The reality is that a lot of teens are going to have sex whether you want them to or not. Thus, the best course of action is to teach them how to have safe sex rather than to try to deceive them and live them completely ignorant in the process.

I am very supportive of abstinence and I'm fine with abstinence-only education. I'm neither for or against abstinence-only education. I am a little bit against comprehensive sex education because I personally find the idea of learning about protected sex repulsive. Either way, it should be up to the states to decide whether or not to teach it and if the states do not decide, then it should be up to the schools. If a teenager who received abstinence-only education gets pregnant should not blame the government, but themselves. Even if they are taught abstinence only, that does not mean that they cannot practice abstinence and therefore if they fail to do as they were taught, then they can only blame themselves.

I think it's preferable not to have sex before marriage. Speaking from a purely moral universalist standpoint, premarital sex is not wrong as long as both parties are consenting adults and they don't engage in any unhealthy actions. Emotionally though, I am repulsed at the idea of premarital sex, because I view it as a despicable act to foretake and a violation of society's mores. I don't advocate rushing into marriage though.

To be quite clear, I am quite naive when it comes to sexual matters. I don't even remember what sex education I had when I was in high school. I'm pretty sure we were taught abstinence only, or otherwise I would've remembered it.

I am very supportive of abstinence and I'm fine with abstinence-only education. I'm neither for or against abstinence-only education. I am a little bit against comprehensive sex education because I personally find the idea of learning about protected sex repulsive. Either way, it should be up to the states to decide whether or not to teach it and if the states do not decide, then it should be up to the schools. If a teenager who received abstinence-only education gets pregnant should not blame the government, but themselves. Even if they are taught abstinence only, that does not mean that they cannot practice abstinence and therefore if they fail to do as they were taught, then they can only blame themselves.

I think it's preferable not to have sex before marriage. Speaking from a purely moral universalist standpoint, premarital sex is not wrong as long as both parties are consenting adults and they don't engage in any unhealthy actions. Emotionally though, I am repulsed at the idea of premarital sex, because I view it as a despicable act to foretake and a violation of society's mores. I don't advocate rushing into marriage though.

To be quite clear, I am quite naive when it comes to sexual matters. I don't even remember what sex education I had when I was in high school. I'm pretty sure we were taught abstinence only, or otherwise I would've remembered it.

Genetic_Code

I've never understood this viewpoint. Why do people view sex as repulsive and premarital sex to be so terrible?

I am a little bit against comprehensive sex education because I personally find the idea of learning about protected sex repulsive.Genetic_Code

I've never understood this viewpoint. Why do people view sex as repulsive and premarital sex to be so terrible?

gameguy6700

Sex is a lot like urination. No one wants to see it unless they're the ones participating in the action. Premarital sex is not preferable because it's more respectable for two adults to wait until marriage to have sex. That, and the sex is as safe as it will ever be from my understanding of how STDs develop. Plus, you'll be prepared for a pregnancy. Well, marriage itself does not necessarily mean you're prepared for a pregnancy, but if you properly prepare for a marriage then most of the time, you should be properly prepared for a pregnancy

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]I am a little bit against comprehensive sex education because I personally find the idea of learning about protected sex repulsive.ChiliDragon

Well, I find it particularly repulsive when it comes to teaching teenagers as they're at an age where they should not be having sex.

Sex is a lot like urination. No one wants to see it unless they're the ones participating in the action.Genetic_Code

Well, I find it particularly repulsive when it comes to teaching teenagers as they're at an age where they should not be having sex.

Genetic_Code

So what's repulsive is not the part about protection so much as the thought that minors have sex?ChiliDragon

That and the belief that protection is 100% effective.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]So what's repulsive is not the part about protection so much as the thought that minors have sex?Genetic_Code

That and the belief that protection is 100% effective.

Few things are consistently 100% effective. If what you're suggesting is that we shouldn't have pre-marital sex because condoms are prone to breaking in the rare instance, what the hell would you ever use in life? Toilets, ovens, microwaves, cars, keyboards and beds are prone to not working, should we therefore stop using those things because there is a microscopic chance that they will fail?

Please don't tell me you actually think that. :?

Few things are consistently 100% effective. If what you're suggesting is that we shouldn't have pre-marital sex because condoms are prone to breaking in the rare instance, what the hell would you ever use in life? Toilets, ovens, microwaves, cars, keyboards and beds are prone to not working, should we therefore stop using those things because there is a microscopic chance that they will fail?

Please don't tell me you actually think that. :?

dracula_16

Is condom failure microscopic? Is it no worse than being abstinent? If so, you may have a point.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

Few things are consistently 100% effective. If what you're suggesting is that we shouldn't have pre-marital sex because condoms are prone to breaking in the rare instance, what the hell would you ever use in life? Toilets, ovens, microwaves, cars, keyboards and beds are prone to not working, should we therefore stop using those things because there is a microscopic chance that they will fail?

Please don't tell me you actually think that. :?

Genetic_Code

Is condom failure microscopic? Is it no worse than being abstinent? If so, you may have a point.

Perhaps a visual representation of the decision will help here. I've been a little bit cheeky with some parts of it.

To work out the expected outcome of this decision you'll need to assign a value to each outcome and the probability that it will occur and then work out if teaching abstinence only or both yields the best result. For the values let 10 be the best possible outcome and 1 be the worst possible outcome.

So let's figure out the expected outcome of a person who learns abstinence only first. I'll give the outcome that he remains celibate a value of 9 and a probability of 0.2. Then I'll give the outcome that he has sex a value of 3 and a probability of 0.8.

Using those figures I can calculate (9*0.2)+(3*0.8) that the expected outcome of teaching person X abstinence only is 4.2. Not very good I must say.

Now lets figure out the expected outcome for teaching abstinence and contraception. I'll give the outcome that he remains celibate an 8 and a probability of 0.2. Then I'll give the outcome that he has sex a 7 and a probability of 0.8.

Using those figures I can calculate (8*0.2)+(7*0.8) that the expected outcomeof teaching person X abstinence and contraception is 7.2. Pretty good.

If you want to you can try and work out your own expected outcome using your own personal values and your own probabilities.

I'm certainly in favor of teaching abstinence as the major way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and sexually immoral behavior.  However, I am also well aware that simply teaching this will not prevent everyone from having premarital sex.  Because of this, sex education must also be taught as a "Plan B."

Sadly, abstinence was not something that was taught to me growing up.  As taught in my schooling, premarital sex was not only permissible but encouraged.  My church even had an unsaid rule that having sex was permissible so long as you marry one another if the female becomes pregnant.  Abstinence was never even portrayed as a possible option.  To my deep regret, I never changed this mindset until it was too late.  This is not to say that I've been sexually active the past several years however.  I've had to do a lot of repenting and for 2 years now have refused to even be in a compromising situation with another female until marriage. 

Because of my personal dealing with sexual temptations, I'm very strong in my views of abstinence.  Though my greatest regret in life is failing in this regard, I have since "made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl" (Job 31:1).

I'm certainly in favor of teaching abstinence as the major way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and sexually immoral behavior.  However, I am also well aware that simply teaching this will not prevent everyone from having premarital sex.  Because of this, sex education must also be taught as a "Plan B."

Sadly, abstinence was not something that was taught to me growing up.  As taught in my schooling, premarital sex was not only permissible but encouraged.  My church even had an unsaid rule that having sex was permissible so long as you marry one another if the female becomes pregnant.  Abstinence was never even portrayed as a possible option.  To my deep regret, I never changed this mindset until it was too late.  This is not to say that I've been sexually active the past several years however.  I've had to do a lot of repenting and for 2 years now have refused to even be in a compromising situation with another female until marriage. 

Because of my personal dealing with sexual temptations, I'm very strong in my views of abstinence.  Though my greatest regret in life is failing in this regard, I have since "made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl" (Job 31:1).

mindstorm

Perhaps a visual representation of the decision will help here. I've been a little bit cheeky with some parts of it.

To work out the expected outcome of this decision you'll need to assign a value to each outcome and the probability that it will occur and then work out if teaching abstinence only or both yields the best result. For the values let 10 be the best possible outcome and 1 be the worst possible outcome.

So let's figure out the expected outcome of a person who learns abstinence only first. I'll give the outcome that he remains celibate a value of 9 and a probability of 0.2. Then I'll give the outcome that he has sex a value of 3 and a probability of 0.8.

Using those figures I can calculate (9*0.2)+(3*0.8) that the expected outcome of teaching person X abstinence only is 4.2. Not very good I must say.

Now lets figure out the expected outcome for teaching abstinence and contraception. I'll give the outcome that he remains celibate an 8 and a probability of 0.2. Then I'll give the outcome that he has sex a 7 and a probability of 0.8.

Using those figures I can calculate (8*0.2)+(7*0.8) that the expected outcomeof teaching person X abstinence and contraception is 7.2. Pretty good.

If you want to you can try and work out your own expected outcome using your own personal values and your own probabilities.

domatron23

Wait, I'm confused, how does staying celibate have anything at all to do with being a child molester? There are countless reasons other than being a pedophile why a person may be celibate, and there are many child molesters/rapists out there who also engage in normal sex as well.

Wait, I'm confused, how does staying celibate have anything at all to do with being a child molester?gameguy6700

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Wait, I'm confused, how does staying celibate have anything at all to do with being a child molester?ChiliDragon

Pretty much.

Like I said I was a bit cheeky with it.