Abstinence Education Immoral?

[bushidomartialarts]

So here's what rattled around in my head during a deeply sleep deprived drive back from the coast this weekend.

Many people on these boards agree to some extent with the stament "Pacifism is immoral". Though I'm not that extreme, I certainly understand and support the sentiments leading to that conclusion. Pacifism can be construed as the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities (defense of innocents, defense of loved ones, for example).

A short way to sum up the concept is that Pacifism teaches to avoid using a tool that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Abstinence education does much of the same thing. By teaching only about abstinence, it robs students of several important tools for improving their quality of life. Not just that one, ya pervs. Some studeies suggest that abstinence education, by not teaching about safe sex, actually increases instances of pregnancy and disease.

In short, Abstinence education censors out tools that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Thought I'd kick it out to y'all and let us chew on it for a while.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, but not for the reasons you cite.

Recent studies have shown that abstinence education is ineffective. Students receiving abstinence only education were just as likely to have sexual relationships as those who received no sexual education at all.

I believe our educators have responsibility to present appropriate and effective data to students. To patronize a technique that has been shown to be ineffective certainly is immoral to me.

 

[Kacey]

Well, first I'm going to disagree with your definition of pacifism; pacifism is

1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

it is not "the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities"

Second, I'm going to agree with ME here - studies have shown repeatedly that abstinence education does not work, and that programs that rely on abstinence pledges are highly ineffective. Based on those studies, I don't know that I would call abstinence education "immoral" so much as irresponsible.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Fair point. I should revise to 'extreme pacifism', which I suspect is intended by most people who make that argument.

Do you draw a distinction between irresponsible and immoral? Seems to me that's a point of degree, not of nature.

 

[Ray]

Recent studies have shown that abstinence education is ineffective. Students receiving abstinence only education were just as likely to have sexual relationships as those who received no sexual education at all.

I believe our educators have responsibility to present appropriate and effective data to students. To patronize a technique that has been shown to be ineffective certainly is immoral to me.

Certainly sex education should present the facts. To prevent pregnancy, stds, etc when sexually active should be an important part of that.

According to what I read today, the latest report shows that abstinece was as effective as other forms of sex education in that the number of teens having sex was, percentage wise, the same for either form of education. Therefore, to be honest: "abstinence is the safest and most effective means of preventing all kinds of undesirable things; but if you can't abstain then here are the things you'll need" should probably be the message.

 

[Kacey]

Certainly sex education should present the facts. To prevent pregnancy, stds, etc when sexually active should be an important part of that.

According to what I read today, the latest report shows that abstinece was as effective as other forms of sex education in that the number of teens having sex was, percentage wise, the same for either form of education.

That's kind of the problem - just as many teens who are taught abstinence only are having sex... but the rates of pregnancy, STDs, etc. are much higher, because they have very little real information about anything but abstinence.

Therefore, to be honest: "abstinence is the safest and most effective means of preventing all kinds of undesirable things; but if you can't abstain then here are the things you'll need" should probably be the message.

I agree with this completely.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

That's kind of the problem - just as many teens who are taught abstinence only are having sex... but the rates of pregnancy, STDs, etc. are much higher, because they have very little real information about anything but abstinence.

To make matters worse, a few of the studies showed that certain aggressive abstinence programs had another unintended side effect. Students who participated in a 'vow of abstinence' campaign had less 'regular' sex, but engaged in sodomy far more frequently than peers who hadn't taken the vow.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yes, because of two reasons:

1) Study after study shows that it doesn't work. It's Millions of dollars flushed down the toilet to make older people feel good and younger ones guilty.

2) Sex is one of our strongest natural instincts. With out it humans as a species would not exist. Teaching people that there natural instincts are bad is messing with nature. Again leading to nothing but people feeling guilty, even if they don't do it, they are "supposed" to feel guilty for wanting too. That's like saying food is evil IMO.

 

[donald]

I think that if we teach material with out moral boundaries. That need to include moral boundaries. We are going to continue to fail. Some of us can remember when sex was a sin outside of marriage. That it could cost more than an itch etc.. Kids today don't really hear this. They are bombarded with so much garbage, and very little good stuff. Abstinence should be taught continually. Not just because you may get pregnant, or you may catch a terrible illness. Because outside of marriage it is wrong. I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex! I had never heard this before. There truly is" a time, and a season for everything". I pray that the kids of our nation will be awakened. That by The Lord Jesus' grace. They may not only hear about what is right, and wrong, but learn it.
1stJohn1:9

 

[Kacey]

I think that if we teach material with out moral boundaries. That need to include moral boundaries. We are going to continue to fail. Some of us can remember when sex was a sin outside of marriage. That it could cost more than an itch etc.. Kids today don't really hear this. They are bombarded with so much garbage, and very little good stuff. Abstinence should be taught continually. Not just because you may get pregnant, or you may catch a terrible illness. Because outside of marriage it is wrong. I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex! I had never heard this before. There truly is" a time, and a season for everything". I pray that the kids of our nation will be awakened. That by The Lord Jesus' grace. They may not only hear about what is right, and wrong, but learn it.
1stJohn1:9

Certainly, I feel that engaging in sexual activity, or not, is a moral decision that should be taught by the parents - but the problem with programs that lean heavily on "Don't, it's evil", is that kids will resist for a while... but once they start - even once - they figure their damned anyway, and end up with a higher rate of sexual activity than their peers. Sex - like any other bodily function - is natural, but has been driven into the closet by people who feel that their beliefs must be right for everyone.

I don't mean to denigrate your religious beliefs - but I don't agree with them. The only part of your statement that would have affected me as a teen is that youths who are unready for sex physically are more prone to STDs - but the reality is, adolescence is a construct of the last 100 years or so - before that, sex outside of marriage was much less common because a) people got married much younger, leaving less time for "adolescent fooling around"; b) improved nutrition has lowered the age of puberty in both sexes, but most notably in girls - leading to a longer period of sexual readiness (as determined by physical maturity) before marriage - which, added to the greater age at marriage, leaves youths physically able to engage in sex 10-15 years before they could reasonably be expected to marry; c) birth control that works (the Pill, and its successors) has had a massive effect on sexuality in both genders, because before that there was always the risk that pregnancy would occur - no matter how careful you were - with that risk greatly reduced, other issues, specifically STDs, have come to the fore.

Teens need to be taught about sexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, and many other behaviors affected by both law and morality by their parents, and such education needs to begin early. We have the situation we have today in part because too many parents are leaving such education - and in many cases, the raising of their kids entirely - to the schools and the public media... and then complaining when their kids don't act the way they want, despite their lack of involvement.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I think (and bear in mind I'm saying think here, this is something I've been working on lately and it isn't fully formed) that making a moral issue out sex education it is a mistake.

Morality is easy to disagree with, even inside the family. There's no real proof (sort of like faith that way) of the rightness or wrongness of the assertion 'premarital sex is bad'. Too many opportunities to disagree, too many examples of honorable people choosing a different path.

On the other hand, making a logical or consequence-driven issue seems like it would work. Consider the two options:

"Having sex before you're married is evil. If you do it, you're a dirty, bad person. See here on page 271 of this holy book? If you do that you might go to hell."

vs.

"Having sex casually exposes to you a lot of risks. Unwanted pregnancy, HIV, HPV, herpes and crabs are all examples. It's a good idea to take those risks with a committed partner. And even if you don't follow that advice it's absolutely imperative that you take protective measures like using a condom and choosing your partner wisely."

Which is more likely to get a rebellious, wiseass teenager to be smart about sex?

 

[Bigshadow]

So here's what rattled around in my head during a deeply sleep deprived drive back from the coast this weekend.

Many people on these boards agree to some extent with the stament "Pacifism is immoral". Though I'm not that extreme, I certainly understand and support the sentiments leading to that conclusion. Pacifism can be construed as the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities (defense of innocents, defense of loved ones, for example).

A short way to sum up the concept is that Pacifism teaches to avoid using a tool that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Abstinence education does much of the same thing. By teaching only about abstinence, it robs students of several important tools for improving their quality of life. Not just that one, ya pervs. Some studeies suggest that abstinence education, by not teaching about safe sex, actually increases instances of pregnancy and disease.

In short, Abstinence education censors out tools that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Thought I'd kick it out to y'all and let us chew on it for a while.

It, as well as many other American perceptions of the broader subject matter is rather purtanical! IMO of course.

 

[Carol]

"Having sex casually exposes to you a lot of risks. Unwanted pregnancy, HIV, HPV, herpes and crabs are all examples. It's a good idea to take those risks with a committed partner. And even if you don't follow that advice it's absolutely imperative that you take protective measures like using a condom and choosing your partner wisely."

Which is more likely to get a rebellious, wiseass teenager to be smart about sex?

I'm not a parent, personally, but the concerns that I've heard from other parents is that sex education isn't as neat as what Jason wisely wrote above. The reason why schools are teaching sex ed is because there is an important need. But...while I'm not a parent, I've heard other parents complain not necessarily because sex ed specifically was being taught...the concern was over HOW it was being taught, whether it was being taught seriously, responsibly, and in a way where the teacher retains control in the classroom.

I do not support many of the administrative tactics behind teaching sex ed.

One high school told parents that sex ed would be taking place on a specific date, but when individual paents personally called the school to enquire about what was being taught, the schools refused to tell.

There was another case (can't remember if it was the same school or not, I think it was a different school in the same community) where an announcement was made that there would be a sex ed seminar at a specific time, and attendance was optional. Come the week of the semniar, students were notified that attendance was NOT optional and anyone who did not show up would be punished academically.

I don't believe this gives sex ed the respect that such a serious subject deserves. There would be absolute outrage if a school chemistry teacher taught students taught, encouraged, or even implied irresponsible use of that science....but if such irresponsibity is in the sex ed class, the outrage seems to be ignored.

I don't think that's right.

 

[Ping898]

I think one thing to note is that most of you seem to be refering to abstinence only education and that has shown to be ineffective. I'd be interested to see what the rates of everything are for a situation where abstinance from sex is taught along with what to do if you have it.

 

[donald]

I don't believe sex ed should be taught at school. I think all this criteria should be handled at home. Maybe reinforced at school through a basic health/hygiene(sp?) class. Much like used to be taught back in the day. I just can't help, but notice. That the further we have pushed GOD out of the school. The worse the students have become. I know many anti-GOD people will initially deny this. All you have to do is take a look at our nations schools. If you examine the factual history. It just can't be denied. The last 30-35 yrs. have shown this to be true. We can't expect kids to behave morally. When morals are not enforced at school. Which is where they spend the majority of their days. We(as a nation) like Rome have cut our own throats. I apologize for going some what afield with this post.
1stJohn1:9

 

[Kacey]

I don't believe sex ed should be taught at school. I think all this criteria should be handled at home. Maybe reinforced at school through a basic health/hygiene(sp?) class. Much like used to be taught back in the day. I just can't help, but notice. That the further we have pushed GOD out of the school. The worse the students have become. I know many anti-GOD people will initially deny this. All you have to do is take a look at our nations schools. If you examine the factual history. It just can't be denied. The last 30-35 yrs. have shown this to be true. We can't expect kids to behave morally. When morals are not enforced at school. Which is where they spend the majority of their days. We(as a nation) like Rome have cut our own throats. I apologize for going some what afield with this post.
1stJohn1:9

The problem, IMHO, with sex ed, and the other issues you raise in general, is that too many parents are not teaching this at home - which is how the schools got into teaching sex ed in the first place, along with anti-drug campaigns, bicycle safety, and basic courtesy, along with a host of other things. This is not due to a lack of God, specifically, but a lack of teaching about morality at home in general - no matter how you teach it, or what terms you use to describe it. I agree that the schools should be reinforcing what occurs at home - but when nothing occurs at home, then instead of providing reinforcement, the schools are - inappropriately in my opinion - providing primary instruction.

I don't have kids - but I did have nieces and nephews when I was married. My ex's mother asked me to give a sex talk to his sister's oldest girl... somehow, since the sister had 3 kids, in 6 years, by 3 different fathers... had a tubal ligation that went bad because she used pot as a painkiller so she didn't notice she had an infection (somehow, she remembered the pot, but forgot the antibiotics), which led to a partial hysterectomy - and then she did it again and had to have a complete hysterectomy - with all of that, my ex's mother didn't think her oldest child would give a good sex talk. This was a family that went to church every Sunday, said Grace before every meal - and didn't talk about sex at all, leading to the situation described.

God is not the answer - education is the answer, and that education should come from parents - but in too many cases it doesn't. Education from parents can include God - and if God is important in your life and your family's lives, then God should be included in the discussion.

As a public health issue, schools teach health and hygiene; because of issues like the ones described in this thread, health and hygiene was expanded to include sex ed - which caused all sorts of moral issues that don't exist when you're telling students to brush their teeth and use deodorant.

 

[michaeledward]

The issue of morality of Abstinence Education should be addressed toward the Educators, not the students, nor the students parents. The teachers are not behaving in a moral manner if they teach information that is factually proven to be ineffective.

If I were to teach students that the integer three, raised to the third power was equal to twenty-eight, I would be not only teaching a factual error, I would not be fulfilling my responsibilities as a teacher. That is where the morality of this issue belongs. Although, I can see some questioning whether it is a 'moral' issue or not.

As for donald's religious beliefs, he is entitled to them. But, like all dogma, they should stay the hell out of the classroom. donald, your assertion that because your god is not in the classroom there has been a negative impact on a measurable area of education is in error. You hold this belief as dogma, but, you will not be able to demonstrate any facts to support the ascertion. Please, believe what you will. Enjoy your beliefs. But keep them out of public education, and even better, keep them to yourself, and your family.

 

[Rich Parsons]

So here's what rattled around in my head during a deeply sleep deprived drive back from the coast this weekend.

Many people on these boards agree to some extent with the stament "Pacifism is immoral". Though I'm not that extreme, I certainly understand and support the sentiments leading to that conclusion. Pacifism can be construed as the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities (defense of innocents, defense of loved ones, for example).

A short way to sum up the concept is that Pacifism teaches to avoid using a tool that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Abstinence education does much of the same thing. By teaching only about abstinence, it robs students of several important tools for improving their quality of life. Not just that one, ya pervs. Some studeies suggest that abstinence education, by not teaching about safe sex, actually increases instances of pregnancy and disease.

In short, Abstinence education censors out tools that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Thought I'd kick it out to y'all and let us chew on it for a while.

While in college I would take all the literature I could and read up on it. I would read up on at many times at work. The literature would keep on disappearing as others from work would take it to read themselves.

Understanding what can happen be it sex, alcohol, drugs, firearms, knives, vehicles when used improperly is a very important understanding and making decisions about these topics and others in general.

 

[Bigshadow]

The problem, IMHO, with sex ed, and the other issues you raise in general, is that too many parents are not teaching this at home - ...

God is not the answer - education is the answer

Nice post Kacey! I completely agree!

 

[shesulsa]

I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex! I had never heard this before.

Nor have I. Exactly what disease can she catch at 13 that she can't catch at 21 with a ring around her finger? The statement you say your doctor made makes no scientific nor medical sense ... could you be more specific please? I'd like to verify, thanks.

I don't believe sex ed should be taught at school. I think all this criteria should be handled at home. Maybe reinforced at school through a basic health/hygiene(sp?) class. Much like used to be taught back in the day. I just can't help, but notice. That the further we have pushed GOD out of the school. The worse the students have become. I know many anti-GOD people will initially deny this. All you have to do is take a look at our nations schools. If you examine the factual history. It just can't be denied. The last 30-35 yrs. have shown this to be true. We can't expect kids to behave morally. When morals are not enforced at school. Which is where they spend the majority of their days. We(as a nation) like Rome have cut our own throats. I apologize for going some what afield with this post.
1stJohn1:9

Unwed teenage girls have been getting pregnant for as long as there have been unwed teenage girls. And the religious orphanages are full for a reason - the Bible and Sunday School are not effective means of birth control ... nor are they effective defenses against STDs and life-threatening illness.

The most DANGEROUS disease is the propogation of medical ignorance in the name of religion. You OWE your daughter the information and tools she needs to take care of her body in the manner she so chooses. You can preach to her 24/7/365, but in the end, she will make her own decision.

I'm sorry, but I think we're better off teaching our children that sexuality is a health/medical issue with social and moral indications. I further believe that with correct and complete information, the onus of decision and action fall even more greatly upon the shoulders of decision-maker and action-taker.

I'm not about to let my daughter, who fully understands my thoughts on sexuality and its appropriateness, out into the world without knowing how to protect herself.