Got this from Naral Pro-choice. It might be of interest to some of you. This sickens and upsets me. These abstinence-only programs are flawed. They don't work. Yet our president wastes our tax dollars on it. How about spending the money on safer-sex education? That seems like a more intelligent idea. As you can't force anyone not to have sex. You can't repress anyone's biological urges. Teens will have sex anyway, so the least our government can do si intruct them about avoiding teen pregnancy and std's.
"Now that control of Congress is back in pro-choice hands, we have the first chance in more than six years to turn the tide on deceptive "abstinence-only" programs. Since President Bush took office, Congress has spent a whopping 778 million of your tax dollars on ineffective abstinence-only programs! While Congress has been on a spending spree, studies show that many abstinence-only programs include medically inaccurate and misleading information. Even worse, independent research shows that students in these classes are not more likely to abstain from sex or delay when they become sexually active. We are working closely with key members of Congress to turn the tide on abstinence-only funding, but right-wing groups won't let this happen without a fight. Groups like the Family Research Council are holding "Abstinence Day" on Capitol Hill tomorrow, where they will try to overwhelm lawmakers with one-on-one lobby visits and flood phone lines with calls from anti-choice activists. Instead of recklessly spending your tax dollars on programs that don't work, Congress should focus on commonsense solutions to prevent teen pregnancy. Several bills would do just that, including these two measures:
|
| <hr> |
| <hr> |
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 109
Thanks for the article, Sigriet.
" Sex is natural, the religious right has been forcing thier views on the rest of the public for a long time, we have become sexually repressed because of these idiots. Time to tell them where they can shove it. "
That pretty much sums up how I feel, hehe
"Sex does not have to be repressed. It should be celebrated. "
Exactly!
Yes, many teenagers will ignore any kind of sex education. (How many are still having unprotected sex despite years of condom promotion?) But why do we have so little faith in young people that we believe they are unable to have any self-control whatsoever?
Saying, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX to a teenager isn't healthy. Telling them that they have no control over their biological urges and are going to have to surrender to them immediately or it will be bad for them is ludicrous. Do you know how many males I've had to fend off from pawing me within twenty minutes of meeting me because they "just can't help it"? PLEASE. Teaching them that they are incapable of waiting is part of what breeds that kind of "helplessness." They can certainly avoid masturbating in public, so they can also learn enough self discipline to behave appropriately and not spend their entire life "ruled by carnal urges."
I believe in a balanced approach. You teach them that it is better for them emotionally to wait (I believe it is. It teaches you to cultivate emotional intimacy instead of substituting physical intimacy for it, and it teaches you that you, who you are and how you feel, are precious enough to protect), and that it is the only GUARANTEED protector against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Then, you tell them that if they are unable to do so, there are a variety of options available to them, and let them understand what they are and what they prevent. That is how I was taught in high school, and it is how I deal with the situation with my kid. "If you can, the best thing is to wait, but I'd rather you be protected and honest with me if you choose not to."
TA, I am one of those people who don't want to ever marry again, but I at least had the right to choose when I did. I think it is a load of crap that What is a private, personal and sometimes holy commitment for two people is dictated by the government.
The end of this party can't be far off.
Shannon - the difference between drugs and sex is that drugs are illegal. Sex is not. Taking drugs is not a legal option at any age in this country. Having consensual sex is right we've all agreed we all have.
I believe that any morality- or religious- based argument for abstinence is not consistent with what we've agreed as a country to uphold, via the constitution.
It worked pretty well for us. I know not all kids are sensible or want to listen to their parents (or any adult.) For the ones that won't listen, forbidding them to do something is nearly a guarantee that they'll do it.
I believe that sex is a very important part of our lives, and it's so upseting to hear some people say that sex should only be used as a procreation method, so you should only have sex if you are trying to have a baby: what BS! Just turn on your television and at some point you will be able to watch a commercial about Levitra and Cialis and Viagra; how can anybody expect kids to think that having sex is not good, when there are products being sold with the only purpose to make sex life better.
We have to remember it was not so long ago that people were married and having kids before they were 15. It's this society that has tried to turn teenagers into children by treating them like children. A 15 year old is trying to figure out who he/she is and if their parents try to impose their beliefs onto them, one of a few things will happen: they will rebel (which is what happens a lot of the times), they will obey, or they will act like they are obeying, but they are really doing whatever they want. So this scenario is really dangerous. Telling someone that they can't do something without explaining why, is just cruel.
I think the best thing to do is give them options. First of all: tell the truth. Sex is good when it happens between two consenting people, but you need to know that you are ready to accept the consequences. Sure, abstinence is a good option for many because they are just not ready to deal with having an active sex life. But what about those who are? We need to teach them to be responsible, and we need to teach them the risks involved (physical and emotional), but in the end, they should be allowed to make their own decision. This is why we should give them the options for birth control and disease protection.
I am fortunate enough to have a mother who understood this. She always gave me and my sister great advice. One thing she always told me was to be sure that whatever I did, I did it because I wanted, and if I decided to have sex with someone and my relationship with him didn't work out, I should not feel guilty about going into a new relationship. This is a problem that young people face when they have sex with someone just because they think they will be together forever, and they get very depressed when it doesn't work out.
So, I believe that emotional risks should be explained just as much as the physical risks.
My case is somewhat special because I'm still with the only man I had a relationship with, and he married me without having had a girlfriend before. We met in high school and fell in love when I was 15 and he was 17, and we are now happily married. But we were together for 8 years before getting married, so it's a little obvious that we didn't wait until we got married to have sex (I think my dad silently hopes I was a virgin when he gave me away, but deep down he knows the truth, he's just not willing to say it out loud, and now that I'm married I guess he just figures "what the heck!"). And why should we have waited? What if we got married without knowing each other so well, and we found out we were completely incompatible in the bedroom? I've known quite a few couples that had serious problems in te beginning of their marriages because of this.
Also, our sex drives peak during our teenage years (I've read women peak around 35 years, but this is mostly due to self confidence not to hormones; however, men's sexual drive does peak at 18), so this is the period in our lives when we can learn more about ourselves: what we like, what we don't like, and this can be the difference between a healthy enjoyable sex life later on, or a lifetime of faking it.
I was no saint during my teenage years, but I've done nothing to be ashamed of, although there's a lot of things that I did then, that I wouldn't dare to to now, but I know a lot of people who can say that. After all, how much fun can you have experienced as a teenager if you didn't go a little crazy sometimes? It's for those situations that we need to teach teenagers now how they can have fun, without having to regret it later.
Great article and good discussion.
Having sex outside of marriage does have moral and YES, SPIRITUAL consequences. I don't hear many talking about the spiritual consequences and they do exist. I'm not going to go into it here because I don't have the right words and phrasing to explain it right now.
This article only shows how much down hill society has gone. There is NOTHING wrong with funding abstinence programs. After all I think it is great that there is a counter balance to Planned Parenthood. The government has been funding birth control and using our tax dollars to do it for so many years (I'm not saying that making birth control available is bad). I think it is only fair that we also teach our children that it is also a equal, fair and good choice not to have sex and how to not give in to hormonal urges.
You can count me in with the same group as Michelle C.
I have noticed a pattern, in this thread and others on the same or similar topics. Those who most want to control what others do are most likely to present their arguments in self-absorbed language, which doesn't make much sense to me. It would seem those people should be the first to understand that since their right to choose their personal experience is that important to them, so might everyone else's be to them. I present these examples, but maintain that this is common and I am not insinuating that I have anything personal against the individuals or the fact that they relay personal experience. I often use personal experience in conversation, also.
Michelle: <>I guess I'm on the other side of this debate. I agree with the abstinence programs. I struggled with remaining sexually pure during my teenage years, and thankfully remained so until I met my husband. I wouldn't trade it for the world. I see the psychological and physical<> 7 I's in this first bit of her long comment.
Shannan: I have to agree with Michelle. From my pro-abstinence-education perspective, I can't understand why our culture believes it's acceptable to teach our children to say no to drugs and alcohol but not to premarital sex. I would rather have my child taking an occasional drink or even smoking pot than having sex with someone other than his or her spouse. It's less risky. 4 I/me's
Well said Spencer and others. It takes a multiple approach and the learner needs to pay attention and make choices based upon their beliefs, background and life style.
The ONLY alternative to personal experience is hear-say. Those who believe that the little images and stories in their heads are "real", kid themselves. Wishful thinking won't change that one bit.
Like so much that is pleasurable, sex can be a wonderful experience, but it can also be a catastrophic blunder. Children ought not be encouraged in any way to ignore or trivialize it. Many many lives are made difficult and painful because sex is used in our society for selling things, and escaping the serious matters that confront us in the world. Children see all this nonsense, and telling them sex is for adults is no more "moralizing" than telling them driving cars is. It is just as much those who scream "moralizing" that are being selfish, as it is those who "preach" that sex is evil.
Without love, sex is masturbation. Only with a dangerous twist. Many who know nothing of love wish those who comprehend its profound place in a healthy existence to hush up, and quit pointing to the hazards of living a shallow life centered on getting the maximum amount of pleasant sensations and feelings to occur in their own being. They wish that to be seen as the highest goal, so they will not be hounded by the vague awareness within, that that is no higher than bacteria achieve.
Bringing personal experiences to a discussion is a good thing!!!
What do you think about teaching masturbation in those abstinence only classes? Good or bad idea?
How about public schools just teach them about the biological aspects, and leave morality and responsibility to the parents, where it belongs?
I thought the discussion was about what was best to teach children. I have no beef with people discussing what they experienced, or saying what they feel to others. I do not understand how what the people you quoted, doing just that, is in anyway displaying a failure to "understand that others feel just as strongly about personal freedom".
Are you actually implying that any discussion of the advantages people have found in being cautious in how they dealt with sexuality, is out of line?
Just how exactly does this "point" of yours fit in to the notion of freedom?
"Kids" have been having sex since the world began and they will continue to have sex until the world ends. Nothing anyone says or does will change that. The abstinence programs have not changed that.
Our bodies belong to us. We might have laws that try to give parents temporary ownership until a certain point, but the truth is those kids are going to do what they want with their bodies. We can try to educate them, or we can stick our heads in the sand. The children of some promiscuous parents will remain virgins and the children of some preachers will be promiscuous. They have minds of their own and we should give them what they need to feed those minds, which is education, not rules that defy their physical urges.
As par for the course you have completely taken out of context postings and posters. You yourself used the term I or me 6 times in the final paragraph of your post. Regardless of your thoughts and or experience your posting is non-sensical as always.
As for the article. Controversial subject and a tough one to sit on the sidelines on. So Kudos for opening up a dialogue. I am a little disappointed, however, in the blind acceptance that other programs will simply work.
Are abstinence only programs the best solution? No probably not. If you look at the numbers, however, sex education programs that follow the path of safe sex is better sex simply don't work either. Moreover, lets not be so detached about the sexing of society that has continued to worsen over the last decade.
There is no silver bullet, but a good rule of thumb is to not look down your nose at any one program and be open-minded in our approach and discourse.......
Not a single I or me in the post..... I might add.......
Why is it whenever it comes to legislation that could possibly be construed as morally motivated or conservatively based, that all of the sudden teenagers are treated as adults and should be left to their own devices. Yet when we legislate no more cokes and sugary goodness in the cafeteria there aren't lines at our local congress office picketing and making a stand to allow our kids to make their own choices.
I know I know.......too many cokes on a Friday afternoon vs. gratuitous sex among 15 and 16 year olds don't compare.....we really should regulate their sugar intake.
So, if I were to describe the advantages I have found in being cautious with credit cards, I would be out of line, because others might feel their "personal freedom" to spend themselves into financial servitude was being insulted? (It is THEIR wallets we're talking about, after all)
Should we not mention this potential harm to our children, so those who fail to see it can feel better? The natural extension of such rationales leads to teaching children nothing at all, since whatever we say might be implying that those who do not understand it might have abused their "personal freedom" to be ignorant. (It is, after all, THIER mind we're talking about)
There are very large numbers of children having sex, becoming pregnant, and or infected with nasty diseases, and or dropping out of school and other healthy relationships. Doing nothing from a societal standpoint seems kinda thick. But avoiding discussion of potential harms or benefits renders ANY attempt to use public education as a tool to mitigate this tragedy, simply an exercise in gossippy titilating gibberish.
It is highly disingenuous to pretend I was attempting to "define" masturbation. Sandy certainly has used such linguistic subtleties many many times, and tagging along with her on that is hardly a display of honesty. A simple glance at your title to this article reveals you are far from a stranger to "non-literal" meanings of language.
Each and every statement, of which there are dozens on this thread, which expresses the opinion that it is wrong to imply that some forms of sex are improper, IS a moral proclamation. You simply don't see that because those are YOUR morals you are touting.
If I suggesting it was OK for adults to have sex with young children . . . IF they could get them to consent . . . I kinda doubt many would fail to see that this is indeed a "moral" issue. Even if only because we are discussing potential harm to those who are not mature enough to fully cognisize the results of their actions.
Apology accepted, of course. No, I merely meant something much like what you yourself said on the matter. Though perhaps a bit stronger.
good article, Sigriet!......regards, gayle with tongue planted firmly in cheek
Those who don't know of love, prefer to believe it doesn't really exist.
Much easier on the ego, ya know.
So, if I were to describe the advantages I have found in being cautious with credit cards, I would be out of line, because others might feel their "personal freedom" to spend themselves into financial servitude was being insulted? (It is THEIR wallets we're talking about, after all.
John, you argued the wrong side in this analogy. WE are saying it is wise to teach caution. You would be saying "credit cards are bad things".
Those who don't know of love, prefer to believe it doesn't really exist.
Much easier on the ego, ya know.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, and I will probably be gone by the time you come back to explain. Who here has hinted that he/she doesn't know of love, or that it doesn't exist? That seems to have come out of left field.
Personal choice and responsibility
Well, you've kinda stepped in it there. The words I wrote say quite plainly;
"If I were to describe the advantages I have found in being cautious with credit cards"
You have amazingly twisted that to be saying "credit cards are bad".
You are actually advocating that people not speak of the good results they've had with approaches they've taken to various aspects of life. You have gone judgmentalist to the extreme that you would try to stifle mention of the real life benefits people have seen from their own experience. Can you not see the foolishness of such a limitation?
"Who here has hinted that he/she doesn't know of love
Every one that does not speak reverently of it.
Is it not something you revere?
Circuitous indeed. Perhaps you would better be able to explain to Sandy why it is perfectly fine, and even essential at times, that people speak of what has worked out well for them. I don't know what the problem is.
Surely you would recommend that people feel it is quite an appropriate use of free speech . . . for someone to relate their positive experience, no?
I entered this thread to point to something I believe has become all to common on both "sides" of this, and many "debates". We are replacing what people actually experience, with "preconceived" ideas. The ideas have essentially become more "real" to many people than the "reality" human beings encounter. This is quick and easy, but reduces discussion to little more than a game.
We end up arguing whose IDEA is best, in a purely imaginary world of thought, and package anything someone might relate about what they have witnessed themselves, into a threat or bolster, to our IDEA. If what they say seems to question the validity of our "sides" ideas, we attribute to the person speaking, all the weakest or most easily argued against "opposing" ideas. Whether they have actually presented or argued those ideas at all.
We tend not to look critically at what those on "our side" are doing, in their tactics and reasoning, but look hyper-critically at what those "in opposition" might say. Sandy has done a thing which you would easily recognize as irrational, IF someone you perceive to be in opposition to your ideas had done it, but has become magically "invisible" to those who imagine themselves "on her side".
If someone on the "pro-abstinence side" of your imagined contest, were to criticize someone for describing the good experiences they may have had in handling sexuality as a responsible, but unmarried, person. You would immediately take the position that they have every right to speak of such things. You would probably raise issues of free speech, and the need to hear from all perspectives, if we are to get a grasp of what is truly happening in human lives.
But, because what those people related was evidence which supported your oppositions "ideas", you see no problem with essentially intimidating them out of relating the good results they have experienced. It becomes "incorrect" to speak of actual results folks have seen, when those results do not support the ideas you wish to win.
I have not expressed any opposition to any form of "safe sex" education, or extra-marital sex, or "alternate life styles". But because I have called into question the TACTICS of someone on "your side", I draw your unquestioned criticism. It is the TACTIC, and the ensuing knee jerk defense of those employing it which I would have people begin to see as weak and unproductive in society.
Real problems, like teen pregnancy and venereal disease, become little abstracts in our discussions about how fair and moral we are for having certain standard points of view. We drift away from any attempt to find ways to alleviate the real problem, and become "moralists", simply trying to top each other in a contest of ideas.
In this thread, it is "your side" which repeatedly makes "moralising" it's chief weapon, while all the while bringing up imaginary moralising someone may have done at some other place and time, and accusing the opposition of being moralists. This is silly. If moral arguments are irrelevant, then quit making them.
I was simply trying to point out that several posters have pointed to the notion of let teenagers make their own choices when it is convenient to their beliefs.
And no you can't logically take that approach and say you are ok with regulating what kids eat and not ok with regulating what they learn in school period. Whether it is sex education of evolution for that matter. You are either ok with kids (lets not forget that) making their own mind up on important matters in life or your not. You can't have one and not the other.
So I would disagree with your post. Its very hypocritical to say you are ok with regulating teenage decisions when it comes to nutrition, but you are not ok with regulating teenage decisions on sex. In particular if you are basing your position on the idea that kids should be allowed to make their own choices. Which several posters have stipulated.
Thanks for the Article and getting a great dialogue going on this subject!