Safe sexed versus abstinance only ed, which is better?

[YeshuaRedeemed]

I am asking you to please ignore my screen name for a sec, and hear me out. I am in favor of safe sex ed, for many reasons, including what consenting adults do with their bodies should be safe and healthy. People should be able to know about sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (I am a prochoice progressive Democrat), and what to do about said pregnancy, and stuff. Birth control is important too, because literally no one is advocating abortion as birth control, progressives just want it to be legal for those that need it. Abstinance only ed does not work.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am asking you to please ignore my screen name for a sec, and hear me out. I am in favor of safe sex ed, for many reasons, including what consenting adults do with their bodies should be safe and healthy. People should be able to know about sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (I am a prochoice progressive Democrat), and what to do about said pregnancy, and stuff. Birth control is important too, because literally no one is advocating abortion as birth control, progressives just want it to be legal for those that need it. Abstinance only ed does not work.

Research supports this, but hey if you know better, who the heck cares about research? Fake news! Fake research! lol

Abstinence-only sex ed can increase teen pregnancy rates, study finds

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Research supports this, but hey if you know better, who the heck cares about research? Fake news! Fake research! lol

Abstinence-only sex ed can increase teen pregnancy rates, study finds

True enough my friend, but as someone who used to hate myself for being bisexual, and wanting to have sex, this issue is so important to me. Sexually consenting adults who protect their and their partner's health, should be allowed liberty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sexually consenting adults who protect their and their partner's health, should be allowed liberty.

Furthermore, to try and remove this as a liberty because of "health" reasons, is completely arbitrary.

There's PLENTY of things, which are actually far more dangerous / more risky short or long term, which you would get laughed at if you brought them up in context of disallowing it.

I mean, if the "health" argument is a valid one... then all McDonald restaurants and alike should be closed down immediatly.

And let's not even start about F1 racing and other "extreme sports".

 

[dianaiad]

I am asking you to please ignore my screen name for a sec, and hear me out. I am in favor of safe sex ed, for many reasons, including what consenting adults do with their bodies should be safe and healthy. People should be able to know about sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (I am a prochoice progressive Democrat), and what to do about said pregnancy, and stuff. Birth control is important too, because literally no one is advocating abortion as birth control, progressives just want it to be legal for those that need it. Abstinance only ed does not work.

a. you are incorrect in your claim that literally no one is advocating abortion as birth control. Some do. I know more than one who does. Shoot. I know a couple of women who *literally* went out and deliberately got pregnant so that they could have an abortion...and thus establish their bona fides as proper demonstrators. They were proud of doing so. More importantly, I know their kids, when they finally got pregnant to stay that way. (mind you, two out of the five women I know who did this were unable to get pregnant as a direct result of having too many abortions...). Those who are willing to talk about the issue are NOT happy with their mothers. All are pro-life, whether they talk about their mothers or not.

So...no 'literally' going on there, m'friend. A minority? I'll give you that, but 'literally?" Sorry. I was around during the first of the Roe v Wade. controversy and had to deal with the fall out....such as not being able to get pre-natal care because nobody would see me earlier than three months along unless I was scheduling an abortion. Such as...calling because I was severely morning sick and being told that an abortion was an instant cure for that. Those of us who actually were happy about being pregnant were created as second class citizens not worth the upturned politically correct nose.


b. you are correct; abstinence only EDUCATION does not work. I've never advocated abstinence only. However, abstinence DOES work, and it happens to be the very most effective method there is. It seems to me that not teaching that it's the best and most efficient method, not to mention the one least likely to cause heartbreak and relationship problems, along with all the other methods of birth control is a truly stupid choice, and just as witless as any other approach.

It's also the one I seem to see being advocated the most here. It shouldn't be 'one or the other.' Abstinence, 'safe sex' (and there's no such thing as 'safe sex) birth control, etc. should be taught. Both.

 

[Vinayaka]

True enough my friend, but as someone who used to hate myself for being bisexual, and wanting to have sex, this issue is so important to me. Sexually consenting adults who protect their and their partner's health, should be allowed liberty.

I agree entirely. It takes some folks a very long time to heal from hate. Best wishes.

 

[Vinayaka]

Furthermore, to try and remove this as a liberty because of "health" reasons, is completely arbitrary.

There's PLENTY of things, which are actually far more dangerous / more risky short or long term, which you would get laughed at if you brought them up in context of disallowing it.

I mean, if the "health" argument is a valid one... then all McDonald restaurants and alike should be closed down immediatly.

And let's not even start about F1 racing and other "extreme sports".

Or minor football, minor hockey ...

 

[SomeRandom]

I am asking you to please ignore my screen name for a sec, and hear me out. I am in favor of safe sex ed, for many reasons, including what consenting adults do with their bodies should be safe and healthy. People should be able to know about sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (I am a prochoice progressive Democrat), and what to do about said pregnancy, and stuff. Birth control is important too, because literally no one is advocating abortion as birth control, progressives just want it to be legal for those that need it. Abstinance only ed does not work.

I’ve never understood abstinence only education. I mean it’s one thing to stress abstinence. That’s fine.
But telling a bunch of hormonal rebellious teenagers not to have sex and leaving it at that is practically asking for teen pregnancy.
I had sex Ed in high school like three seperate times because of the subjects I chose lol
First was the mandatory Sex Ed in like grade 8. Condoms, STDs and menstruation.
Second was in grade 9 health class (precursor to Hospitality in the senior years.)
They made us write down every single known STD, symptoms of each and how each was spread. Then in comes the school nurse to show how contraception “works.”
Third was grade 10 Biology class, just after learning how reproduction works. Then in comes the school nurse again to show how contraception works. Lol I was a pro by then.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Abstinence only is doomed to failure for the simple reason that it ignores human nature. The sex drive is far, far too deeply ingrained to be simply put aside until you're ready to procreate!

But the world is a dangerous place, and sex also comes with its perils, STDs being not the least of them. And therefore, learning about safe sex is absolutely a life-saver. And saving lives, after all, is not an entirely bad thing, is it?

 

[Riders]

I am asking you to please ignore my screen name for a sec, and hear me out. I am in favor of safe sex ed, for many reasons, including what consenting adults do with their bodies should be safe and healthy. People should be able to know about sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (I am a prochoice progressive Democrat), and what to do about said pregnancy, and stuff. Birth control is important too, because literally no one is advocating abortion as birth control, progressives just want it to be legal for those that need it. Abstinance only ed does not work.

I think both paths should be represented in sex ed as valid.

 

[Riders]

Abstinence only is doomed to failure for the simple reason that it ignores human nature. The sex drive is far, far too deeply ingrained to be simply put aside until you're ready to procreate!

But the world is a dangerous place, and sex also comes with its perils, STDs being not the least of them. And therefore, learning about safe sex is absolutely a life-saver. And saving lives, after all, is not an entirely bad thing, is it?

Its good and right but there's nothing wrong with resenting abstinance as a valid path too.

 

[Riders]

I’ve never understood abstinence only education. I mean it’s one thing to stress abstinence. That’s fine.
But telling a bunch of hormonal rebellious teenagers not to have sex and leaving it at that is practically asking for teen pregnancy.
I had sex Ed in high school like three seperate times because of the subjects I chose lol
First was the mandatory Sex Ed in like grade 8. Condoms, STDs and menstruation.
Second was in grade 9 health class (precursor to Hospitality in the senior years.)
They made us write down every single known STD, symptoms of each and how each was spread. Then in comes the school nurse to show how contraception “works.”
Third was grade 10 Biology class, just after learning how reproduction works. Then in comes the school nurse again to show how contraception works. Lol I was a pro by then.

They don't all have sex before marriage some stay abstinent till marriage

 

[SomeRandom]

They don't all have sex before marriage some stay abstinent till marriage

And even if that’s true, so what? That doesn’t negate the potential consequences of keeping kids in the dark, like a magic wand. They need to be aware what’s out there.
You do know that you don’t necessarily need to have any sort of sexual contact to get certain types of STDs right?
There are certain types of STDs that can also be spread other ways in addition to sexual contact.
Syphilis can be spread through “French kissing” just saying.
There has been a recent study that suggests that this can also be true of gonorrhoea though more research needs to be done.https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/09/got-gonorrhea-it-may-have-come-french-kissing-
Like Herpes Simplex Virus and Herpes SV2 which is commonly exchanged through saliva (hence it’s nickname the “kissing disease.) Though can be spread through blood contact even.
CMV can cause fatigue, body aches and even fevers. But you don’t necessarily need to have any sexual contact for it to spread to you. It is also as of writing this, not actually curable. Like both types of Herpes. Though some people don’t have symptoms of CMV even if they are positive.
Safe sex education is more than putting a Condom over a banana and stressing consent. It is more like health and safety training but for real life. What exactly is out there, what myths are commonly held and arming younger people with legitimate scientific factual information so that they can control their lives and make more informed decisions about their lives and sexuality. Including the choice to stay celibate, arguably bolstered by more knowledge about exactly how STDs work. Which hey is a standard part of safe sex Ed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its good and right but there's nothing wrong with resenting abstinance as a valid path too.

Yes, quite a few guys resent abstinence.

 

[Heyo]

I think both paths should be represented in sex ed as valid.

Can't be done as they are mutually exclusive. You can have sex ed and abstinence ed but you can't have sex ed and abstinence only ed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with abstinence only is that though people may try it they all too often fail. In other words, abstinence only works only some of the time. A far too high percentage of the time people act like normal people. And if one is taught abstinence only that means one is woefully unprepared for being a regular human being. That is why abstinence only states have some of the highest teen pregnancy rates and I do believe the highest second teen pregnancy rates.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Furthermore, to try and remove this as a liberty because of "health" reasons, is completely arbitrary.

There's PLENTY of things, which are actually far more dangerous / more risky short or long term, which you would get laughed at if you brought them up in context of disallowing it.

I mean, if the "health" argument is a valid one... then all McDonald restaurants and alike should be closed down immediatly.

And let's not even start about F1 racing and other "extreme sports".

Wow, calm down, sweetheart. Not everyone agrees with your o

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

The problem with abstinence only is that though people may try it they all too often fail. In other words, abstinence only works only some of the time. A far too high percentage of the time people act like normal people. And if one is taught abstinence only that means one is woefully unprepared for being a regular human being. That is why abstinence only states have some of the highest teen pregnancy rates and I do believe the highest second teen pregnancy rates.

Agreed. I personally don't want to wait for marriage unless I end up with a partner that wants to wait.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

Can't be done as they are mutually exclusive. You can have sex ed and abstinence ed but you can't have sex ed and abstinence only ed.

More agreement, thanks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow, calm down, sweetheart. Not everyone agrees with your o

??

I am calm.

I just took the argument to its logical conclusion.

As I said, if "health" is the factor that determines allowing something as a liberty or not, AND if based on that factor certain sexual encounters are disallowed... then it stands to reason that things that pose an even bigger health risk, be disallowed also.

Unless you don't mind being a hypocrite, off course.

Why, you don't agree with that?

The alternative, is like saying you can't punch someone in the face with your fist because of the potential damage it can do, but smashing someone's face with a baseball bat is okay.