Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The thing is, the report cooberates other stories that have been told.

Stories about these speakers? Please post them.

You guys keep talking about abstinence-only education. Did you just miss that this story is not about that or are you "blatantly lying" and/or "spreading false information about a subject out of ignorance or malice"?

Even within a comprehensive program this sort of abstinence lesson has no place. It is based on incorrect data, hearsay, scare stories and is deeply misleading and aimed at shaming and scaring children into not having sex.

None of those tactics have worked in curtailing drug use so why would they work in curtailing sex?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well for instance it teaches them not to have sex till marriage.

What is terrible about that?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You guys keep talking about abstinence-only education. Did you just miss that this story is not about that or are you "blatantly lying" and/or "spreading false information about a subject out of ignorance or malice"?

Even within a comprehensive program this sort of abstinence lesson has no place.

Fine but again why are you acting (blatantly lying?) as if this story is about abstinence-only education?

 Manchu wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well for instance it teaches them not to have sex till marriage.

What is terrible about that?

Well its terrible for many because most often people who wait till marriage, it is usually a one sided thing, one person didn't but the other did. Abistence was made in a time when people were getting married at an early age. So it was seen as abit more feasible.

What does it matter if only one spouse is a virgin?

 Manchu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You guys keep talking about abstinence-only education. Did you just miss that this story is not about that or are you "blatantly lying" and/or "spreading false information about a subject out of ignorance or malice"?

Even within a comprehensive program this sort of abstinence lesson has no place.

Fine but again why are acting (blatantly lying?) as if this story is about abstinence-only education?

Because this abstinence lesson took that approach. Hence why, in this lesson, they totally ignored all forms of contraception but 2. They used the failure rate of an incorrectly used condom to try to justify condom use as not being reliable (along with a completely bs story about an entire pack of condoms being leaky which, as I pointed out earlier, has a probability of 1 divided by all the stars in the universe of occurring) and had a completely anecdotal, with no supporting evidence, story about a girl who got pregnant while on the pill.

The pill has, when taken correctly, a failure rate of less than or equal to 1%. Condoms have a failure rate, when used correctly, of about 2%. They didn't mention, at all, combining these forms or even mention IUDs, the implant or injections. Or the emergency contraception pill.

In the point of view of the talk the only contraception was condoms with an inflated 1/5 chance of failure and if it broke you would get pregnant and you had to have that baby so the only way to not ruin your life was to not have sex.

All that needs to be said about abstinence in sex-ed is this: "Not having sex is the only 100% effective way of not getting pregnant or catching an infection from sexual contact." That's it. No paper babies, no scare stories. Give the kids the facts, not bs political agenda and religious ideology.

The guest speaker came to talk about abstinence. That doesn't make the school program abstinence-only sex education.

 Manchu wrote:
The guest speaker came to talk about abstinence. That doesn't make the school program abstinence-only sex education.

But the guest speakers talk was not based on facts or evidence. I stand by my statement that a sex-ed course without that lesson is qualitatively better than one with it, due to the misinformation spread by the speaker which can foster distrust of the whole of sex-ed.


It's like having someone say that if you smoke a joint then you will instantly die. Kid then smokes pot and doesn't die. Why should the kid trust anything else that person said about other drugs when they wouldn't even give them the basic facts about pot?

Again, fine. My question is about why you are misrepresenting this story as being about abstinence-only education.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, fine. My question is about why you are misrepresenting this story as being about abstinence-only education.

Where have I ever claimed that this is about abstinence-only? Where did the article claim it was abstinence-only? Nobody has claimed that.

People have pointed out that abstinence-only education has a higher rate of failure, both in cases of pregnancy and STD prevention, than a comprehensive course. Considering that the groups that give these abstinence talks are typically going to be very similar whether it is abstinence-only or if they're just a speaker as part of a more comprehensive course, I think their impact should be considered.

I have always maintained, throughout this whole thread, that a comprehensive sex-ed course which covers relationships and the mechanics is the best thing for young people. These kinds of abstinence talks, whether on their own or as part of a broader course, offer nothing of value to the young people. They only serve to muddy the issue by introducing incorrect data, emotionally charged anecdotes and to create distrust between young people and the teachers.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, fine. My question is about why you are misrepresenting this story as being about abstinence-only education.

Where have I ever claimed that this is about abstinence-only? Where did the article claim it was abstinence-only?

I pointed out that abstinence-only education has a failure rate greater than comprehensive sex-ed. With that in mind, abstinence education adds nothing to a comprehensive sex-ed course and could in fact detract from it.

So abstinence-only education has a failure rate greater than comprehensive sex-ed. How does it follow that abstinence education adds nothing to a comprehensive sex-ed course? Is a sex-ed course really comprehensive if it doesn't include some talk of abstinence?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I pointed out that abstinence-only education has a failure rate greater than comprehensive sex-ed. With that in mind, abstinence education adds nothing to a comprehensive sex-ed course and could in fact detract from it.

Ah the heart of the matter. You make an argument about abstinence-only education and then pretend it also applies to any sex education program that mentions abstinence, as if that program was also abstinence-only.

 Manchu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I pointed out that abstinence-only education has a failure rate greater than comprehensive sex-ed. With that in mind, abstinence education adds nothing to a comprehensive sex-ed course and could in fact detract from it.

Ah the heart of the matter. You make an argument about abstinence-only education and then pretend it also applies to any sex education program that mentions abstinence, as if that program was also abstinence-only.

No, any comprehensive sex-ed course will already include the required information about abstinence which is basically: "Not having sex is the only 100% effective way of not getting pregnant or catching an infection from sexual contact."

It takes one sentence to go over the benefits of abstinence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:



So abstinence-only education has a failure rate greater than comprehensive sex-ed. How does it follow that abstinence education adds nothing to a comprehensive sex-ed course? Is a sex-ed course really comprehensive if it doesn't include some talk of abstinence?

Because these abstinence talks are not based on scientific evidence (as demonstrated clearly many times throughout this thread by debunking the claims of the abstinence speaker). A comprehensive course will already have covered abstinence in an impartial and scientifically accurate way which doesn't rely on spreading misinformation about the effectiveness of contraception, or scaring children into thinking that if they get pregnant all of their friends will abandon them and they'll have to struggle through on their own.

Abstinence is not really as simple as not having sex; it is choosing not to have sex when you otherwise could. As demonstrated ITT, sex education is principally a matter of values.

 Manchu wrote:
Abstinence is not really as simple as not having sex; it is choosing not to have sex when you otherwise could. As demonstrated ITT, sex education is principally a matter of values.

And knowing how to have safe sex does not make you any more likely to have sex in the first place. It just means that when you do, you are more informed.

Sex-ed is only a matter of values for those who wish to impose their values onto the children, which is typically the abstinence crowd.

No-one on the comprehensive side is saying that we should encourage kids to have sex. Just that they should be taught how to have sex and be in an adult relationship safely when they do decide to take that step.

So I guess it does come down to values. One side values children making their own decisions based on facts and reasoning, the other side values making children do what they want based on lies and scare stories.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sex-ed is only a matter of values for those who wish to impose their values onto the children, which is typically the abstinence crowd.

Let's get real. Imposing values on children is what all of education is about. I guess you have been reading this thread on a very selective basis. A great example of a sex ed issue that is purely a matter of values is consent.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
One side values children making their own decisions based on facts and reasoning, the other side values making children do what they want based on lies and scare stories.

More culture war rhetorical nonsense ...

 Manchu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
One side values children making their own decisions based on facts and reasoning, the other side values making children do what they want based on lies and scare stories.

More culture war rhetorical nonsense ...

If your culture is "lie to children so they do what they're told" (and yes, the speaker did lie to them) then it deserves to have war declared on it. How is giving the children the facts and telling them to make their own decision war against anybody's culture unless that culture assumes that they cannot make that decision themselves? If these people are so worried about their children's values and assume that they will sleep around unless you scare them out of it, then they have absolutely no faith or trust in their children choosing to uphold those values on their own. In which case the kid never truly held those values to begin with.

Consent is not about values but about respect. Considering that those who are pro-abstinence are also often those who come out with things like "legitimate rape" and magical female bodily functions that can identify rape and so don't get pregnant I don't think anybody really wants them to be determining what constitutes consent and teaching that to kids.

Keep religion and politics out of the classroom when it comes to sex and science.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
One side values children making their own decisions based on facts and reasoning, the other side values making children do what they want based on lies and scare stories.

More culture war rhetorical nonsense ...

If your culture is "lie to children so they do what they're told" (and yes, the speaker did lie to them) then it deserves to have war declared on it. How is giving the children the facts and telling them to make their own decision war against anybody's culture unless that culture assumes that they cannot make that decision themselves? If these people are so worried about their children's values and assume that they will sleep around unless you scare them out of it, then they have absolutely no faith or trust in their children choosing to uphold those values on their own. In which case the kid never truly held those values to begin with.

Consent is not about values but about respect. Considering that those who are pro-abstinence are also often those who come out with things like "legitimate rape" and magical female bodily functions that can identify rape and so don't get pregnant I don't think anybody really wants them to be determining what constitutes consent and teaching that to kids.

Keep religion and politics out of the classroom when it comes to sex.

Damn. Malus laying down the facts and the law.

I agree completely with that idea.

There is no reason to lie to your kids or tell them something stupid because you don't want to tell them the truth.

It is better to know the truth than to know a lie.

Consent is about respect ... and not values? Oh dear ...

 Manchu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sex-ed is only a matter of values for those who wish to impose their values onto the children, which is typically the abstinence crowd.

Let's get real. Imposing values on children is what all of education is about. I guess you have been reading this thread on a very selective basis. A great example of a sex ed issue that is purely a matter of values is consent.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
One side values children making their own decisions based on facts and reasoning, the other side values making children do what they want based on lies and scare stories.

More culture war rhetorical nonsense ...

Sorry, but I'm going to side with rationalism and science above religious dogma every time of the day. If that's culture war then so be it.

What is there to say about abstinence beyond the one-sentence description that's already been provided that isn't wholly subjective?

 Manchu wrote:
Consent is about respect ... and not values? Oh dear ...

Yes. You don't need to value sex after marriage or after a certain age or whatever over just plain sex whenever the person feels they are ready, to teach about consent (ie both partners must be in a fit state to give consent, these things are not consent etc.)

Consent is built upon a mutual respect shared between the two sexual partners which will result in neither side taking advantage of the other. A blanket "say no sex without marriage" does not carry that message. At all.

For example, in the dudes story he said that he chose abstinence to stay with his girlfriend until they married (and then they had sex). What is the difference between that and a teenager staying with their girlfriend until they feel ready to have sex, whether they're married or not? In both cases one partner has respected the feelings and wishes of the other. So why then add in that whole "wait until you find someone who says no" thing in there too, which the speaker did? That is purely about attempting to impose your own religious beliefs onto others and demean those who do not follow them by implying that if someone wants to have sex, they're not worth it.

 Manchu wrote:
Consent is about respect ... and not values? Oh dear ...

consent is about respect and values. IF you value someone and you respect them.

If they are marrying to have sex then that is a problem and sadly that is what some people see as a reward for getting married.

IT is basically as bad as just using someone for sex. Actually there is no difference. They are still using them for sex even if they do not mean to. If they see sex as a reward after marriage. Then that persons priorities are screwed up.

 Asherian Command wrote:


If they are marrying to have sex then that is a problem and sadly that is what some people see as a reward for getting married.

Who?

I've never heard of a single person that got married just so they could have sex.

 Manchu wrote:
You make an argument about abstinence-only education and then pretend it also applies to any sex education program that mentions abstinence, as if that program was also abstinence-only.

The program as a whole may or may not have been. The speakers were abstinence-only. Their whole point was that birth control doesn't work, having sex will ruin your life, and you'd better wait until marriage. Even if the school later discussed other methods having those speakers was still entirely inappropriate.

 Manchu wrote:
More culture war rhetorical nonsense ...

It's awfully convenient how any criticism of your side is "culture war rhetorical nonsense".

 cincydooley wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


If they are marrying to have sex then that is a problem and sadly that is what some people see as a reward for getting married.

Who?

I've never heard of a single person that got married just so they could have sex.

You'd be surprised.

Some people have gotten married an broken up because of sexual incapability. So people are dreadfully simple, but at the same time complex.

It does happen. Especially between teens. Yes it is possible. I know of a few. Who married simply for sex. Because having sex outside of marriage is seen as bad.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's awfully convenient how any criticism of your side is "culture war rhetorical nonsense".

My side lol ... exactly the trouble with being a culture warrior --your zealotry goes beyond simple myopia to inventing enemies.

People in marriage still use contraception. We're not all devout Catholics. I've never understood the thinking behind abstinence-only education that you don't need to know about sexual health once married.

 Manchu wrote:
My side lol ... exactly the trouble with being a culture warrior --your zealotry goes beyond simple myopia to inventing enemies.

I see, so now it's "culture war" to use the word "side" to refer to "you and anyone who happens to agree with you" or "your position in the debate"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
People in marriage still use contraception. We're not all devout Catholics. I've never understood the thinking behind abstinence-only education that you don't need to know about sexual health once married.

But, according to many of the people who support abstinence-only "education", you're not supposed to use birth control once you're married. You're supposed to make lots of babies to train into soldiers for Jesus. If you take away the opportunity to produce a child then you're defiling the sacred act of reproduction and you're probably going to hell.

(Yes, this is really stupid, but you have to be completely out of touch with reality to support abstinence-only "education" in the first place.)

I still think the most hilarious thing was when Sarah Palin was standing giving a speech about how she supports abstinence only education and how it works whilst her unmarried teenage daughter was standing behind her, pregnant.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
People in marriage still use contraception. We're not all devout Catholics.

Devout Catholics also use contraception, both before marriage and as married people. In the US especially, practically no one has ever accepted the idea that it is wrong much less intrinsically evil for married couples to use contraception.

 Peregrine wrote:
I see, so now it's "culture war" to use the word "side" to refer to "you and anyone who happens to agree with you" or "your position in the debate"?

And what exactly do you think is my position?

 Manchu wrote:
And what exactly do you think is my position?

That this is "culture war bullying", that it's a clash of values where neither side has indisputable facts, and that the mom's actions were not justified.