I agree with all of this, I just think the school isn’t the right place to do it. The school doesn’t have the amount of time needed, nor does it have the right to teach one set of moral values to teens coming from a diversity of backgrounds.

Abstinence-only is a well intentioned effort that can do more harm than good. One of the studies I found and mentioned in #25 found that teens who had been through abstinence-only programs were as likely to have sex as others, but less likely to use contraceptives. The reason was that the program emphasized the same points you do about their not being 100 percent effective.

The focus on failure rather than use didn’t keep the kids from having sex; it just kept them from having a condom’s 95- or 98-percent effectiveness at preventing harm.

Report comment to moderator

Apparently, highly liberal San Francisco has done it well in some respects. 69% of students reported being virgins. 66% of students who reported having sex also reported using condoms. 11% of students reported using birth control pills.

Compare that to Dallas, Texas (conservative republican voters with significant evangelical presence and an emphasis on abstinence only education). 40% of students reported being virgins. 60% of students who reported having sex also reported using condoms. 7% of students reported using birth control pills.

San Francisco may have a higher abortion rate than Dallas. California no longer reports abortion statistics to the CDC.

Since 50% of students will become sexually active, we must take steps to keep these teens from contracting HIV or having an unwanted pregnancy. To condemn half the student population for their inability to keep Christian morals would be heartless. Interestingly, Christans do not are not any more chaste than non-Christians. Some studies even conclude that evangelicals have sex at a higher rate than non-evangelicals.

Report comment to moderator

I didn’t say they don’t deserve to know how to protect themselves; I said that continual focus on how they can protect themselves doesn’t offer fail-safe protection of any kind–it doesn’t protect 100% (or even close to it) from pregnancy, disease, heartbreak, or any other consequences of living an immoral life.

And no, of course no one “deserves” to know how to sin without consequence. That doesn’t mean that I wish horrid consequences on promiscuous people; I do not. But do they “deserve” to avoid consequences, no. But deserving or not deserving isn’t what I said. What I said is that we’re addressing the wrong issues, and everyone from the individual to the nation has suffered as a result. We can sterilize all our children at birth and wipe out all sexually transmitted diseases, and it would still be a very bad idea, morally, emotionally, and physically, to be promiscuous.

And no, I don’t imagine that a few sessions of abstinence education would be likely to innoculate kids against their whole culture. It’s still better to teach abstinence. But add to that a lot of other things, such as expecting young men and women to behave with propriety and dress appropriately, teaching them the moral consequences of actions in general, etc. Right now our whole culture has decided fornication isn’t even wrong, homosexuality isn’t wrong, and adultery is only slightly wrong…naturally it’s going to be hard to tell teens otherwise. But it’s still worth doing.

Report comment to moderator

That’s a good goal, but abstinence-only sex ed in schools is not going to meet it. Read my post at #25 for an objective assessment of just how poorly it does. In fact it does more harm than good in some ways.(And follow the link to the source; there is a lot of useful information there.)

Changing the attitudes as you suggest has to start at home.

Report comment to moderator

Sorry, but this bit is just ridiculous. Many people have very happy and successful marriages with fulfilling sex lives, and don’t have to be a virgin on their wedding night to have that happen.

Report comment to moderator

Is that not precisely the same kind of “social engineering” that conservatives get up in arms about when they believe liberals are doing it?

Report comment to moderator

So you’re saying smokers deserve lung cancer?

Smoking is an addiction that’s very hard to break. Of all the smokers I have ever known, a figure that must be in the hundreds, 100 percent of them have known the health risks, but I know only two (2) who have successfully quit and stayed quit.

People engage in all kinds of risky activities. Rock climbing, sky diving, SCUBA diving, skateboarding, motorcycling. Even driving a car can be dangerous. In ALL CASES no one objects to giving the practiioners of those activities all of the education and information needed to reduce the risks of injury and death, and safety equipment is available, and in many cases mandatory.

But sex comes with all the moral baggage, and that’s the point where you break with that and say they DON’T deserve to know how to protect themselves.

It does not make sense.

Report comment to moderator

I understand your concern. Certainly abstinence is the best route. But failing that, we need to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence only education does not accomplish this.

Report comment to moderator

Again, you can prevent some diseases, some pregnancies. But that is not all that is lost. Part of what has been lost is the sense that children are a GOOD result of sex. Part of what has been lost is the anticipation of marriage. We live in a society that devalues children, and that doesn’t protect them from important things. We protect them from every possible playground accident, sure, but not from divorce and sexual predation. And then they bear their own children and the cycle continues.

I’m in favor of breaking in and telling kids they can ask for something better for their futures: responsible singleness or responsible marriage, either one, not this sexually irresponsible “freedom” that isn’t good for anyone involved. That’s not even a specifically religious viewpoint! It really isn’t possible to protect anyone from all the costs of irresponsible sex, the personal, family, community, and even national costs, so let’s stop pretending it is.

Report comment to moderator

Teen pregnancy and STDs don’t have to be the natural result of pre-marital sex.

Perhaps we should increase the amount of carcinogens in cigarettes to punish smokers further and increase their risk of lung cancer.

We may not be able to decrease the emotional and spiritual effect of pre-marital sex but at least we can limit the damage caused by unwanted teen pregnancies and STDs. AIDS may no longer be fatal to many but it remains very costly to our health care system with the expensive anti-viral regimen. I would rather not have to further tax the American people just because evangelicals want to punish the wicked for their immorality.

Report comment to moderator