[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Ummm... guess you didn't read the post right before yours.

No I was responding to an earlier post of his, I hadn't read that post yet. Forgive me for my accusation.

[Ridley's Own]

I think there's a couple of things I want to say about this... First, protecting virginity for the sake of protecting virginity seems to me to be fetishing virginity, rather than approaching it as what Christians believe about sex. Second, I think teenagers are going to have sex, and the full range of facts needs to be known. Just before we broke up for Christmas, I had a sexually-active couple come and see me because she thought she might be pregnant. I had to break out the biology book and explain that what they were doing they could not get pregant. These were a 15 and a 16 year old. Sex Ed needs to be total sex ed, including abstience as the only 100% effective way of not getting preggo or an STI.

As far as how Christians approach this, I think we jsut say, 'sex is between a married couple.' full stop. Ignore the pledges, ignore the high pressure sales pitch (as if teenagers needed to pressured any more than they already are) and simply leave it at that.

Originally Posted by slap_j

So...anyway. Also he put a condom on a banana. FYI.

I got the condom-on-a-bannana thing, too. And, let me say, as a 13 year old, that was pretty damn intimidating.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by The wirerat

Actually, that is true. If you read a condom box it will even tell you that prolonged storage will damage the structural integrity of the condom and increase the likelihood of condom failure.

I just went and looked on the back of the Trojans I have here and saw no such warning.

Verbatim that would be a useless warning. Condoms in the box are "stored", and an expiration date would cover "prolonged"s duration.

Secondly, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying abstinence is stupid, and encouraging sex before marriage. This is Biblically unsound, so I'm not sure why you are promulgating that idea.

I'm fine with abstinence. I have a problem with abstinence-only sex ed programs beacause they 1) give false information and 2) don't actually work.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I just went and looked on the back of the Trojans I have here and saw no such warning.

Verbatim that would be a useless warning. Condoms in the box are "stored", and an expiration date would cover "prolonged"s duration.

Indeed...the closest warning on the outside of the box is to avoid direct sunlight and temperatures over 100 degrees.

It does however state that condoms should not be stored in wallets on the directions inside of the box.

[The wirerat]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I just went and looked on the back of the Trojans I have here and saw no such warning.

Verbatim that would be a useless warning. Condoms in the box are "stored", and an expiration date would cover "prolonged"s duration.

TheSteve said what I was going to say.

I'm fine with abstinence. I have a problem with abstinence-only sex ed programs beacause they 1) give false information and 2) don't actually work.

I agree with you. The ultimate sex-ed/abstinence program starts with the parents, and the kids themselves. We can't scare kids into not having sex, not going to happen. The public school education system is faulty in many ways, and its up to the parents to step in those many cracks.

[Epaphras]

The link was broken when I tried it, but I put things like this in the same category as Head Start. Head Start is designed to prepare under-privileged kids for kindergarten and elementary school. However, cohort studies have shown that by sixth grade any advantages have vanished and HS kids are the same in every way as their non-HS students (just as many are failing, getting held back, etc.). Some cite this and say Head Start is a failure. However, it's not a failure because it did exactly what it's supposed to do: it prepares under-privileged kids for elementary school. Those children succeed in early childhood education (compared to non-HS advantaged and non-HS under-privileged students) and the factors that influence performance by sixth grade cannot be attributed to Head Start, but peer influence, personal choice, etc.

Moving along, I see the same thing with abstinence programs. Although they are supposed to encourage kids to wait on sex until marriage, subliminally they also are working to prevent teen sex in general. In other words, it's more-or-less a way to keep teens from having sex. So, if a group of teens who go through the program are having less sex than a group who didn't go through it, then I see it as a success, even if a few years later those kids are having just as much sex as their peers. If the program keeps teens from having sex (but they have sex later in college, for example) then I still consider it a success. Although it's a shame they didn't keep their commitment, abstinence programs cannot be blamed for future decisions. It worked when it counted (during high school) at the group-level, obviously not every individual is abstinent in high school.

Also, I agree 100% with what has been said about sex-education coming from the parents first. If a parent is waiting to have "the talk" with their kid until they get the slide-show at school, in many ways it's too late. I believe godly sexuality can be taught age-appropriately to kids of almost any age, especially if they are showing some kind of pre-pubescent interest or asking questions.

[tlj009]

Not at all. Absitnance-only programs are useful for getting kids to stop using birth control by informing them they don't work. Conversly "proper" sex ed is useful for preventing pregnancy and STDs by teaching which contraceptives are most useful for what, how to use it, and the importance of STD screening.

Since you have repeated it several times, exactly how do the programs get by with lying to the kids in the way that you have stated. And why would the subject come up causing the chance to lie to the kids if the teaching is strictly "don't have sex"?

Keep in mind that I have never had a sex ed class and have never really been associated with one. I just find it hard to believe that the people running these programs are intentionally lying to the kids.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm fine with abstinence. I have a problem with abstinence-only sex ed programs beacause they 1) give false information and 2) don't actually work.

I'll agree on the first point, but how would you define "work" in this context? At what percentage of teens abstaining from sex because of the curriculum would you consider the program a success or one that "works"?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Since you have repeated it several times, exactly how do the programs get by with lying to the kids in the way that you have stated. And why would the subject come up causing the chance to lie to the kids if the teaching is strictly "don't have sex"?

As part of their "why you need to abstain" is a "why contraceptives don't work" element which supports its thesis with false claims regarding contraceptives.

[quote]I'll agree on the first point, but how would you define "work" in this context? At what percentage of teens abstaining from sex because of the curriculum would you consider the program a success or one that "works"?QUOTE] "any" would be a start. There's no support that there's *any* measurable change in rate of intercourse.

There is a measurable increase in STDs and unintended pregnancies.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There is a measurable increase in STDs and unintended pregnancies.

Do you have a source for this? Spell out your parameters a little more, too. Are you saying that, as a group, teens who go through abstinence training and "virginity pledges" have measurable increases in STDs and unintended pregnancies...compared to whom? Groups who go through contraceptive-based training and/or don't take virginity pledges?

Also, it's not like abstinence-only sex education is inherently anti-contraceptive. Obviously some is, usually the kinds that end up in the news. But I think that 99% of sex education teaches the facts about contraception. Christian sex education simply places higher weight on God's design for sexuality (expressed only in marriage between husband and wife) and thus abstaining until then. "Secular" sex education concedes that abstinence is a valid path, but it also morally allows for sexual activity outside of marriage (either by encouraging it or saying, "Well, they're going to do it anyway; might as well be safe"), or rather, it leaves the morality out of it - "Do whatever you want, as long as its your choice and you have a special connection to the person".

In discussing this thread with some friends and my wife (who went to a Christian school), most of them said, to a varying degree, that while they were taught about all the kinds of contraception, the underlying theme was that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way to not get pregnant or get an STD. This was even my experience in a public school program. At the same time they were demonstrating condoms on bananas, they left it with, "Abstinence is the only guaranteed way to not get pregnant or get an STD." They weren't taught lies about contraception, and the previous statement (that abstinence is 100% pregnancy- and STD-proof) is not a lie (unless you think it is, in which case I'd love to hear your reasoning).

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Do you have a source for this? Spell out your parameters a little more, too. Are you saying that, as a group, teens who go through abstinence training and "virginity pledges" have measurable increases in STDs and unintended pregnancies...compared to whom? Groups who go through contraceptive-based training and/or don't take virginity pledges?

Also, it's not like abstinence-only sex education is inherently anti-contraceptive. Obviously some is, usually the kinds that end up in the news. But I think that 99% of sex education teaches the facts about contraception. Christian sex education simply places higher weight on God's design for sexuality (expressed only in marriage between husband and wife) and thus abstaining until then. "Secular" sex education concedes that abstinence is a valid path, but it also morally allows for sexual activity outside of marriage (either by encouraging it or saying, "Well, they're going to do it anyway; might as well be safe"), or rather, it leaves the morality out of it - "Do whatever you want, as long as its your choice and you have a special connection to the person".

In discussing this thread with some friends and my wife (who went to a Christian school), most of them said, to a varying degree, that while they were taught about all the kinds of contraception, the underlying theme was that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way to not get pregnant or get an STD. This was even my experience in a public school program. At the same time they were demonstrating condoms on bananas, they left it with, "Abstinence is the only guaranteed way to not get pregnant or get an STD." They weren't taught lies about contraception, and the previous statement is not a lie (unless you think it is, in which case I'd love to hear your reasoning).

*cough*Mary*cough*

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Do you have a source for this?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...e+only&spell=1

http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/1...sp.2008.5.3.18
"Study results indicated that most abstinence programs did not delay initiation of sex and only 3 of 9 had any significant positive effects on any sexual behavior. In contrast, about two thirds of comprehensive programs showed strong evidence that they positively affected young people's sexual behavior, including both delaying initiation of sex and increasing condom and contraceptive use among important groups of youth. "

and here

http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/...inence_ed_link
"Several studies of abstinence curricula, including the definitive assessment by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published in 2004, have shown flaws and inaccuracies in the medical and social information they offer to students. "

and here

Spell out your parameters a little more, too. Are you saying that, as a group, teens who go through abstinence training and "virginity pledges" have measurable increases in STDs and unintended pregnancies...compared to whom? Groups who go through contraceptive-based training and/or don't take virginity pledges?

Compared to comprehensive programs. There's little-to-no difference between abstinance-only and none-at-all (well: I've seen studies that indicated harm there too, but most show no signifigant difference)

Also, it's not like abstinence-only sex education is inherently anti-contraceptive.

In practice: It univerally is. Otherwise it would be "abstinance-first" instead of "only"

Obviously some is, usually the kinds that end up in the news. But I think that 99% of sex education teaches the facts about contraception. Christian sex education simply places higher weight on God's design for sexuality (expressed only in marriage between husband and wife) and thus abstaining until then. "Secular" sex education concedes that abstinence is a valid path, but it also morally allows for sexual activity outside of marriage (either by encouraging it or saying, "Well, they're going to do it anyway; might as well be safe"), or rather, it leaves the morality out of it - "Do whatever you want, as long as its your choice and you have a special connection to the person".

Since when is accepting a reality encouraging a reality?

Would you now accuse secularists of encouraging breast cancer by teaching that women should screen?!?

BTW: "abstinance-only" is not taught only at religious schools. The federal government, in its bid to mix religion and government, at the same time it cut funding for anythign that even mentioned abortion as a possability, also threw bags of money at abstinance-only.

In discussing this thread with some friends and my wife (who went to a Christian school), most of them said, to a varying degree, that while they were taught about all the kinds of contraception, the underlying theme was that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way to not get pregnant or get an STD.

Ever hear of HPV? You can get that from a kiss on the cheek. Same with HSV. Pubic lice from sharing clothing. HIV requires sharing blood usually. The list goes on.

But you make my point: She came away with "contraceptives don't work".

This was even my experience in a public school program. At the same time they were demonstrating condoms on bananas, they left it with, "Abstinence is the only guaranteed way to not get pregnant or get an STD." They weren't taught lies about contraception, and the previous statement (that abstinence is 100% pregnancy- and STD-proof) is not a lie (unless you think it is, in which case I'd love to hear your reasoning).

I'm pretty sure there have been no pregnant woman post-hysterectomy. Some other sterilizations seem similarly 100%

Did they teach that you can get pregnant through clothing and without penetration? They might of. Did they mention all the STDs abstinant people can still get?

What did they say the effacy was? Taylored (ones where hormone levels are checked after start of use to verify that they are working in the patient) contraceptives have a 99.9% effacy unless misused. Condoms are similar.

Let's go with some much-lower numbers. If a condom has a 1%-per-year failure rate (which is accurate/conservative in clinical studies... where we remove human error, which is what sex-ed attempts to do), and an IUD has a 1% failure rate, then the likelyhood of getting pregnant where both are in use, in a given year, is 1-in-10,000.

Add an understanding of fertility periods (theoretically effective >99%, but let's call it 90%), and that becomes 1-in-100,000. Is that 100%? No, it's 99.999%.

Do I mention this to say "abstinance is irrellevnet"? No. But the programs in question don't give an impression anywhere similar to this. They discourage the use of birth-control as ineffective. Similarly, some proponents )some here on CGR) discourage having birth control as "admitting defeat". So it's not even available when sex does happen.

And let's put that in perspective. >40% of "pledged virgins" have sex before marriage. No contraceptive is 85% ineffective. That equates to >35% per year getting pregnant. Even something at 90% would cut that to 3.5%.

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So it's not even available when sex does happen.

Sex doesnt "happen". It is not a forgone conclusion when 2 people of the oposite sex are in the same room. You choose to have to sex.

As a christian, why would I carry condoms with me if 1. I know Im not going to place myself in a position where sexual activity would be either possible or convienient; 2. Im not going to have sex even if the oportunity presented itself?

For me, Not-having sex is a foregone conclusion until I am married. It should be the same for other christians. And we have scripture that tells us not to make any room for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts. Carrying condoms with you (for a christian) is simply making room for yourself to fail in the area of your own sexuality (im using "Your" as a general term, not to specifically refer to you Jerry).

The secular world can do as it pleases. For them, to have sex or not to have sex doesnt have the same moral weight it would for a christian. And if for them its an option they are going to explore, then yeah, they should carry contraceptives with them.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

Sex doesnt "happen". It is not a forgone conclusion when 2 people of the oposite sex are in the same room. You choose to have to sex.

This is the voice of inexperience. And while, yes, on some level, one does choose to have sex, there is a difference between a 25 year old who is choosing to have sex and a 15 year old 'choosing' to have sex. There is an assumption here that a 15 year old is actually making decisions that are free and clear, and i"m not sure that's accurate. I'm not excusing it, but I do think it's a lot more complex than 'they're making a choice to fornicate.'

And can we really call it a decision if they don't have all the facts, including contraception? I'm not sure it's fair to use 'decision language' if they can't actually make a decision from an informed basis; otherwise, it's just what the hormones are telling them to do.

The secular world can do as it pleases. For them, to have sex or not to have sex doesnt have the same moral weight it would for a christian. And if for them its an option they are going to explore, then yeah, they should carry contraceptives with them.

Actually, I think it very much does carry the same moral weight. Is this about maintaining some kind of 'purity' issue, something I can't really put my finger on Biblically, or are we agin' sexual adventurism because there's issues of exploitation and maintaining the image of God in all people? Because if it's about purity, then we're fetishizing virginity and you're right, it's irrelevant to the nonChristian world, but I'm tapping out and simply refuse to raise the issue anymore. If it's about exploitation, then yeah, it is relevant to the nonChristian world.

The issue isn't whether or not Christians can responsibly carry contraceptives, it's the whole way Chrisitans (and, particularly evangelical Christians) have approached the issue of sex over the last 30 or so years. It's been made a social issue to beat 'liberals' over, and I think that's completely misconstrued and corrupted the very simple teaching about sex that the Church and the Bible have. It's immensely silly and the anxiety about it is just a distraction.

In all of this, can we just stop being hysterical about this? If Jack and Jill decide to have sex, can we just say, 'Bad Jack, bad Jill,' and move on without getting into histrionics (or 'Bad Jack, bad Jack' or 'Bad Jill, bad Jill,' for that matter, and if you don't think that's happening with our Christian young people, you're on a different planet).

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

This is the voice of inexperience. And while, yes, on some level, one does choose to have sex, there is a difference between a 25 year old who is choosing to have sex and a 15 year old 'choosing' to have sex. There is an assumption here that a 15 year old is actually making decisions that are free and clear, and i"m not sure that's accurate. I'm not excusing it, but I do think it's a lot more complex than 'they're making a choice to fornicate.'

And can we really call it a decision if they don't have all the facts, including contraception? I'm not sure it's fair to use 'decision language' if they can't actually make a decision from an informed basis; otherwise, it's just what the hormones are telling them to do.

This is just silly, and unfair to young people in general.

Nobody has "all the facts," and while teenagers may be more likely to be confused about contraception, they certainly understand the basic sex->pregnancy chain of causation.

No decision is "free and clear," insofar as it is unaffected by the sexual, chemical, emotional, and psychological makeup of human beings as such.

You don't think 25 year olds get caught up in moments of passion and do "just what the hormones are telling them to do"? Get real.

You even subconsciously admit that "decision language" is appropriate by using it in your conclusion about "Jack and Jill deciding to have sex."

All human choices are made under imperfect (if any) knowledge and incomplete (at best) understanding. The only difference is we get better at interpreting ambiguous data as we age.