• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds

Gibberish said:
Of course, Abstinence would be stated as the safest measure of all. There is no reason to leave out abstinence or contraceptives from the discussion along with the risk that is still present when using contraceptives vs abstinence.
Click to expand...
Then I would be alright with that. All too often, abstainence isn't just not part of the picture, its discouraged.

You didn't. You said "If everyone in the world waited untill they were married and never cheated. The AIDS problem would be virtually nonexistent.".

Your scenario assumes everyone gets married. There are large numbers of people in the world that never get married so your scenario would never exist even if those people that were going to be married waited and never cheated.
Click to expand...
Well, they would have to get married to have sex then, wouldn't they? Because all the ones that are married, wouldn't cheat.

Again though, thats hypothetical. Don't like to be christiano-communist utopia :p
 
DarkWizard12 said:
97% =/= 100%.
Click to expand...

Yes, and 100% is an irrational expectation

DarkWizard12 said:
my beef isn't with condoms though. f your going to have sex, use a condom. Its the fact that, thats the only behaviour thats encouraged. Who's telling the kids "Hey kids, condoms are okay but only 97% effective. If you abstain, you'll be in just as good a shape". Hell, I wonder how many condom companies lobby for sex-ed?
Click to expand...

No one. I don't know an educator foolish enough to use the word "only" when describing "97%"

Nor was anyone in my grade school dumb enough to need to be told this. Do you think people who chose to have sex don't know about abstinence or something?
 
Gibberish said:
Of course, Abstinence would be stated as the safest measure of all. There is no reason to leave out abstinence or contraceptives from the discussion along with the risk that is still present when using contraceptives vs abstinence.
Click to expand...
Then I would be alright with that. All too often, abstainence isn't just not part of the picture, its discouraged.

You didn't. You said "If everyone in the world waited untill they were married and never cheated. The AIDS problem would be virtually nonexistent.".

Your scenario assumes everyone gets married. There are large numbers of people in the world that never get married so your scenario would never exist even if those people that were going to be married waited and never cheated.
Click to expand...
Well, they would have to get married to have sex then, wouldn't they? Because all the ones that are married, wouldn't cheat.

Again though, thats hypothetical. Don't like to be christiano-communist utopia :p
 
It is impossible to leave out abstinence if you're explaining the biological mechanics of childbirth. Teaching a cause implies that its absence will negate the outcome.

The word "abstinence" doesn't even ever need to be mentioned, anyone too dumb to get that are the type to break their abstinence pledge and not use a condom when they do anyways IMO.
Click to expand...
So...we are going to keep in abstinence...by not keeping in abstinence...

Quite a paradox :roll:
 
DarkWizard12 said:
So...we are going to keep in abstinence...by not keeping in abstinence...

Quite a paradox :roll:
Click to expand...

Its no paradox, its the implication of cause and effect. If you understand the cause, you understand the effect of its absence.

I believe that this is not actually what you want taught, I think you want abstinence taught as some kind of a morally superior alternative. But I have never heard a valid justification for abstinence other than "because I don't WANT to."

Then I would be alright with that. All too often, abstainence isn't just not part of the picture, its discouraged.
Click to expand...

Its implied, so its part of the picture inherently. How has it ever been discouraged in sex ed?

Do you mean to say that people are more likely to have sex if they know it can be done in a consequence free environment?

Puberty discourages abstinence, not sex ed.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
No I want teachers to educate on protective measures for avoiding STD's.
Click to expand...
And protective measure for avoiding influenza too I hope. I'm sure if washing hands were encouraged, that might have an effect no? It would save kids from getting sick, save doctors the time, and save money on bills. As said, we don't wash our hands enough.

Bleeding or sores and it is a relevant risk. Herpes would be the most relevant to kissing.
Click to expand...
Again, I think bleeding or sore gums would be hard to miss. I can't see a girl saying "Ouch, I cut my gums...kiss me". Though...I could see a guy though...
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
And protective measure for avoiding influenza too I hope. I'm sure if washing hands were encouraged, that might have an effect no? It would save kids from getting sick, save doctors the time, and save money on bills. As said, we don't wash our hands enough.
Click to expand...

Protection against the flu isn't the objective of Sex-ed. Protection against STD's is. And again, education on the flu and the reason to wash your hands is learnt at a much much younger age. Repeating it at this stage of education would be redundant and a waste of time.


DarkWizard12 said:
Again, I think bleeding or sore gums would be hard to miss. I can't see a girl saying "Ouch, I cut my gums...kiss me". Though...I could see a guy though...
Click to expand...
It's not that it is missed or not. It's that they understand that having such and performing certain acts could lead to transfer of diseases.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Its no paradox, its the implication of cause and effect. If you understand the cause, you understand the effect of its absence.

I believe that this is not actually what you want taught, I think you want abstinence taught as some kind of a morally superior alternative. But I have never heard a valid justification for abstinence other than "because I don't WANT to."



Its implied, so its part of the picture inherently. How has it ever been discouraged in sex ed?

Do you mean to say that people are more likely to have sex if they know it can be done in a consequence free environment?
Click to expand...
Oh sigh.

You think I'm one of those judgemental christian types aren't you?

Me: "Hey, dudes, maybe we should teach or...maybe...like...suggest to students that abstaining from sexual behaviour is the only 100% effective way from avoiding STD's, beyond blood-transfer and drugs, and stuff."
You: "No, abstinence is not morally-superiour to condom-use. And, no again, just because.
Me: "WTF"?

I'm done discussing this with you. The fact that you would make that judgement based on...well...nothing, should learn some reading skills.
 
Gibberish said:
Protection against the flu isn't the objective of Sex-ed. Protection against STD's is.
Click to expand...
Yes, STD is a well...disease no?

So, if we are going to have sex-ed programs in schools to prevent one disease, why not programs in schools to prevent the spreading of other diseases?

It's not that it is missed or not. It's that they understand that having such and performing certain acts could lead to transfer of diseases.
Click to expand...
Then tell them what can get you an STD then. Kissing, however, is not one. Unless of course, bleeding gums. Which, you did not mention originally.

Can you get AIDS from. . . ?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Yes, STD is a well...disease no?

So, if we are going to have sex-ed programs in schools to prevent one disease, why not programs in schools to prevent the spreading of other diseases?
Click to expand...
Why not make all students get their phD in medicine? Because it's relevant or required for basic sexual education.


DarkWizard12 said:
Then tell them what can get you an STD then. Kissing, however, is not one. Unless of course, bleeding gums. Which, you did not mention originally.

Can you get AIDS from. . . ?
Click to expand...
Tell them what can get you an STD and how to protect themselves from getting STDs.

You do know there are more STDs then AIDS right? There are a number ofthem that can be transmitted through saliva, bleeding or canker sores in the mouth.
Sexually transmitted disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
Oh sigh.

You think I'm one of those judgemental christian types aren't you?

Me: "Hey, dudes, maybe we should teach or...maybe...like...suggest to students that abstaining from sexual behaviour is the only 100% effective way from avoiding STD's, beyond blood-transfer and drugs, and stuff."
You: "No, abstinence is not morally-superiour to condom-use. And, no again, just because.
Me: "WTF"?

I'm done discussing this with you.
Click to expand...

That's not quite how it went, and you gave me reason to believe you were making moral value judgements when you claimed "if everyone waited until they were married" and used the word "pleasure" with contempt. Besides, many other posts of yours on theology that I've seen are evidence that supports my belief as well; not that they are relevant.

However, if you're done you're done. But the fact remains that abstinence is not 100% effective, abstinence pledges are in fact ineffective and cause worse results. Also, people can get HPV for example without ever having had sex or contaminated medical products.

Sure I'll agree that its highly unlikely that a celibate would ever get an STD in their life; I just wouldn't call those years past puberty "living," nor is marriage any protection either, given cheating and the divorce rate.

Your argument is no more to the point to me than the fact that an indoor cat lives longer than an outdoor cat. Not everyone plans to be married, nor are people deterred by appeals to fear.

I don't do things for fear of the worst case scenario, that would be a miserable standard for living. You've got to have a better reason for abstinence than the possible negative outcomes of sex...

You do really how GREAT sex is don't you?

The fact that you would make that judgement based on...well...nothing, should learn some reading skills.
Click to expand...

I asked you several times the reasons for your word choices with such contempt, you ignored them. You left me with no reason but to speculate why "marriage" as an institution is worth the wait.

Or why "pleasure" is a poor reason. And if you think "nothing" reflects your posting history of being a judgmental Christian, you should really do a search of your posts...

I have VERY MANY reasons for believing you are how you are. Especially when you talk about "bad Christians" or describe a particular kind of Christianity. Didn't you say that "Well, I tell you, thats not christian. thats baloney" to those who claim that I'm going to hell for my lack of faith?

Please, help me w/ my reading skills. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Why not make all students get their phD in medicine? Because it's relevant or required for basic sexual education.
Click to expand...
I said disease, not sexual orientation.

Tell them what can get you an STD and how to protect themselves from getting STDs.

You do know there are more STDs then AIDS right? There are a number ofthem that can be transmitted through saliva, bleeding or canker sores in the mouth.
Sexually transmitted disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

[/quote]
IF their gums are bleeding or has sores, etc.
 
Gibberish said:
What relevance does that have to the discussion of sexual education?
Click to expand...
Ok. One step at a time.

1. What is the purpose of sex ed?
Answer: to prevent sexually transmitted diseases

2. So, should we have OTHER programs in schools to prevent OTHER diseases?
Yes. There are requirements to getting STDs orally, as I stated previously.
Click to expand...
FINALLY!

point was, you did not mention it the first time. Thats why I brought it up.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
1. What is the purpose of sex ed?
Answer: to prevent sexually transmitted diseases
Click to expand...
Wrong. It is the purpose to educate on the function of reproduction and the risks involved with practicing sexual based activities. STD's just happen to be one major risk that needs to be addressed. Pregnancy is another.

One risk that is not discussed is social and mental damage that can possibly occur by having sex. That's not brought up in sex-ed. Should it?

DarkWizard12 said:
2. So, should we have OTHER programs in schools to prevent OTHER diseases?
Click to expand...
Only if they are relevant. General health class focuses on many sicknesses.

Should there be a class devoted to surviving the Black Plague, Malaria, Yellow fever, or SARS? I don't think so.

DarkWizard12 said:
FINALLY!

point was, you did not mention it the first time. Thats why I brought it up.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I needed to qualify the STD with the requirements. It is still an STD and you can still get it by kissing, which was my original point.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
That's not quite how it went, and you gave me reason to believe you were making moral value judgements when you claimed "if everyone waited until they were married" and used the word "pleasure" with contempt. Besides, many other posts of yours on theology that I've seen are evidence that supports my belief as well; not that they are relevant.
Fine, fine, I'll use better word choice next time. It was actually refferencing to a different arguement. But yea, next time.
However, if you're done you're done. But the fact remains that abstinence is not 100% effective, abstinence pledges are in fact ineffective and cause worse results. Also, people can get HPV for example without ever having had sex or contaminated medical products.
Click to expand...
IF they're having sex because they aren't abstaining? There is a difference in pledging abstainance, and actually doing it. Thats why I never favoured it. I can't promise the future bur at the present, I can promise I am abstaining and have always been.
Sure I'll agree that its highly unlikely that a celibate would ever get an STD in their life; I just wouldn't call those years past puberty "living," nor is marriage any protection either, given cheating and the divorce rate.
Click to expand...
Why? Is sex all their is to enjoy in post-puberty? I find there to be much more in life than that.
Your argument is no more to the point to me than the fact that an indoor cat lives longer than an outdoor cat. Not everyone plans to be married, nor are people deterred by appeals to fear.

I don't do things for fear of the worst case scenario, that would be a miserable standard for living. You've got to have a better reason for abstinence than the possible negative outcomes of sex...
Click to expand...
*thinks for a moment*

Is it the "fear" that turns you off, or is it the fact its just hard to do?
You do really how GREAT sex is don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes. I think its so great that I want my first time to be with no one other than my wife. I don't favour the idea of "casual sex". I want sex to be special each time and the first time to be the most special.

I asked you several times the reasons for your word choices with such contempt, you ignored them. You left me with no reason but to speculate why "marriage" as an institution is worth the wait.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I must have skimmed over it or something. It was basically in...attitude... in reference to one particulur argument, not really universal.
Or why "pleasure" is a poor reason. And if you think "nothing" reflects your posting history of being a judgmental Christian, you should really do a search of your posts...
Click to expand...
The only judgements that have come from me, I think at least, has been catholics(due to the entire history involved, and the fact they are not run like a "church") and to a lesser extent, gays.
I have VERY MANY reasons for believing you are how you are. Especially when you talk about "bad Christians" or describe a particular kind of Christianity. Didn't you say that "Well, I tell you, thats not christian. thats baloney" to those who claim that I'm going to hell for my lack of faith?
Click to expand...
well, it is. One comeing to a conclusion of where a person is going to go to in the afterlife is not christian, its just being a little arrogant that, somehow, one has the the authority to make that call. Last time I checked, God has that authority, not christians.

But I digress.

I do make pretentious judgements at times, but so does everyone else. I do not believe my religion causes me to make judgements, rather, it just influences what group will be on the receiving end...either way, it is wrong and...I apologize...

Edit: wow....I....do have an ego....
Please, help me w/ my reading skills. :lol:
Click to expand...
ouch....:doh
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DW, I'm not getting your argument at this point. Are you arguing for the elimination of sex ed? Are you saying it's pointless? Are you saying abstinence-only education is better?

Please clarify.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
IF they're having sex because they aren't abstaining? There is a difference in pledging abstainance, and actually doing it. Thats why I never favoured it. I can't promise the future bur at the present, I can promise I am abstaining and have always been.
Click to expand...

Would you have changed you decision if you were taught that you could possibly not receive an STD or impregnate a women by wearing a condom?

DarkWizard12 said:
Yes. I think its so great that I want my first time to be with no one other than my wife. I don't favour the idea of "casual sex". I want sex to be special each time and the first time to be the most special.
Click to expand...

I have had sex with a number of women. Not too many. My first time was very special and with someone (also her first time) that I very much cared about and still do.

I now have sex with my lovely wife and she is the last person I will be having sex with. The fact that we both had sex with other people before we ever knew each other did not and does not lower each moment we share in anyway. In fact, personally I believe it heightens it because of the experience and confidence we have gained in our sexual education.

This is not meant to diminish your decision in any way. I just wanted to give you an opinion from a differing perspective.
 
Orius said:
DW, I'm not getting your argument at this point. Are you arguing for the elimination of sex ed? Are you saying it's pointless? Are you saying abstinence-only education is better?

Please clarify.
Click to expand...

He wants to eliminate it all together and dedicate classes on how to defend against influenza in its place. I thought that was clear? :roll:

:lol: :2wave:
 
Orius said:
DW, I'm not getting your argument at this point. Are you arguing for the elimination of sex ed? Are you saying it's pointless? Are you saying abstinence-only education is better?

Please clarify.
Click to expand...
I'm saying we should have 2 tier system. In otherwords, both. Abstinence should be taught alongside contemporary sex ed, as well as making it completely voluntary and localized so that parents have more control.
 
Gibberish said:
He wants to eliminate it all together and dedicate classes on how to defend against influenza in its place. I thought that was clear? :roll:

:lol: :2wave:
Click to expand...
^^^^^le sighs....*
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I'm saying we should have 2 tier system. In otherwords, both. Abstinence should be taught alongside contemporary sex ed, as well as making it completely voluntary and localized so that parents have more control.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it is in the U.S., but growing up in Canada, it was mandatory for the kids to take sex ed classes unless the parents wrote a note saying not to. There were religious people in my class whose parents were not in favour of it, so they opted out and did other things during the period. The schools also issued notes to every family letting them know that sex ed was about to start, so they had time to ask questions or state objections.

As for including abstinence as part of sex ed, that is already the case. One of the first things they tell you when you start a sex ed class is that abstinence is the only method of protecting yourself 100% from unwanted outcomes.

I'm in favour of teaching abstinence as part of sex ed programs, as it is a perfectly valid choice, but it's not the only choice and we must also cater to that reality as well.
 
Gibberish said:
Would you have changed you decision if you were taught that you could possibly not receive an STD or impregnate a women by wearing a condom?
Click to expand...
I was taught that really. Its just...well...I want to have sex, I get the urges like everyone else does, at night, every time I see a hot girl etc. and sometimes I do feel like just saying "forget it" and just going all the way. but in the end, when faced with the choice(and, at one time, I had a real chance to go all the way), it's difficult and mildly uncomfortable. Choosing to have sex before marriage just feels like it goes against who I really am.

I have had sex with a number of women. Not too many. My first time was very special and with someone (also her first time) that I very much cared about and still do.

I now have sex with my lovely wife and she is the last person I will be having sex with. The fact that we both had sex with other people before we ever knew each other did not and does not lower each moment we share in anyway. In fact, personally I believe it heightens it because of the experience and confidence we have gained in our sexual education.

This is not meant to diminish your decision in any way. I just wanted to give you an opinion from a differing perspective.
Click to expand...
I do thank you for the opinion, it does mean alot to me. It's just, I still couldn't choose otherwise, at least not now. There are literally hundreds of reasons why I choose this and #1 is, its just who I am, my character. Outside of the illusion of privacy, that is the internet, I one of those geeky, non-confrontational, just-wants-to-do-what's-right, kind of a person. If simply waiting untill marriage is all it takes, then I'll wait as long as I have too. Everyone close to me, everyone who I care about, has discouraged me from having sex before marriage. I guess thats another reasonl I love my family and I want to make them proud. During High School, some friends did try to find some girls for me at times(full-grown, professionally-paid girls, if you know what I mean). I turned them down, again and again. Then one said, and I still remember, "I respect you, I really do. Anytime you want some, you can tell us and we'll hook you up, but, we won't encourage it, we won't push you".

Well, thats about it. Some people can wait, some people can't. :shrug
 
Last edited:
. During High School, some friends did try to find some girls for me at times(full-grown, professionally-paid girls, if you know what I mean). I turned them down, again and again.
Click to expand...

This is a horrible idea. I'm glad you resisted it.
No person's first sexual experience should be with a prostitute.
Although I understand this was quite common- even customary- in the past.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
IF they're having sex because they aren't abstaining? There is a difference in pledging abstainance, and actually doing it. Thats why I never favoured it. I can't promise the future bur at the present, I can promise I am abstaining and have always been.

Why? Is sex all their is to enjoy in post-puberty? I find there to be much more in life than that.
Click to expand...

Not at all, but the intimacy of a sexual relationship and the joy of finding someone who is a reflection of your own virtues is something I could never live without. A life alone is a life wasted IMO, and to produce life is among the greatest acts on can perform.

There is so much more to sex than the physical act. But more importantly, I don't believe in marriage as an institution (this is where my shrink if I had one would point out that my parents divorced as a child.) What if someone doesn't want to get married, or more importantly... what if they do, but fail at finding a mate later in life?

No, sex isn't everything, but IMO most everything we do is motivated by sex one way or the other. For example, all of my hard work and studying for a career in accounting is I think so that I could land a 1st round draft pick of a wife (If I ever marry, I will do it for her, not because I wanted to.)

Not simply for selfish aesthetic reasons, but because of the genetic advantage for my possible future children.

DarkWizard12 said:
*thinks for a moment*

Is it the "fear" that turns you off, or is it the fact its just hard to do?
Click to expand...

I think I made it clear that appeals to fear or worst case scenarios do not work on me.

Unless you mean, turns me off of your point... In which case my answer is yes. If it is "good" to abstain from sex for fear of negative outcomes, that is a contemptible reason to be good. That to me is like being moral for fear of hell.

IMO sex is great, and I am careful so I am clean. And also one can get tested and know if their partner is "safe."

DarkWizard12 said:
Yes. I think its so great that I want my first time to be with no one other than my wife. I don't favour the idea of "casual sex". I want sex to be special each time and the first time to be the most special.
Click to expand...

I really don't see the virtue in losing your virginity to a wife, nor do I hear anyone advocating "casual sex." I have never been with anyone I did not know for a long time, loved, completely trusted, and knew I had nothing to fear.

Trust me, one can have "special" sex before marriage. Assuming one is a good judge of character, and has good friends to block bad relationships.

DarkWizard12 said:
Sorry, I must have skimmed over it or something. It was basically in...attitude... in reference to one particulur argument, not really universal.

The only judgements that have come from me, I think at least, has been catholics(due to the entire history involved, and the fact they are not run like a "church") and to a lesser extent, gays.

well, it is. One comeing to a conclusion of where a person is going to go to in the afterlife is not christian, its just being a little arrogant that, somehow, one has the the authority to make that call. Last time I checked, God has that authority, not christians.

But I digress.

I do make pretentious judgements at times, but so does everyone else. I do not believe my religion causes me to make judgements, rather, it just influences what group will be on the receiving end...either way, it is wrong and...I apologize...

Edit: wow....I....do have an ego....

ouch....:doh
Click to expand...

Its cool, I don't see it as an ego issue. IMO my question was a trick "gotcha" question, because IMO it is impossible to say what is true, or what is "christian" without judging the things you regard as "not."

IMO to defend what you believe is true, and criticize what you regard as immoral is what makes one a good person. People often tell me that my criticisms of their most sacred beliefs is disrespectful, but IMO I only do it because I respect them.

My point is, everyone is "judgmental" and that's a very good thing to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom