• 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!

Should we move away from abstinence only sex education?

Should we move away from abstinence only sex education?


  • Total voters
    53
I don't think there are very many districts in the US where the ONLY sex education is "abstinence only". Offhand I don't know of any that don't ALSO teach about condoms and disease and "safe" sex and so forth.

There may be a few, but I'm pretty sure that it is a small percentage.

I firmly believe that kids should be taught that the ONLY way to be SURE you don't get pregnant before you're ready, or get an STD, is abstinence.... BUT if you're going to ignore that and do it anyway, this is called a condom, and they aren't 100% fool-proof but they do help prevent etc etc...
 
That might be true, but all the motivation in the world won't give students the education they need if your textbooks are twenty years old, or your teacher doesn't know a damn thing about the subject he teaches.

again, it must vary greatly by state because down here teachers have to pass a test in their area of speciality before the state will certify them to teach.
 
perhaps you are confusing private schools with public education? I don't know how the great state of maryland runs their public schools but down here in backwards assed alabammy, all the public schools get the same funding (based on average daily attendance) and all the teachers must meet the same qualification standards and yet the schools in the "poorer" areas still under-perform. maybe the fault lies not with the schools but with the parents. maybe if the poor parents put the same emphasis on education with their kids as the "rich" parents did, they might do better.

I don't think how much money a school has is all about state funding though. Some schools in "more economically stable" areas, such as my high school, do get a lot of private donation funding. The school received the same amount of funds, per student, that other NC schools did, but they also had a lot of things donated or built by donation, such as the second gym, the pool, the auditorium, the greenhouse, and various other little additions to the school. Also, some things, such as the beautiful courtyard, were senior class gifts, which were built due to fundraising. Fundraising in a more well-off city is probably going to go a lot better than it does in a poorer area. Along with all this, school activities that are meant to bring funds in, such as sport ticket sales and alumni offers probably bring in a lot more revenue in richer areas rather than poor ones.
 
again, it must vary greatly by state because down here teachers have to pass a test in their area of speciality before the state will certify them to teach.
You're probably right, and I think that's a pity.
 
And what about giving them proper knowledge about sex bad?

Giving knoewledge and not including abstinance is condoning them having sex. You want to encourage our kids to have sex
 
Funny, I don't remember being taught sex ed when I was in school and for some reason the teen pregnancy rate wasn't sky high. What could possibly be the difference between then and now???? could it be that PARENTS are not ****ing doing their ****ing job anymore???? No......that couldn't possibly be the problem. it has to be that we aren't teaching the right kind of sex ed in our public schools.
 
Yes, I get a lot of grief for my political opinions.

There are plenty of people on here who have similar political opinions. Whatever "grief" you get is largely the result of the delivery, not the content.

You're not going to sway me by confronting me with the practicalities that prevent proper governance and reform.

I'm not trying to sway you, as I doubt you'd be that open to it. I'm just pointing out where the facts collide with your desires.
 
I don't think how much money a school has is all about state funding though. Some schools in "more economically stable" areas, such as my high school, do get a lot of private donation funding. The school received the same amount of funds, per student, that other NC schools did, but they also had a lot of things donated or built by donation, such as the second gym, the pool, the auditorium, the greenhouse, and various other little additions to the school. Also, some things, such as the beautiful courtyard, were senior class gifts, which were built due to fundraising. Fundraising in a more well-off city is probably going to go a lot better than it does in a poorer area. Along with all this, school activities that are meant to bring funds in, such as sport ticket sales and alumni offers probably bring in a lot more revenue in richer areas rather than poor ones.

yeah but all that extra money doesn't go to buy textbooks and pay teachers. there is no excuse for any school to have 20 year old textbooks ( which personally I think is bull**** because with normal wear and tear a book isn't going to last that long...that claim is ridiculous)
 
Giving knoewledge and not including abstinance is condoning them having sex. You want to encourage our kids to have sex

When did I say to not include abstinence? Also, no one is encouraging them to have sex, teenagers don't need any encouragement to have sex, they've got that covered already. We need to give them the knowledge so that they don't end up with unwanted pregnancies, and STD's.
 
Funny, I don't remember being taught sex ed when I was in school and for some reason the teen pregnancy rate wasn't sky high. What could possibly be the difference between then and now???? could it be that PARENTS are not ****ing doing their ****ing job anymore???? No......that couldn't possibly be the problem. it has to be that we aren't teaching the right kind of sex ed in our public schools.

One problem is that parents either don't have technical knowledge, or they are just biased and misinform their children due to ideological bias. A lot of parents believe in false strategies.


Sex education shouldn't be about preventing sex, but mitigating the consequences of what's inevitable.
 
Funny, I don't remember being taught sex ed when I was in school and for some reason the teen pregnancy rate wasn't sky high. What could possibly be the difference between then and now???? could it be that PARENTS are not ****ing doing their ****ing job anymore???? No......that couldn't possibly be the problem. it has to be that we aren't teaching the right kind of sex ed in our public schools.

I believe it has more to do with how much children are bombarded by sex nowdays. It is everywhere. And getting pregnant in your teens is not really looked down on as much anymore, like it was in earlier generations, like my mom's and even my own. There is a lot of pressure to fit in, from so many different places.

Parents nowdays actually probably do talk to their kids more about sex then parents from the past did, on average anyway. But parents are not the only role models kids have, and parents don't always have all the answers.
 
yeah but all that extra money doesn't go to buy textbooks and pay teachers. there is no excuse for any school to have 20 year old textbooks ( which personally I think is bull**** because with normal wear and tear a book isn't going to last that long...that claim is ridiculous)

True, but when donations are paying for school building improvements, renovations, sports areas, uniforms, equipment, and various other things that would normally be paid for with state funds, more of the state's funding can go toward teachers' salaries, textbooks, and/or anything else that the school can't get through donations.
 
Funny, I don't remember being taught sex ed when I was in school and for some reason the teen pregnancy rate wasn't sky high. What could possibly be the difference between then and now???? could it be that PARENTS are not ****ing doing their ****ing job anymore???? No......that couldn't possibly be the problem. it has to be that we aren't teaching the right kind of sex ed in our public schools.

I believe it has more to do with how much children are bombarded by sex nowdays. It is everywhere. And getting pregnant in your teens is not really looked down on as much anymore, like it was in earlier generations, like my mom's and even my own. There is a lot of pressure to fit in, from so many different places.

Parents nowdays actually probably do talk to their kids more about sex then parents from the past did, on average anyway. But parents are not the only role models kids have, and parents don't always have all the answers.

Actually, I don't think so. I think the teen sex rate was just as high back then as it is now. The only difference is that back then the stigma for teen sex was so high that it went unreported.

It wasn't that teen sex wasn't happening back then - it was just that more teens were lying about it due to social pressures.
 
Actually, I don't think so. I think the teen sex rate was just as high back then as it is now. The only difference is that back then the stigma for teen sex was so high that it went unreported.

It wasn't that teen sex wasn't happening back then - it was just that more teens were lying about it due to social pressures.

not teen sex...teen pregnancy. or maybe more girls were having back alley abortions.

I know in my senior class we had 2 girls get pregnant. In my daughter's senior class (about the same # of kids) they had 5 girls get pregnant.
 
Actually, I don't think so. I think the teen sex rate was just as high back then as it is now. The only difference is that back then the stigma for teen sex was so high that it went unreported.

It wasn't that teen sex wasn't happening back then - it was just that more teens were lying about it due to social pressures.

Yep, also I don't think there are those places where people send their pregnant daughters to go away for 9 months, and come back like nothing happened.
 
not teen sex...teen pregnancy. or maybe more girls were having back alley abortions.

I know in my senior class we had 2 girls get pregnant. In my daughter's senior class (about the same # of kids) they had 5 girls get pregnant.

Yep, also I don't think there are those places where people send their pregnant daughters to go away for 9 months, and come back like nothing happened.

Another thing that would happen is that the teenage girl would give birth and the grandparents would raise the teen's child as the teen's sibling. That actually happened to Jack Nicholson.
 
When did I say to not include abstinence? Also, no one is encouraging them to have sex, teenagers don't need any encouragement to have sex, they've got that covered already. We need to give them the knowledge so that they don't end up with unwanted pregnancies, and STD's.

Where do they teach abstinence only? So teaching them to put a rubber on a banana is not encouraging sex?
 
I was staring at the question intently before finally realizing you was talking about US. I'm very slow today :doh

Abstinence hasn't been taught in UK sex education classes for a while. My own sex ed was more about love in primary, then pregnancy and then in secondary when I was a teen. Safe sex and diseases :shrug:

Yes but the UK is also the place where this was put out by the NHS

12 STI's of Christmas

Forget the old saying of "No sex please we are British" which was the joke of the seventies where free love made America the place of relaxed views on sex.

Now it is reversed and America is the place where one does not talk of sex
 
Where do they teach abstinence only? So teaching them to put a rubber on a banana is not encouraging sex?

No, it's educating them. Just like teaching them about Stalin isn't encouraging communism.
 
Another thing that would happen is that the teenage girl would give birth and the grandparents would raise the teen's child as the teen's sibling. That actually happened to Jack Nicholson.

Happened in my family too - a second cousin. He was not told until he went to get a birth certificate to get married and found his sister was in fact his mother - left him very angry and bitter
 
Tell them it is ok to have sex? So we want a bunch of perverts and whores as our kids now? This shows how this society no longer cares about morals, all that matters is pleasure and your own gratification

Sorry? Big surprise here. It is okay to have sex. Preferable to wait until one is more emotionally mature; but most often when we start having sex is predicated on hormones, parental involvement, and a host of other considerations. If your way is to teach them it's NOT okay to have sex, then I don't like your way at all.

Just because 16-year-olds have sex doesn't make them perverts and whores. That attitude is just plain scarey.
 
If abstinence is left out you are condoning sex

No it's not. And when is sex such a bad thing? It's something EVERYONE thinks about, and does.
 
No it's not. And when is sex such a bad thing? It's something EVERYONE thinks about, and does.

WE are talking about minor children. We have to many teen pregnancies. We have teen sexting. We have date rape. But we should stop abstinence teaching

|624|
 
WE are talking about minor children. We have to many teen pregnancies. We have teen sexting. We have date rape. But we should stop abstinence teaching

|624|

And teenagers have a sex drive, you can't ignore it. And those teen pregnancies, and STI's are because of abstinence only sex education, which is still taught in alot of school districts. We need to turn to a more comprehensive sexual education, so that we can prepare our kids, to deal with their sexual desires, and how to best protect themselves when they choose to act on those desires.
 
Back
Top Bottom