- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,000
- Reaction score
- 5,430
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I think we should be moving more towards abstinence only sex education.
This is a bad idea, for many reasons already explained.
I also think that is an area for parents,
The problem is that many parents aren't doing their jobs, and someone needs to do it for the good of our society.
and that schools shouldn't try to parent or instill sexual morals into children.
Teaching children sex ed isn't 'instilling sexual morals'. It's teaching them realistic information about sex, sexual health, birth control, and staying safe.
The only safe sex is abstinence. There would be no teen pregnancies, STDs, and crying girls in the hallways.
This is stupid. Abstinence isn't safe sex, it's a lack of sex. And it doesn't work. Teens are hormonal and immature. Put those two traits together and you have a recipe for having sex before you're ready.
This is why abstinence only sex ed will never work. You will never, under any circumstances, stop teens from having sex, and when they aren't taught how to protect themselves when they do have sex, you end up with teen pregnancies, STDs, and a high abortion rate.
Abstinence education is the best form of sex ed.
No, it's actually the worst form of sex ed, and it's barely better than no sex ed at all.
Teaching abstinence should absolutely be a part of sex ed, but teens need to be taught how to protect themselves if they do choose to have sex.
Abstinence only sex ed is like communism. It only works on paper, because it doesn't account for human nature.