liberal sex ed [the modern era sickens me volume 1]

[FlippyD]

Another thing to note is that most abstainers, christian or not, do not necessarily "expect" their spouses to be virgins when they marry. Not that that isn't the ideal, mainly due to perfectly understandable notions of monogamy and eternal exclusivity. The concept of saving ones self for marriage is a romantic notion, as is the effort to avoid adultery (which by some definitions includes having sex with anyone who is not your spouse, regardless of whether or not either of you are married at all). Even with all this though, would I turn away the woman I loved because she wasn't a virgin? No. Call it forgiveness or desperation, call it what you want.

Still I don't see how people could NOT want to pursue lasting exclusive relationships. Apart from the sterotypical concept that virgins are desirable, a pure marriage bed is hardly a bad thing, and from my point of view is ideal.

For the record, I'm not against traditional sex-ed, but I support the base philosophy of abstainance programs. Ideally they should find a happy medium if you ask me.

Your response seems... A little hefty on contradictions.

On the one hand you mention that abstinence is a beautiful thing. It's a "gift" for the one you wish to be with forever and ever. You also mention that, "virgins are desirable, a pure marriage bed is hardly a bad thing." However you also say, in regards to non-abstainers, "Not that that isn't the ideal, mainly due to perfectly understandable notions of monogamy and eternal exclusivity."

Yes, virginity can be a wonderful thing, but would you really be so acceptable to someone who couldn't grant you the same "gift" back? Allow me to explain...

We're under the notion that a "pure bed" is a wonderful thing, a gift even. This, to me, seems to suggest that in your mind abstinence is something worth hanging onto. Why then would you admit someone who doesn't share that same mindset with you? Obviously this person, no matter who it is, doesn't feel that abstinence is important. Furthermore I believe such a person wouldn't get as much value from you as a mate by your virginity since such a person doesn't see virginity as all that great a thing to begin with.

If we're willing to say that abstinence is a wonderful thing, and virginity is a gift, then why would you bother giving such a gift to someone who wouldn't value it as much as you would? Furthermore if you're willing to marry someone who isn't celebit then why practice abstinence in the first place?

This next statement isn't an attack against your person, but I believe it's pertinent to this thread...

From my own experience most people who haven't had sex sometimes stick to the abstinence creed, with every intention of breaking that should they find themselves in a situation where they can have sex. While this isn't every case I've known, there are quite a few who proclaim to be abstinate and then go off looking up every proverbial skirt (boys and girls.)

I find the importance of abstinence pertinent to this discussion because if it really isn't that important at all then why should abstinence only education be taught? Or abstinence education at all (outside of religious schools, that is)?

As for diseases, well, that's what we have condoms for, and general sex ed teaches children to be aware of suck illnesses, and that it's important to consult with your partner before getting into sex. It seems compared to a general sex-ed course, abstinence really holds no water.

 

[Lene]

What? I think the idea of abstinence is that it's the only 100% guaranteed way to make sure you DON'T get an STD/unwanted pregnancy. That holds a lot of water to me.

Condoms break, birth control fails, people may not be breaking out with herpes at the time but they can give it to someone else, etc. Abstinence highlights the fallacy of current safe sex. Children need to be aware of the fact that a condom or a pill is not a free pass to be sexually irresponsible.

I think sex ed programs should continue to promote abstinence because frankly, it's the safest option that exists! I mean for some people it's NOT an option they'd take, but that's their decision to make. They should be able to make that decision though knowing all the options and risks involved.

 

[FzGhouL]

Yeah the problem is that most those programs don't teach alternatives to abstinence.

I think a Sex-Ed should start when the child is in 5th grade or so (when they are on the cusp of hitting puberty). The issues highlighted should be facts on reproduction, an emphasis on making sure children don't get taken advantage of by other children or adults by giving them resources to contact in case they have sexual anxiety. They should also then be taught the risks of sex and be encouraged to abstain.

Then at 7th or 8th grade, when they are entering the years when they will almost for certain have sexual opportunities, they should be taught how condoms work, how to put them on, how they can acquire condoms. How the pill works, etc. Then they should be taught the risks in those anyways.
Emphasis should be put on developing meaningful experiences the child will be able to nourish under. Sex is special, etc.

And then children should be taught that having sex != social status. Its quality over quantity. Its making sure everything is safe, everything is legitimate, and everything is prepared.

I have no problem with people having sex before marriage. My problem lies within the fact that some people use sex to compensate for internal sufferings. Feelings of inadequacy, loneliness, etc. By itself, sex does not mean love. You can have sex without love. But quality sex is enhanced with love.

Girls should be taught they aren't an object for men to lust over, and their job is to give in to men, whether it be many men or one man. They should be taught that their decisions are their own, and that no matter what a male partner says or doesn't say, he should not be the determining factor in having sex.

Boys frequently have extreme power and inferiority complexes when going into sexual situations. Boys talk about whose getting what, how long their "cocks" are, how they treated girls like objects, etc. They are put in a tribal sense of dominance, trying to vie for a position of respect. Which is terrible. Sex should never be seen as an indicator of social ladder status.

I have no problem with two mature 15 year olds getting the funky on. Or even 10 of them. My issue lies in the way they treat sex, because they never heard from voices of experience. Sex has risks that condoms and what not can't stop, but the most serious risks are the psychological trauma that occur when kids give in to societal pressures and stop thinking on their own, and instead just follow these rules that will lead them down a path they very well may hate themselves for later on.

 

[Lene]

FzGhoul- That's all well and good but that's something parents should do, not a school in most cases.

 

[Roman Candle]

Why rely on parents? In what way does giving birth to someone make someone particularly able to communicate these kinds of things to their children? Anyone can become a parent; not everyone can effectively get these things across.

ixis: That's not contradictory. I love music; it's a dominating passion in my life. I would definitely prefer a girlfried who had the same tastes as me to one who didn't. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't go out with someone who was unwilling to listen to my music. For some people, being a virgin is one attractive trait, of many.

Fz: That's not something people learn in schools. It's the portrayl of sex in the media, in films and on TV, that teaches kids that kind of thing. Which, unfortunately, is not something which you can legislate about.

You can have sex without love. But quality sex is enhanced with love.

Not neccissarily :p The worst experiences I've had have been with the people that I cared about the most, (by coincidence, I hope). I don't think it's always a positive thing to go around saying "If you're in love, the sex is better". Because if the sex isn't better, it doesn't mean you're not in love.

 

[Lene]

Why rely on parents? In what way does giving birth to someone make someone particularly able to communicate these kinds of things to their children? Anyone can become a parent; not everyone can effectively get these things across.

Parents/Guardians are the ones who know you best. Also the subject is something that's very personal, and frankly I'd rather have that conversation come from my parents instead of my teacher. It just seems really out of place in an educational setting.

 

[Roman Candle]

For you, personally, it might work fantastically well. But for hundreds of people their parents are just distant, cold, authoritarian figures. Aren't they the people who are the most vulnerable, who need to discuss it? If you don't get it at school, and you don't get it at home, then you're not going to really get it anywhere.

 

[FlippyD]

ixis: That's not contradictory. I love music; it's a dominating passion in my life. I would definitely prefer a girlfried who had the same tastes as me to one who didn't. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't go out with someone who was unwilling to listen to my music. For some people, being a virgin is one attractive trait, of many.

Methinks there's a great difference between music and sexual intercourse. I doubt you'd find "doggy style" as a listing on one of those matchmaker sites.

Besides, the attractive trait to someone who's a virgin is that you will, at one point, hopefully make them not a virgin; am I mistaken in thinking that that's the main reason (other than religious) that virgins are just the bees knees?

You're not thinking of virginity objectively, which is where the conflict comes in. Abstinence would fall in line with your analogy, because it's a preference, a lifestyle. But said abstinence is adhered to because of the importance placed upon virginity. You remove the objectivity of saving oneself for marriage and you remove its importance, which again, raises conflict.


EDIT: In response to what you're talking about right now, I agree with you. A parent doling out this information is purely consequential. If a parent sees reason enough to educate their children in such a way about sexual intercourse then let them, however it's important for society as a whole that children gain a well-rounded education on the subject.

Should a parent need to tell their kids about sex-ed, or prematurely prep-them (read: persuade them to one side of the argument) they may, and usually do.

 

[Crystalgate]

Condoms break, birth control fails, people may not be breaking out with herpes at the time but they can give it to someone else, etc. Abstinence highlights the fallacy of current safe sex. Children need to be aware of the fact that a condom or a pill is not a free pass to be sexually irresponsible.

I don't know what the sex ed programs where you live teaches, but I do know the sex ed I went trough teached both the fact that birth control can fail and that sex requires responsibility. As far as "safe sex" (or any reasonable translation into my language) goes, I never heard that term being mentioned during sex ed, the first time I heard it was from a movie.

 

[Roman Candle]

No; music, emotion expressed and made particularly interesting through techinical skill, is nothing like sex at all :p

My point was that for some people it might be positive that someone saved themselves for you. That doesn't mean that just because they didn't, you would have no inclination to marry them.