twa Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I feel there is a conflict in what you are saying. The word only means exclusively. You taught your kids about contraceptives and their use. You included that in your education. By definition, you did not exclusively teach them abstinence. Thus you did not teach them Abstinence only...which would NOT have included anything about contraceptives. Right? That is why I asked for clarification AND stated it is the ONLY foolproof method. I explained the different birth control /disease protection methods/products to my kids (No demonstrations though:silly:) just as the program I listed supposedly does. My focus was on making sure they knew that was the ONLY method w/o risks. My son at 20 learned the pitfalls of relying on birth control pills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 To teach abstinence only as the way it should be. But teach contraception and the pregnancy with all that comes with it is called "Common Sense" What? We have to teach Evolution ONLY or Adam and Eve ONLY. They have sponges.. lets not fill it with "only". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 There are 3 things that will always be cool to kids... 1) Sex 2) Drugs 3) Rock N Roll (used loosely) Kids will always find sex cool. Nobody can argue that. Nobody can argue that kids (teenagers, that is) are meant to have sex. It's in our blood. You can't deny that. You can only teach the right, and safe, ways to go about that. Kids will always find drugs cool. That is arguable, but I think that trying to prevent every kid from doing drugs is useless. They've tried that for over 20 years now. It hasn't worked. Might as well teach them the real facts about drug use. Kids will always find rock n roll cool. They will always love music that piss off older generations. I can already see the meaning in this. No way in hell I would have loved Bow Wow and Lil Wayne when I was their age. The people I liked when I was there age seem old to me compared to them. Admit it... Snoop, Dre, Eminem, Nirvana and Soundgarden are cool, to us (people around my age). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondizzle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 At least she didn't, like, come off sounding, like, stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondizzle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 In all seriousness, though, I've been saying for years that I think birth control for girls (like the pill or IUDs) should be easier to get without parental consent or knowledge. I know there was a controversy a couple years ago about this, but I hate the idea of parents not wanting their daughter to be on birth control, then getting pissed when their daughter ends up pregnant. It's a natural urge and teenagers do dumb **** - that's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 In all seriousness, though, I've been saying for years that I think birth control for girls (like the pill or IUDs) should be easier to get without parental consent or knowledge. How hard is it to get now? A Dr visit is all it takes ain't it?...surely you don't advocate dispensing pills w/o a prescip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 If she wanted realistic abstinence, she should've gotten married first. :laugh: BTW, Alaska has the highest rate of STD, I think it's gonorrhea or chlamydia, in the entire US. We're talking about a state with a population less than Prince George's County, Maryland. It's really beautiful, but I guess not so many rubbers? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondizzle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 ...surely you don't advocate dispensing pills w/o a prescip? No, definitely not - that would be dangerous. It would be cool if there were an option for girls to get their prescriptions without them showing up on insurance bills and the like - and maybe for cheaper too. I think the draw towards condoms with teens is the availability (you can get 'em anywhere sans prescription) and the cost - but the drawbacks are the loss of pleasure, general laziness and "not always having one". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 but the drawbacks are the loss of pleasure, general laziness and "not always having one". Don't forget the gifts that keep on giving;) I never cared for condoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 she has a habit of using the world "like" eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondizzle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I never cared for condoms Has any guy ever cared for condoms? I'm a chick, so I have little experience, but I've never known a guy to actually like condoms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Has any guy ever cared for condoms? I'm a chick, so I have little experience, but I've never known a guy to actually like condoms... Condoms rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondizzle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Condoms rule! You're dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Abstinence works 100% of the times that it is used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 BTW, Alaska has the highest rate of STD, I think it's gonorrhea or chlamydia, in the entire US. We're talking about a state with a population less than Prince George's County, Maryland. It's really beautiful, but I guess not so many rubbers? :whoknows: Perhaps they get brittle in the cold... I'm still waiting for a resolution on this "abstinence only" thing. Stophovr6's definition is the one I'm familiar with. The program twa posted sounds like normal sex ed, minus the extremely important demonstration of contraceptives. Even "normal" sex ed emphasizes that abstinence is the only foolproof way to stay unpregnant and unherped. And I wonder whether there's an extra dose of fearmongering in the "abstinence only" version, but I wouldn't know... I'm starting to wonder whether many so-called "abstinence only" programs are shying away from the strict definition of the term in order to avoid further political scrutiny. Ultimately these programs live and die by their reputations. By watering down the doctrine and keeping the "abstinence only" name, they can still appeal to ultra-conservative communities without the same stigma and stifling attention. After all, nothing kills a sex-ed program faster than controversy. Or maybe some of these surprisingly contemporary "abstinence only" programs are delivering more doctrine than they advertise. Or maybe they're just normal sex-ed without the contraceptive demonstration, in which case they don't need any special label beyond "deficient." Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What about the ribbed or specialty ones? The glow in the dark ones should at least be entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 If it's not realistic how is it the best option? Is this question off base? No one seems to want to tackle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Abstinence works 100% of the times that it is used. Babysitting 5 girls under the age of 5 years old = better than anything sex ed will teach you....you will keep it in your pants for a looooooooong time because of that hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Is this question off base? No one seems to want to tackle it. It's off base. How does one expect kids not to have sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 Is this question off base? No one seems to want to tackle it. The point of the thread, I thought anyway, was that it isn't the best option. And I should know the point since I started the thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 It's off base.How does one expect kids not to have sex? By not having it? Hell maybe I'm odd but you ain't gonna die from going w/o My daughter got pissed because we assumed she was having sex(she's moving in with her boyfriend) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 By not having it? Wait I'm confused... you stop your kids from having sex by not having sex yourself, therefore not ever having kids that will eventually have sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 By not having it? But they DO have sex. Regardless of them being taught not to, as is proof by the birth of Bristols child and her words that it is not realistic. It's as if Anchorman logic is being used here. Brian Fantana: They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time. [cheesy grin] Ron Burgundy: That doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondizzle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 If it's not realistic how is it the best option? Is this question off base? No one seems to want to tackle it. Abstinence is the best option for preventing teen pregnancy because it's the most effective. However, it's unrealistic to expect it because teens have sex and that's the reality. It's kind of like saying the high road is always the one less-traveled. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Wait I'm confused... you stop your kids from having sex by not having sex yourself, therefore not ever having kids that will eventually have sex? By not expecting them to have sex....is that clearer? I'm exempt, and fixing to get some:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.