CNN.com article- Bristol Palin: Abstinence for all teens 'not realistic'

[Springfield]

By not having it?

How do you propose we do such a thing though. We can't even get kids to stop using drugs.

Kids will always have sex. I think we should revamp our techniques in unwanted baby prevention. Kids need to be more afraid of having babies than they are of contracting AIDS.

[twa]

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.

No they all do not(at least as teens) and having high expectations is key to above average results.

We know many do not use birth control despite being taught to,should we abandon that as well?

[TheGoodBits]

No they all do not(at least as teens) and having high expectations is key to above average results.

We know many do not use birth control despite being taught to,should we abandon that as well?

You have any daughters? How old?

[mjah]

Anyone who thinks their kids will abstain just 'cuz they're told to, is engaging in some dangerously risky business. Ironic, ain't it?

Teenagers have sex. The average age for starting is 15-17 depending upon gender, etc. That's the AVERAGE. Giving them honest, comprehensive information about sex does not constitute any kind of endorsement or expectation. Withholding full information about contraception doesn't somehow make your kid into the statistical anomaly who doesn't have sex until marriage. I haven't looked at stats, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the opposite were true.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

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)

twa - tell your daughter to dump the zero and get with the hero...aka me

[Mondizzle]

No they all do not(at least as teens)

twa, I'm glad that your daughter is a "good girl" - you must be very proud. However, I don't think your daughter represents the majority of young people (I'm speculating about this, of course, not having specific statistics or knowing how old your daughter is).

and having high expectations is key to above average results.

Couldn't you also say that expecting (and preparing for) the worst would also be pretty damn effective?

[DCSaints_fan]

Abstinence? No thanks. I didn't wait for marriage and I don't regret it at all. Not one damn bit. I wouldn't have been happy in marriage had I not know what was out there and what worked for me. I'd say unrealistic is the least of it. Not a big fan of the latest "emotional side effects" nonsense I keep hearing either. There are emotional side effects to every social behavior.

Well I don't know about you. I'm not, and haven't really been that great of a prospect, I haven't really pursued all that much, and I've never had a woman be "direct" with me, so perhaps take my tales with that in mind.

The best opportunity I had probably came in high school, this girl I was close with would sort of drop hints. She would blush and twirl her hair often when I spoke to her. I liked her too, she was an attractive girl, but there was another girl I had a crush on, so I never did anything (I never did anything with the other girl I had a crush on either), At graduation she sort of jumps me, hugging me and legs wrapped around me, wondering where I was going and all that. She actually lived in my neighborhood, and that summer I saw her a few times, walking around the neighborhood. One weekend my parents were gone, and I thought real long and hard about just walking over to her house and inviting her over. Who knows what would have happened then. But I didn't, and sadly haven't seen or heard from her since, I know she's married now. I wish I could have had a friendship, but I'm not sure if I was mature enough at that point to have that without my interest in her interfering.

I think in hindsight, it was probably best for both of us that we didn't. Relationships in high school never work out long term, and often cause problems for kids their first year of college. Things have been really rough for me since college, from what I can gather of her husband, she is doing alot better than if she was with me. For the first 22 years of my life, I was at the very least a nominal Catholic, so merely fooling around was out the question. Maybe if the right opprotunity fell into my lap, I don't knoww. But it never did. My sophomore year at VT there was this girl I met at a party, I parlayed my beer privileges into kind of flirting with her and getting her phone number(which turned out to be the wrong number ). I remember putting my arm around her but nothing more, nothing like propositioning. But lets say she was interested, my room was right upstairs and we coudl have had it all to ourselves. How would I be diffent if that had that have happened? Maybe I would have fallen into bad habits or something, viewed women differently, I'm not sure.

There was another opporutnity my senior year at VT, but my post was getting way too long, if you really want to find out about it, I'll tell you.

After college, I sort of dropped the whole religion thing. At one point I thought of going down to meat markets and you know, experimenting. But there was still something holding me back, I think I always wanted something in the happily-ever-after category. But in my condition then , there was no way I could have provided that, and I didn't want to be the loser boyfriend or anything. One night I got a joenesing for donuts so I go to Dunkin Donuts. There are these two girls there, one of them out of the blue, asks me if I thought her breasts were a "good size". She is a bit heavyset, though I would have definitely hit that. I say, well yeah, they are. I don't know if she meant to be inviting me in or something. Maybe I should have said something like, "Well, I'm going ot have to take a closer look. Your place?"

Happily, I got an interesting job for some decent pay, but sadly I'm leaving the area, so I plan on pursuing women seriously, for the first time in long time. I'm hoping that should I meet someone, they will understand all this. And I've started going to Mass again, although haven't made a Perfect Act of Contrition, so technically I'm still an apostate. Maybe I just am using it an excuse for my rather pathetic life. "I couldn't have done otherwise, you know me being Catholic and all". Sometimes the Christian message rings hollow for me. As much as Christ suffered, it was one day. Much harder to go on living sometimes, when things are bleak.

/end rant

[Mondizzle]

There was another opporutnity my senior year at VT, but my post was getting way too long

getting?

[Johnny Punani]

Of course abstinence for all teens is not realistic. That is because some teens are sluts and can't help themselves.

[TheGoodBits]

Of course abstinence for all teens is not realistic. That is because some teens are sluts and can't help themselves.

Man-whores too!

[DCSaints_fan]

getting?

Yeah, should have said 'is too long already'. I came back and cut that part out. I thought people would need an explanation for my Steve Carrell like state,

[Larry]

I think you are mistaken if you feel abstinence only education does not teach contraceptives.

It is instead FOCUSED on abstinence ,but not exclusively.

Anyone here been to abstinence only courses?

Uh, I've read an actual "abstinence only" bill that was being debated. (I think it was posted here, several years back. But it might have been someplace else.)

And the only thing the law did was to prohibit the teacher from mentioning any of a long list of subjects. It didn't mandate any education at all, only prohibit.

Now, the law did permit condoms to be mentioned. But it stated that the only thing about condoms that could be mentioned, was failure rates.

(And I've seen "studies" of condom's "failure rates", where the study was along the lines of "when condoms are inflated with Helium, up to 80% of them leaked detectable amounts of Helium.")

Other subjects, like homosexuality, the morning-after pill, or abortion, simply cannot be mentioned at all. They don't exist.

[TheGoodBits]

Uh, I've read an actual "abstinence only" bill that was being debated. (I think it was posted here, several years back. But it might have been someplace else.)

And the only thing the law did was to prohibit the teacher from mentioning any of a long list of subjects. It didn't mandate any education at all, only prohibit.

Now, the law did permit condoms to be mentioned. But it stated that the only thing about condoms that could be mentioned, was failure rates.

(And I've seen "studies" of condom's "failure rates", where the study was along the lines of "when condoms are inflated with Helium, up to 80% of them leaked detectable amounts of Helium.")

Other subjects, like homosexuality, the morning-after pill, or abortion, simply cannot be mentioned at all. They don't exist.

Well there you go then. Thanks Larry, this thread has been in desperate need of your insight.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

<I know you were just trying to be funny, dude, but it's weird you'd think you could post something that without it being a problem, especially considering the last thing that got you a short break was the same kind of deal>

[TheGoodBits]

And I need to learn to not quote things that break forum rules because that breaks the same rules

[Special K]

I really wish she would've actually answered the contraception question. I'd bet a whole lot of money that she got pregnant because she didn't understand something very basic about the use of a particular contraceptive.

Um, yeah, that's kind of like how a lot of people end up pregnant.

There's a reason the pharmacist counsels patients obtaining oral contraceptives that they are ORAL contraceptives and should be taken ORALLY.

Do we have any "abstinence only" advocates here on ES? I'm just curious, I'd like to know what some of their arguments for it are.

Yeah, I'll be teaching my children abstinence only as the best form of birth control/STD protection.

My argument, is that it is the only 100% method by which to ensure you don't get pregnant or obtain an STD.

[Johnny Punani]

Uh, I've read an actual "abstinence only" bill that was being debated. (I think it was posted here, several years back. But it might have been someplace else.)

And the only thing the law did was to prohibit the teacher from mentioning any of a long list of subjects. It didn't mandate any education at all, only prohibit.

Now, the law did permit condoms to be mentioned. But it stated that the only thing about condoms that could be mentioned, was failure rates.

(And I've seen "studies" of condom's "failure rates", where the study was along the lines of "when condoms are inflated with Helium, up to 80% of them leaked detectable amounts of Helium.")

Other subjects, like homosexuality, the morning-after pill, or abortion, simply cannot be mentioned at all. They don't exist.

I'm pretty sure helium molecules are smaller then sperm cells.

[Springfield]

(And I've seen "studies" of condom's "failure rates", where the study was along the lines of "when condoms are inflated with Helium, up to 80% of them leaked detectable amounts of Helium.")

This could be a problem. My male regenerative juice consists of at least 65% helium. In fact, sometimes it floats in the air. Very space ship like. This is not good. I'm going to have to change my sexual arrangements from now on.

Aw hell... just watch this.

[mjah]

I'm pretty sure helium molecules are smaller then sperm cells.

But... That (among other things) would make the helium study worthless!

Gee, why would anyone want to quote such a study, when it bears no resemblance to the way condoms are actually used?

[Johnny Punani]

But... That (among other things) would make the helium study worthless!

Gee, why would anyone want to quote such a study, when it bears no resemblance to the way condoms are actually used?

Gee, I dunno? Maybe to give a false impression about condoms as a way to discourage usage.

[Blackest Eyes]

I think exposing teens to nothing less than the truth is wrong. They need to fully understand the consequences to make better decisions.

[mjah]

Gee, I dunno? Maybe to give a false impression about condoms as a way to discourage usage.

What? That's crazy. Why would anyone want to reduce the usage of condoms amongst the sexually active?

I do say! Such a thing would be irrational and counterproductive to the collective reproductive health of the nation.

[Hubbs]

I think you are mistaken if you feel abstinence only education does not teach contraceptives.

It is instead FOCUSED on abstinence ,but not exclusively.

Anyone here been to abstinence only courses?

Huh? I'm quite sure I heard about several states removing all education about contraceptives in public schools (a couple have since reversed the decision).

[Stophovr6]

No they all do not(at least as teens) and having high expectations is key to above average results.

We know many do not use birth control despite being taught to,should we abandon that as well?

I didn't say they ALL have sex. I said they have sex. So if they are going to have sex why not teach them how to put on a condom?

I'm not saying abandon either form of sexual education. But to ignore any one almost completely is irresponsible. Teaching a kid the failure rate of condoms when not even teaching them how they work does nothing to help them make their own decision, nor does it help them when the time comes(ha!), as it may arise(ha!).

I've actually never even stated that abstinence should be abandoned. Don't know where you got that from. I'm not the one that wants one type of sexual education to be taught above all others. That's what abstinence only programs do. That's what you want.

[Special K]

Okay, my first post in this thread was a bit flippant, so I guess I'll qualify that post a little.

Fortunately, I was blessed with some pretty rad parents that were always there for me throughout all those awkward phases of my life; if I ever needed an answer to a question or help with an issue, they were there.

I hope to parent in a very similar manner as my folks did: teach my kids why abstinence really is a good idea, especially this day in age with STD's all over tarnation and the limitations teenage pregnancy can put on someone's life. I am going to work pretty darn hard as a parent to instill some common sense in my children and make known that I think abstinence is the best method (please God), however, I'll be the first one pushing birth control on them if I sense they're not really wanting to heed my advice. Well, either that, or I'm going to dispatch my husband to take care of my daughter's boyfriend Ideally I hope and pray my kids will listen to me, but, well, I'm going to be a bit of a realist too.

While I had a good family and I think there are a fair amount of us here who had parents or a parent they could look to for advice, I think a lot of people are quick to forget that there are a lot of children in our public school system who DO NOT have functional families. They do not have parents they can ask these types of questions...or heck, any type of questions for that matter. They don't have the familial support system a lot of us here were blessed with and sometimes take for granted, IMO. Those are the kids we are trying to reach by teaching comprehensive sex education in our public schools.

While I lean conservative on many political issues, abstinence-only sex education is not one I can justify. In my opinion, I think abstinence-only sex education does a major disservice to our kids as it limits the amount of information that is given to them. When talking about health issues as serious as sexual intercourse, STD's, pregnancies, etc., I can honestly say that I think it is medically unethical to present only one side of the "argument" and not lay everything out on the table for evaluation. Playing political games with the health of our kids is just sick IMO.

I guess I just don't get when parents say this is something that they should be teaching their children. What about comprehensive sex education prohibits you from trying to instill additional moral values in your children at home??? Nothing. You want to talk to your kids about sex, do so...there is nothing stopping you. But personally, I think it's pretty arrogant to attempt to assert your personal moral/religious (and I'd go as far as saying unrealistic in many teenagers' cases) values on our school system to the detriment of many, many adolescents and teenagers who would not get accurate health information from anywhere else...well, no accurate information until it's too late.