h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Somebody said earlier "All that will result is more and more "God fearing" kids are going to get pregnant and contract HIV/AIDS and other STDs"

Brilliant. Excellent. I really do hope that this is the case, because I am so sick to death of the God Fearing bible bashers lecturing people on what is right and wrong, how they should live and what they can see and read. If "God Fearing" folk end up riddled with disease and humping 20 kids around then I cannot think of a better way of nature actually proving them wrong.

First, (she says with considerable more mildness than the post to which she is replying) abstinence programmes work much better than you might think.
Second, << If "God Fearing" folk end up riddled with disease and humping 20 kids around then I cannot think of a better way of nature actually proving them wrong.>>
It ain't gonna happen, much as you might like it to. You may hate "God-fearing folk" (and I guarantee they don't return the compliment) but the fact that they *are* God-fearing means they are very unlikely to end up with the fate you'd like for them. How does the kind of curse you just pronounced, *help* anyone?

Mrs Cat woman the emotional fall out your going on about didn't happen. There was no treating people like meat. There was learning about the opposite sex, growing up and my first taste of relationships. Lots of teen anxiety and little bit of melodrama (we all had our Dawsons Creek moments), but this is all part of growing up. Your not gonna stop teenagers having sex. Abstinance will not work. Educate them, let them do it safely and sensibly.

Fine, I am not saying don't educate them... I am just saying that abstinence programmes aren't the disaster many people here seem to think!

This is meant in a nasty or sarcastic way, I'm interested. Can you offer any proof for your last post.

I assume you meant *not* meant in a nasty or sarcastic way.. Yeah, I'll come up with a link, but probably not right now, as it's 00.44 here - that is to say, bedtime soon!

Doh. Yeah sorry about that, managed to make that look really offensive.


Sleep easy.

>>How many girls end up with a set of bedpost notches they never wanted because "I might get pregnant" is no longer available as a tactful way of refusal?

Only the ones who don't receive accurate information about contraception. Short of abstinence, no method of contraception is 100% effective. But girls who aren't informed wouldn't know this. Aside from that, I'd bet there's a higher percentage of girls - and boys - who've ended up with sexually transmitted diseases for exactly the same reason. Just because contraception is available doesn't mean people no longer have the right to say 'no'.


>>Nobody, not even liberals like me, suggests that 13 year olds should be encouraged to have sex. I just feel it would be wise to recognise that some teenagers will and to give them the information to make better informed choices.

'Zactly.


>>Fine, I am not saying don't educate them... I am just saying that abstinence programmes aren't the disaster many people here seem to think!

No, you're not saying don't educate them - you're saying you don't feel there's a problem with educating them in abstinence-only. On the other hand, I'm not saying (or didn't mean to imply) abstinence programmes are a disaster - I'm saying abstinence-only programmes are ineffective.


I think the religious right has every right to teach their children abstinence-only, so long as they do it in their own schools with their own money. As Mudhooks mentioned, they also have the right to opt-out of more practical programs in public schools. The rest of those who aren't paying excessive tuitions to send their kids to private religious schools *for a reason* should have a right to see that their kids receive an education that isn't stunted by unrealisitic ideals based on beliefs they don't share. (This unintentionally transcends the issue at hand.)

From a personal point of view, and based on personal experience, I don't think there is anything *wrong* with teenagers having sexual experiences at all. And I agree with Bubba-frets that what Della calls 'emotional fall-out' is open to interpretation.

I remember making mistakes as a teenager, I remember having my heart broken a couple of times. It was all a part of learning and growing up for me. And I think all that helped me develop a healthy personal way of having sexual relationships.

Like it or not, Della, we *are* sexual beings and this is either more or less important depending on the individual. To impose an abstinence programme on teenagers who are naturally curious about sex and wanting to experience it is very unrealistic, imo.

Far better to offer ALL the information and support that is possible so that teenagers can make informed decisions for themselves. And to *not* make them feel that, by wanting to have sex, that there is something wrong or bad about this.

The fact that sexual taboos still exist in the so-called civilized Western world is amazing to me. That so many people remain uneducated and intolerant of such a natural part of a human's physical and emotional development is totally at odds with other forms of social progress.

<>

Again, the problem here is that the concept of peer pressure is not addressed as a serious matter and teenagers are not taught ways of coping. Not only with sexual matters but with many other peer pressure issues, many of which can be much more damaging than having a sexual encounter for perhaps the wrong reasons.

I think the old 'I might get pregnant' so-called excuse was a bit of a cop-out. Much better if a teenage girl (or boy) feels enough self-confidence to make their choices based on what they actually want or don't want. Without having to resort to 'excuses'.

How about teaching self-confidence rather than abstinence?


az

Self-confidence Then they just start making decisions on their own and who knows where that'll end...

Couldn't help it

I completely agree with the last two esteemed posters...

My sentiments with far more eloquenece than I could ever achieve.

And again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4005693.stm

Aaack, I did see that report this morning, Santragenius. Made me cringe. Made me angry. Made me wonder WTF???

Words fail me (an unusual occurance . . .)


az

I'm part of a volentry organisation of medical students that teach sex education in local schools.

Yes we do tell them about contraception and STIs, and yes we talk about confidence, and 'feelings and sex'.

We teach the girls and boys seperatly and give them vairous scenarios 'boyfriend wants to have sex, girlfriend doens't' etc and make the girls and boys imagine how they both would feel. It's great to make the teenage boys think more about how girls feel about sex. It's great to make them realise why girls sometimes don't want it, and that sometimes boys don't want to have sex either.

I also made them think of reasons why people want to have sex, and then think of which of them were silly reasons.

IE, 'because I'm in love' is different to 'because all my friends are doing' and 'because otherwise she'll dump me'.

Sex education isn't just for the teenagers who are sexually active. It's giving them skills that they'll need when they are sexually active adults, even those that are in a monogamous marriage.

Parent's aren't all going to be up to date on contraception, things will have changed since they were young. They might not know about the new more effective sort of mini pill, or the new IUD which releases progesterone, and has less infection risk, or in fact contraceptive implants which are some of the best sorts of contraception for teenage girls.

They are unlikely to know the incidence of STIs in the local population, or what the symptoms are.

As well as being more up to date on the medical matters than the teachers the children also know that doctors and nurses aren't embarrased to talk about sex, and if they have any more questions they can ask their doctor.

I'm not sure I agree with parents keeping this knowledge away from their children. The fact is that teenagers do make autnomous decsions to have sex, I think they have a right to know the risks of deciding to have sex, and how to reduce them. I understand in the classroom parents have the legal right to stop their children having this knowledge, but if I was a doctor and an teenager came to me, without their parents, and asked 'what contraception should I use' I would tell them, even if I knew that her father would disagree with her knowing.

<>

What the f**k??? Why are they parents if they aren't about to learn how to educate their own children? Sorry, but this makes me angry. You have kids, you raise them, and then you won't look beyond your own paltry sexual experiences and education in order to help your own kids cope in today's society?

Parents cannot, should not, treat their teenaged children as if they were still living in the 50's or 60's. I mean, why have kids if you are going to keep them living in the 'sexual dark ages'?

I think what you are doing is great, Z, and I hope it has an impact on kids wanting to know the reality of their own sexuality. To help them feel more informed and confident about their own decisions.


az

I think children are always going to be embarrassed to talk to their parents about sex. Even the most liberal parents is going to be fairly embarrassed to show thier child how to put a condom on- we get them all to have a go at putting a condom on banana.

Even if they don't remember exactly how to do it, they will recall that if you don't put a condom on correctly it isn't going to work properly, and read the packet.

I'm also involved in this area of sex ed, both in schools and with a children's charity. Both programmes I've been involved with have been positive in my opinion.

The school one included drama work where kids went through the peer pressure etc scenarios and thought up what they would actually say if a boy/girlfriend was pressuring them to go further than they wanted to. It also looked at STDs.

The one with the charity linked this topic with helping children to know that certain areas of their bodies are private and what to do and say if someone else wants to touch them.

Both were factual, done tastefully and on the child's level and in my opinion very useful. Neither of them promoted actually going out and experimenting

The point is, the facts were given, not hidden.

Jules

az, got to say Im with Z here. You know what i do and i dont consider myself expert enough to tie up some kid and dangle them over a cliff, teach them CPR or all the information they miight want about sex, for things like that I rely on expert advise or even visits from experts.

Now as a parent working and looking after home I can see it would be a bit much to deal with self esteem, eating disorders, education... the list goes on and sexual health in any great detail.

It would be nice if parents responded by learning more or signposted their children as needed. Yet even without the parents as a source hopefully young people will have enough nouse to use other sources like government leaflets magazines and the internet for advice and information.

A too many of them dont and end up with reputations, deisease and children they would really rather not have.

The only sure answer for all these is abstinence. It wont work as a solution though unless we are willing to actually lock them up though and in doing so we would just be suspending the detonation of humping time bombs anyway.

Parents if they are honest can do more than any magazine or youth worker. the only reason others like me have an impact on education is because *some* parents are so incredibly thick.



Hi Della.

Now you have been spouting rubbish as usual for the last few posts and giving us great examples of just how wrong parents can be on this subject.

and say that teaching abstinence isn't such a bad thing at all!

No it isnt but you miss the overwhelmingly obvious point that everyone else here has seen immediately. Teaching abstinence is practically impossible.

Try looking at the world. look at history. Look at population growth and sexually transmitted disease rates even during more puritanical times you will see as clear as the nose on your face that people of all ages colours and of BOTH sexes like to get sweaty. Really like it we are heading for 6 billion people on the planet largely because people like having sex.


It is better for children (defined as anyone still at school) to be abstinent - for emotional reasons as much as anything else!
...What about the emotional fall out, the relationship issues? People are more than just meat, they have feelings and minds.

Well *looking* (effective research tool observing the world with an open mind, you should try it some time) has told me that teenagers and grwon-ups go through immense emotional turmoil whether sex is involved in their lives or not.



and while he's doing end-of-year exams, that's all he should have to be worrying about right now.) Time enough for worrying about sex, pregnancy and the rest when he's got the time.)

You sound just like every other parent who suddenly gets a big, big shock....

How many girls end up with a set of bedpost notches they never wanted because "I might get pregnant" is no longer available as a tactful way of refusal?

I dont know we could ask you though? As you are a girl who was around at that time. Asking questions and waiting for the answer is another important research tool, you should try this one too some times.

So Della did you feel obliged to sleep with men because you suddenly had contraception available to you?



Girls (and boys as well) need society to affirm their right to say no if they wish. What do they see on TV and film all the time? People in their teens to their forties having one-nighters all over the show, moving in together on a whim, fighting, splitting up and moving on. The emotional turmoil is something each person keeps to herself, thinking "well, no one else seems to care the way I do." The sexually non-active learn to feel like freaks.

But soft, what light from yonder ignorance breaks?

Finally something sensible. yes we should have some realism in art. more hearache, more STDs as Cromwell would say lets show it warts and all anal vaginal fistulas the lot because the reality of sex sure aint a soft focus Mills and Boon life long monogomous bliss together in the majority of cases.

Great stuf Della.

Sadly there are more lies though.



The non-availability of the pill didn't mean these girls got pregnant - they didn't. All it meant was that they had the perfect "excuse" to say no, without the risk of hurting or alienating the boy. (The same could apply to boys - fear of pregnancy was a powerful deterrent.) There weren't galloping rates of disease, either! This wasn't so long ago!

What planet are you talking about.

You lie, people did get pregnant.

Another lie, they had the excuse to say no but lots didnt use it because they wanted to have sex.

There were galloping rates of disease you liar.

Just when was it Della beccause what you have sadi applies to no period of history I am aware of.


protected love

Peer pressure is such a dull cliche, but it really wouldn't take much education to stop it being real. a quick browse of the sex entries on HooToo might do the trick.

Yet another example of head-in-the-sand fundamentalist Christian nonsense. God likes them good and ignorant.

Studies have been made of students who take virginity pledges. And while they do have sex later in life (by a paltry 18 months), they are far less likely to be prepared. Over a third do not use contraception, and this leads to similar STD rates with non-pledgers. Too bad they don't list pregnancy rates, which I expect to be higher than non-pledgers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3846687.stm

These are the result of studies of students who have pledged abstinence until marriage but attend the same schools, and presumably receive the same sexual education of non-pledgers. How will the percentages of teenagers who don't use contraception increase when they're not even taught about contraception? Of those who actually do use contraception, how many will use it correctly?

Parents in general cannot be trusted to complete their children's education in this area because so many parents today fail their children in so many other ways. Lots of children have abusive or absent parents and cannot talk to them about anything deeper than the trivial. Lots of parents have social phobias and cannot communicate with their children on such topics. Lots of parents are just plain ignorant and stupid. Lots of parents have only superstitious nonsense to pass on regarding the subject. Or they just choose to put their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

For those children (the vast majority) whose parents fail them, we have to have something to offer them. But even the children of responsible, informed parents have something to gain from a thorough sex-education program, as they receive the most up-to-date info (when't the last time Mom & Dad had to worry about STD's?) regarding diseases and contraception.

If the kids in a Texas town start getting pregnant the people won't blame themselves, they'll blame the kids and their sinful ways. The ability for people to desperately cling to misguided ideas is well documented. Meanwhile, the population of the homeland by inbred, superstitious nationalists will continue, and we've seen how there are enough of them to swing a critical election already.