Personally, I think teenagers having sex is a bad idea, but they’re teenagers. They’ve had sex since probably the dawn of time, and will probably continue to do so until the human race eventually dies out. I live in Washington State, and since the 80’s we’ve had very comprehensive sex ed courses — information about STD’s and their transmission, how to properly use a condom, the advantages vs. disadvantages of different kinds of birth control, etc. There are even clinics where teenage girls can go to get birth control without needing parental permission, because hey, they’re going to have sex ANYWAY, so they might as well be as safe about it as they can be. You’d think the failure of the D.A.R.E. program would give these fundies a clue that the ‘Just Say No’ approach Just Doesn’t Work.

Also I want to add one more point to this conversation (Since no one has really brought it up yet): What about the parents? I mean, yes, the schools need to take some god damn responsibility, but the parents should too. I mean, even if they are fundies, they should still know that bleach and Mountain Dew (Which, just to clarify, if you drink enough of it will in fact lower the guy’s sperm count…but that’s like a swimming pool size amount) will not stop you from getting pregnant.

And even if they do teach “abstinence only”, they should still tell them of all the dangers present by having sex! You can’t just tell someone “Don’t do something cause it’s bad for you.” You need to tell them WHY it’s bad (Not that I think sex is bad…)

I really don’t get why these people don’t just try and give reasons for waiting (It’d definitely help their cause for one thing). I personally support all forms of valid birth-control, but if others don’t then they still need to be convincing (even to themselves) to the people they are trying to “help”.

So why should I wait? Because then I will probably be with someone who has been in a relationship with me for a while and genuinely cares about me. Why should I wait for that person? Because it will make the whole experience of it all the better, because I will care about them and they will care about me.

But no…they just say “Don’t have sex,” clap the kids on the shoulder, and run back out, smug that they have ’saved’ another possible heathen from going to hell due to premarital sex.

Nice…

The best sex ed I got (I didn’t have access to the internet until after my junior year of hs) was from those silly teen magazines. About every year they’d run a special on birth control and such. I’m really glad they did that, because too many kids had no access to accurate information before everyone had access to the web.

If that’s what it takes, I suppose. However, I want to be on record with this, because I don’t want anyone to think I support repealing abstinence-only just for the politically expedient reasons.

I don’t like the teachings, but I can phrase it in more reality-based language. The simple fact is, the programs teach “abstinence until marriage,” which, because marriage is no more than a contract (and one that can be broken easily and in myriad ways), there is no point in teaching “abstinence until marriage.” Fundies love to scream about STI’s (although they still call them STDs) and unwanted pregnancy. Yet here are two things that marriage WILL NOT DO:

1. Prevent you from getting pregnant.
2. Prevent you from getting an STD.

Things that will help:

1. Condoms and birth control pills, used properly.
2. Not having sex with people who have STDs.

I would find abstinence-only much more palatable if it was “abstinence until you feel safe and secure with your partner, and are knowledgeable enough to take sensible steps.” But no, it’s not that. It’s “Marriage,” which is the same as everything I just said, plus fundie. Which is why it irritates me so.

If they’d let go of this “marriage” crap, and came back to the real world, I’d happily join the rest of you in the “it doesn’t work” camp. But since the religious values part irritates me more than the actual, statistical science of it, apparently I’m the type of person who has a knee-jerk reaction to force-feeding religious values even more than I do with things that are >i>tangible problems.

While this probably doesn’t surprise anyone here, I think it makes it pretty clear that I have issues.

I, too, am opposed to abstinence-only because it is Biblically based. But that argument is merely my morals vs. their morals. It’s a legitimate discussion, but there isn’t a clear-cut answer. Society grapples with all issues that way and somehow comes to a consensus on these issues. That way isn’t likely to lead to a clear-cut revokation of these programs.

But if you look at whether they are effective, not only are they completely non-effective, they’re monumentally reverse effective. Kids end up engaging in even riskier behaviors.

So if you want these programs eliminated, the way to attack them is on their results, not their philosophy.

…but not waiting until marriage. That’s a Biblical value, with no basis in logic or rationality. And I don’t want that taught in school.