abstinence failure

[star2589]

Before I copy the article, i'd like to say that im not trying to suggest that abstinence ought to be taught along side contraception as if they were equally valid options. There are many reasons to remain abstinent other than preventing pregnancies and STDs, im just not addressing those issues at the moment.

anyway, this is an interesting article I found about the failure rate of abstinence. if you are only considering abstinence in terms of its success at preventing pregnancy it too can fail because of user error, just like with other contraceptive methods.




The rest of this article found here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html

Understanding 'Abstinence': Implications for Individuals, Programs and Policies

By Cynthia Dailard

The word "sex" is commonly acknowledged to mean different things to different people. The same can be said for "abstinence." The varied and potentially conflicting meanings of "abstinence" have significant public health implications now that its promotion has emerged as the Bush administration's primary answer to pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention for all people who are not married.

For those willing to probe beneath the surface, critical questions abound. What is abstinence in the first place, and what does it mean to use abstinence as a method of pregnancy or disease prevention? What constitutes abstinence "failure," and can abstinence failure rates be measured comparably to failure rates for other contraceptive methods? What specific behaviors are to be abstained from? And what is known about the effectiveness and potential "side effects" of programs that promote abstinence? Answering questions about what abstinence means at the individual and programmatic levels, and clarifying all of this for policymakers, remains a key challenge. Meeting that challenge should be regarded as a prerequisite for the development of sound and effective programs designed to protect Americans from unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV.
Abstinence and Individuals

What does it mean to use abstinence? When used conversationally, most people probably understand abstinence to mean refraining from sexual activity—or, more specifically, vaginal intercourse—for moral or religious reasons. But when it is promoted as a public health strategy to avoid unintended pregnancy or STDs, it takes on a different connotation. Indeed, President Bush has described abstinence as "the surest way, and the only completely effective way, to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease." So from a scientific perspective, what does it mean to abstain from sex, and how should the "use" of abstinence as a method of pregnancy or disease prevention be measured?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

star,
I acknowledge the point concerning user error, but it doesn't alter the fact that abstinence DOES indeed work 100% of the time it is employed. If I refrain from having sex with my husband this evening, we are 100% guaranteed that I will not get pregnant tonight. If I do NOT engage in abstinence tomorrow night, but instead use a different method, there is NO comparison to prevention rates whatsoever, because NOTHING other than abstinence works 100% of the time.

Will there be failure? Yes. You call it "user error." Well, that may be true, but it will then be on the shoulders of the one who did NOT use the method properly. The WRONG message is being taught when we try to tell children, "we know you're going to do it anyway, so there's a safe way to do it." There IS no safe way -- possibly a "safer" way, but even THAT is not 100% effective.

No, I totally disagree. Children should be taught the ONLY 100% effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy is abstinence. IF parents want to teach their children a "safer" way to have sex, if they believe this to be in the best interest of THEIR OWN child, so be it. If their kid gets pregnant, or gets someone else pregnant, that is THEIR responsibility to deal with it. Those parents that understand the moral impllications of sexual activity at young/minor ages will NOT have to fight against the moral ambiguity, or rather lack thereof of ANY moral underpinning, "taught" in the school system.

Abstinence doesn't fail. WE fail our children when we have so little faith in them, when we don't equip them with true knowledge, and when we remove ANY moral issues from the subject of sex-outside-of-marriage. I do not buy the lie that "kids are going to do it anyway." Some will, more won't when we put a little faith in them, when we make it harder for them to fall victim of temptation (where are the parents?), when we stop trying to make sex safer, and start taking it out of the arena of desire. NO program, of ANY method is going to produce a Utopian world where every child is a wanted and planned for child. But we have GOT to stop enabling, supporting, and encouraging the increase of this type of behavior by giving license to it.

[shoemoodoshaloo]

when we stop trying to make sex safer, and start taking it out of the arena of desire.

Good luck with that. Since sex is ingrained into our instincts, I don't think anyone is going to removing the desire anytime soon with anything less than electrodes to the brain.

This issue is debated often, but I think in the wrong way. Abstinence vs safe sex isn't the real problem here. The problem is parenting. Either way, if a parent decides to teach his/her kid both and lets the child choose, there will be no pregnancy (almost always).

If the child (hopefully at least a young adult) chooses abstinence, there will be no pregnancy. If the child uses the pill and condoms, there will be no pregnancy (I know there is potential, but it's small. Say a woman is fertile for 3 days out of 30. Condoms are 95% effective and the pill is 97% effective, there is less than a one thousandth of a percent chance to get pregnant).

The problem comes in when a child ignores both abstinence and safe sex. That problem is what should be discussed. Why do children do this? Are they not informed? Maybe. Are they acting out of insecurity? Probably. Are the parents to blame? Usually.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Good luck with that. Since sex is ingrained into our instincts, I don't think anyone is going to removing the desire anytime soon with anything less than electrodes to the brain.

You misunderstood the context of that which you chose to quote. I KNOW the desire is going to be there -- increased hormonal activity, puberty, the proximity of the opposite sex, etc. All those things have always been around -- why is there increased numbers of teenage pregnancy, std's, sexually transmitted diseases, etc., NOW, as opposed to say back when our great-grandparents were young? TOO much (sex) "education" WITHOUT a moral underpinning, i.e. family values FROM the family.

To take it out of the arena of desire is to put it BACK into the arena of where THAT part of it belongs -- within the family value system, i.e. mom & dad should be dealing with that aspect of it. Will some parents shirk their responsibility? Will they avoid it? Will they do a bad job of it? Yep -- but guess what, they brought those children into the world, it is THEIR responsibility to teach them, value-wise, about so intimate a subject.

This issue is debated often, but I think in the wrong way. Abstinence vs safe sex isn't the real problem here. The problem is parenting. Either way, if a parent decides to teach his/her kid both and lets the child choose, there will be no pregnancy (almost always).

Absolutely, 1/2 of the problem is parenting . . . the other half is school systems teaching "safe sex" WITHOUT parental involvement and WITHOUT a moral underpinning. In my opinion, the schools should be teaching about reproduction in Biology class, no problem with that; they should be teaching about reproduction in Health class, no problem with that. As for "sex" methods? No way does that belong in a classroom. There should be no "sex ed" classes -- all that does is reinforce the "arena of desire" I was referring to. Demystify it, put it back in the classes it belongs, and let the moral ramifications be dealt with in the home -- the parents responsibility, as you accurately identified above.

If the child (hopefully at least a young adult) chooses abstinence, there will be no pregnancy. If the child uses the pill and condoms, there will be no pregnancy (I know there is potential, but it's small. Say a woman is fertile for 3 days out of 30. Condoms are 95% effective and the pill is 97% effective, there is less than a one thousandth of a percent chance to get pregnant).

I'm not going to argue your statistics, I don't have any handy with which to rebut. I will say, that regardless, this should be handled within the home, NOT the school.

The problem comes in when a child ignores both abstinence and safe sex. That problem is what should be discussed. Why do children do this? Are they not informed? Maybe. Are they acting out of insecurity? Probably. Are the parents to blame? Usually.


That "problem" has always existed. There is no way to eliminate it. I believe by focusing on trying to eliminate it we lose sight of the attainable goal -- do all we can to prevent all we can from happening, then deal with the fall out after it has happened. If we focus on the saving part, instead of the "understanding" part, more WILL be saved, and there will be more opportunities to help those who failed. We are now overwhelmed with failure, thus making it almost impossible to deal with -- unwanted babies, abandoned babies, aborted babies, babies being raised in substandard conditions, fatherless babies, babies HAVING babies.

Yes parents are to blame, they definitely need to take back control from the schools, the society, the media, etc. They need to BE parents, and they need to own up when they fail, and not put the blame elsewhere.

[ConservativeYouthMovement]

Well, there really is no way to remove desire from anybody, also if people wait until they are in their mid-late 20's to get married and have sex they are FAR past the biological time where people instinctfully desire sex the most. Eventually, our brains will work to accomodate the difference after several generations (hypothetically), except that people are also reaching puberty at younger ages, which would lead me to believe the average age will begin lowering from 17. 17 is probably even one of the highest numbers in all of human history. The only way to keep sex within marriage is if we go back to the days when 15 is the average marriage age.

[shoemoodoshaloo]

[/font]



Yes parents are to blame, they definitely need to take back control from the schools, the society, the media, etc. They need to BE parents, and they need to own up when they fail, and not put the blame elsewhere.

I agree.

Although I don't think sex ed should be taken out of the schools, it should be an optional, parent approved program that is a SUPPLEMENT to what the child learn's from their parents.

And my stats weren't really stats. They were just approx math that I did real quick.

For probablility multiply the fractions (1/10)(1/97)(1/95). One in ten is a simplification of 3/30 chance of fertility.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Although I don't think sex ed should be taken out of the schools, it should be an optional, parent approved program that is a SUPPLEMENT to what the child learn's from their parents.

How would it supplement the parents' teaching? Wouldn't parents differ in what, how much, how they teach? How do you start where they leave off when you have 25 students (or more) to deal with? Wouldn't it make better sense to allow the schools to tackle the physcial aspect of it as it relates to the reproductive system and not touch on any of the emotional issues or even moral ones?

I'll grant you that your proposal is more acceptable to me than what is occuring today. IF it were changed to an "Opt-In" program, versus an "Opt-Out" program, and parents were required to be involved (meaning discussions with their children outside of the classroom with signed proof that they had occurred), that would certainly be a much better alternative to the way things are being handled today.

[star2589]

star,
I acknowledge the point concerning user error, but it doesn't alter the fact that abstinence DOES indeed work 100% of the time it is employed. If I refrain from having sex with my husband this evening, we are 100% guaranteed that I will not get pregnant tonight. If I do NOT engage in abstinence tomorrow night, but instead use a different method, there is NO comparison to prevention rates whatsoever, because NOTHING other than abstinence works 100% of the time.

im not disagreeing that abstinence will work 100% of the time if employed correctly, and obviously we should teach our children that. what I am saying, is that you can't compare the theortical success of abstinence with the real success of birthcontrol. again, this is only when your talking about abstinence in terms of birth control, not in terms of morality.

Will there be failure? Yes. You call it "user error." Well, that may be true, but it will then be on the shoulders of the one who did NOT use the method properly. The WRONG message is being taught when we try to tell children, "we know you're going to do it anyway, so there's a safe way to do it." There IS no safe way -- possibly a "safer" way, but even THAT is not 100% effective.

I don't mean that one should stop expecting teens to abstain from sex. teens will never be perfect, but the higher your expectations, the better they will do.

But im not talking about those kids that conciously decide they are going to start having sex. I'm talking about the classic story of a couple that had intended on being abstinent, but were making out and in the heat of the moment ended up having sex, and regreting it immediatly after. there's no denying that that sort of thing happens, and will always happen. and while such a couple will probably decide to continue trying not to have sex, they ought to know about the morning after pill, and it would be wise for them to get on birth control in case such a thing happens again.

No, I totally disagree. Children should be taught the ONLY 100% effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy is abstinence. IF parents want to teach their children a "safer" way to have sex, if they believe this to be in the best interest of THEIR OWN child, so be it. If their kid gets pregnant, or gets someone else pregnant, that is THEIR responsibility to deal with it. Those parents that understand the moral impllications of sexual activity at young/minor ages will NOT have to fight against the moral ambiguity, or rather lack thereof of ANY moral underpinning, "taught" in the school system.

I agree for the most part. if a teen has the discipline, than it will be 100% effective, and there's no reason why you should lower your expectations of how much discipline a teen should have.

im just saying that when using abstinence as birth control, and nothing else, its inaccurate to compare its theoretical success to the real life success of other birth control methods.

that doesnt mean there arent plenty of other very good reasons that teens should abstain from sex. those should be taught too.

Abstinence doesn't fail. WE fail our children when we have so little faith in them, when we don't equip them with true knowledge, and when we remove ANY moral issues from the subject of sex-outside-of-marriage. I do not buy the lie that "kids are going to do it anyway." Some will, more won't when we put a little faith in them, when we make it harder for them to fall victim of temptation (where are the parents?), when we stop trying to make sex safer, and start taking it out of the arena of desire. NO program, of ANY method is going to produce a Utopian world where every child is a wanted and planned for child. But we have GOT to stop enabling, supporting, and encouraging the increase of this type of behavior by giving license to it.

again, im not suggesting that we stop primarily teaching teens to use abstinence, nor am i saying that we should lower our expectations of them. im just saying that there are some valid reasons to teach birth control, and that its inaccurate to compare the efficacy of abstinance and birthcontrol at preventing pregnancy, the way they are normally compared.

[star2589]

Well, there really is no way to remove desire from anybody, also if people wait until they are in their mid-late 20's to get married and have sex they are FAR past the biological time where people instinctfully desire sex the most. Eventually, our brains will work to accomodate the difference after several generations (hypothetically), except that people are also reaching puberty at younger ages, which would lead me to believe the average age will begin lowering from 17. 17 is probably even one of the highest numbers in all of human history. The only way to keep sex within marriage is if we go back to the days when 15 is the average marriage age.

I believe this may be one of the biggest reasons that less people wait until they are married to have sex.

its one thing to enter puberty at 16 and get married at 21 as happened 100 years ago. its another to enter puberty at 12 and get married at 27. 15 years is a long time to wait.

I wonder if our change in cultural attitudes was a direct result of this. people began having sex before marriage first, and then the cultural attitude changed. rather than the other way around.

[star2589]

I agree.

Although I don't think sex ed should be taken out of the schools, it should be an optional, parent approved program that is a SUPPLEMENT to what the child learn's from their parents.

And my stats weren't really stats. They were just approx math that I did real quick.

For probablility multiply the fractions (1/10)(1/97)(1/95). One in ten is a simplification of 3/30 chance of fertility.

while we're getting into math, i thought i'd point out that the probability of getting pregnant from any given instance of sex has already been studied. it varies from 1% to 13% depending on where you are in your cycle, but on average is 8%

[shoemoodoshaloo]

while we're getting into math, i thought i'd point out that the probability of getting pregnant from any given instance of sex has already been studied. it varies from 1% to 13% depending on where you are in your cycle, but on average is 8%

My estimate of 10% was close. Thx though.

[shoemoodoshaloo]

[QUOTE=HomeschoolrsRUs]How would it supplement the parents' teaching? Wouldn't parents differ in what, how much, how they teach? How do you start where they leave off when you have 25 students (or more) to deal with? Wouldn't it make better sense to allow the schools to tackle the physcial aspect of it as it relates to the reproductive system and not touch on any of the emotional issues or even moral ones?

Sex-ed in school can offer experts like family planning Dr's. Or victimes of rape. Or anyone else who has experienced issues that are talked about in the class. If a problem occurs with it differing with what the parents teach, the parents can remove their child from the class.

Extra knowledge never hurts, it only helps make the right decisions. If someone knows they can get AIDS from sex, it will make them less likely to engage than someone who doesn't know about STD's.

[Melz]

The problem started in this convo when folks started mentioning the "desire." Well of course there is desire. This is how folks turn to homosexuality. They have a desire to do what they want and it is allowed or available.

Willpower perhaps? Hard to localize it I agree. Desire wins most of the time. But there is no reason to stop teaching willpower and morality over desire. This country/recent generations has more "me" power than any before it. The government is saying "OK" to anything its citizens want. Parents are saying "OK" to everything their kids want. Workplaces are saying "OK" to everything their employees want.

Just because it seems inevitable now doesn't mean it truly should become a fact of life. ANYTHING. People need self discipline, they need better parenting, and they need God. Without these (and many more) factors in their lives, it will always be about ME and it will become harder to allow folks to have some self control.

[Primitive]

That article is misguided and completely incompetent.

What is the point of it anyway? Abstinence means no sex, and if you have sex, you are not abstinent.
Now these people have come up with a label to dismiss abstinance called "abstinence failure".

Oh, I get it, you mean that if you have sex, you have failed to remain abstinent!? Wow, what a concept!

It is as if they are saying "People are human, they fail at everything, so why even bother trying?"...
People on the left want to find failure in everything.

Abstinance IS possible, and guess what, it is also a grace given by God if even passively (without asking God for it due to unbelief etc.). So many peopls are too obstinant and foolish to accept this because they do not want to admit their weaknesses and submit themselves to God and to Love Him. With prayer and with God, all things are possible...

I remember about a year ago, I heard some woman (obviously "liberal" as the label would claim) on the radio speaking about hunger, poverty and starvation in the world. It disgusted me to hear her correct the talk show host when he mentioned the hungry people...According to her there is now a new phrase we should use when referring to "them" and their "condition"...it was called "food insecure". What kind of stupidity is this? Why do people tapdance around the real problems in this world constantly proving to us their desire to paint a pretty picture of this world as if suffering doesn't exist. Suffering does exist, and it is a gift (though hard to accept for us). Through it, we learn to love.
Guess what radio lady, people are dying, hungry, and tormented every day we sit in our air conditioning watching vile disgusting "adult" shows on TV or whatever other degenerate filth fills our airwaves.
It is OUR job to look out for our fellow human beings and help them, not sit back and "study" trends. It is common sense that people are starving and oppressed because of fascist regimes who starve their own people (a perfect example in the movie "Black Hawk Down") and poor agriculture etc...

And now this, another study done by those who hate their own people so much, they would rather advance immorality pointing to how "weak" we are instead of teaching the truth.

The truth is Abstinence works...
Prayer works...
It must be understood that in both, the person must be sincere, loving and trust in God, and they will never fail...and indeed, they will become better...
Neglect these things, and they will fall to their doom.

[star2589]

That article is misguided and completely incompetent.

What is the point of it anyway? Abstinence means no sex, and if you have sex, you are not abstinent.
Now these people have come up with a label to dismiss abstinance called "abstinence failure".

Oh, I get it, you mean that if you have sex, you have failed to remain abstinent!? Wow, what a concept!

It is as if they are saying "People are human, they fail at everything, so why even bother trying?"...
People on the left want to find failure in everything.

people do fail to be abstinent. people who consciously decided to be abstinent but then got caught up in the heat of the moment and had sex. in terms of birth control, its no different then forgetting to use a condom, or forgetting to take a pill.

I dont think the article is saying anything other than its wrong to compare abstinence and birth control the way they are currently compared. that doesnt mean we should stop teaching abstinence as the right choice and the best choice. there are plenty of reasons to abstain other than avoiding pregnancy.

I think it just means that we need to be aware that some of them will mess up, and we should teach accordingly. teach them what to do if they do mess up, and teach them specific ways to avoid messing up in the first place.

[shoemoodoshaloo]

people do fail to be abstinent. people who consciously decided to be abstinent but then got caught up in the heat of the moment and had sex. in terms of birth control, its no different then forgetting to use a condom, or forgetting to take a pill.

I

It is different. You don't forget to be abstinent. You make the choice "am I going to break my streak or not?". The pill is easy to forget because it's taken daily even when sex is not on the mind. Forgetting to use a condom is pretty stupid. It's like forgetting to put on your pants in the morning.

Five points to the person who brought God into the thread. I was almost sure we had a thread that would go 1 page without a "god is great just in case your forgot...PRAY...oh wait what were we talking about again" post.

[star2589]

It is different. You don't forget to be abstinent. You make the choice "am I going to break my streak or not?". The pill is easy to forget because it's taken daily even when sex is not on the mind. Forgetting to use a condom is pretty stupid. It's like forgetting to put on your pants in the morning.

hee hee hee, no one said it isnt incredibly stupid. but we all have our stupid moments in life right?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

people do fail to be abstinent.

Well then, perhaps we are asking the wrong question, and we should be asking why do people fail to remain abstinent? You yourself said it is due to "user error," I believe. So the next logical question is, why aren't we teaching and equpping the children (with) the right user method -- especially when we KNOW the mode (abstinence) works 100% of the time.

people who consciously decided to be abstinent but then got caught up in the heat of the moment and had sex. in terms of birth control, its no different then forgetting to use a condom, or forgetting to take a pill.

Absolutely and totally false. People who consciously decide to be abstinent, if they are true to their conviction, shoud be diligent to NOT put themselves in positions of temptation for "user error."

So, right here we are failing to educate the children in proper "usage." Schools are working at odds with this idea as well -- my nephew went to his first dance in sixth grade, the year after (5th grade) taking "sex ed." Is this kid being set up for "user error" or what?

I dont think the article is saying anything other than its wrong to compare abstinence and birth control the way they are currently compared.

I think it's saying more than that -- if that is ALL that it's saying (it's wrong to compare abstinence and birth control the way they are currently compared) then I am in agreement.

that doesnt mean we should stop teaching abstinence as the right choice and the best choice. there are plenty of reasons to abstain other than avoiding pregnancy.

What it means is along with "abstinence," we need to be teaching children how to make abstinence work -- avoid situations of temptation, don't participate in activities which allow room for opportunities of impropriety, etc. I totall agree with the last statement.

I think it just means that we need to be aware that some of them will mess up, and we should teach accordingly. teach them what to do if they do mess up, and teach them specific ways to avoid messing up in the first place.

No, we should not be teaching down to the lowest denominator. We should be setting the bar high, teaching to the positive. Will some negative occur? Yes, but dealing with the negative is a consequence that the one(s) who failed should have to handle. That's what is wrong with this picture now -- we have done away with the stigma that goes along with failure, and in doing so we have given license to bad behavior and it will take the advantage and expand on it.

[star2589]

Well then, perhaps we are asking the wrong question, and we should be asking why do people fail to remain abstinent? You yourself said it is due to "user error," I believe. So the next logical question is, why aren't we teaching and equpping the children (with) the right user method -- especially when we KNOW the mode (abstinence) works 100% of the time.

well, some places are, and others aren't. I don't remember ever being taught about contraception in middle school. in 6th grade I do remember a program called "students today aren't ready for sex" (S.T.A.R.S) where some highschool students came in for a 2 or 3 weeks and talked to us about abstinence, and how to avoid peer pressure and such. i didn't really get sex ed in highschool. health was combined with biology, and the teacher knew we had heard it billions of times already. I remember watching 1 video that was talking about the pressure to have sex a lot of teens face, and it briefly discribed how to use a condom. I do remember my teacher at one point very clearly saying that she doesnt think highschool students are old enough to be ready for sex. but there was never a large discussion about it. we just went through sex ed as fast as we could. it was one day.


Absolutely and totally false. People who consciously decide to be abstinent, if they are true to their conviction, shoud be diligent to NOT put themselves in positions of temptation for "user error."

well, the fact is that teens don't <i>want</i> to avoid those situations. they might respect what their parents say, but not what the school says. I don't know any teens that have been in a steady relationship that didn't become sexual though I do know plenty that had been in a sexual relationship for months without ever having intercourse. maybe I can think of one or two exceptions, but with them it was completly because of the high respect they had for their parents and their spiritual beliefs. sex ed had absolutly nothing to do with it.

sex ed can give some practical ideas to students on how to succesfully practice abstinence, and teens that are already planning on being abstinent will listen, but it doesn't do much for everyone else

What it means is along with "abstinence," we need to be teaching children how to make abstinence work -- avoid situations of temptation, don't participate in activities which allow room for opportunities of impropriety, etc. I totall agree with the last statement.

again, teens don't want that, and that is a problem that comes from home, and school cant really fix it.




I guess the bottom line of what I'm saying, is that abstinence education only effects those teens that have already chosen to remain abstinent. but even amoung those, they still want to be able to have a sexual relationship, and so the practical ways of avoiding having sexual intercourse aren't useful to them.

any teen knows that if they have sex, they can get pregnant even if they are on birth control. it doesnt take an entire class curriculum to teach them that.

as for whether its right or wrong, teens really dont care what their health teacher said. parents are the ones that need to take responsibility and teach their kids such things. more and more, parents are trying to get schools to raise their kids, and its not right and its not effective.

the one thing which I think would be good to teach in schools, is how sexual relationships effect the relationship as a whole. In my health/biology class, we spent several weeks just talking about relationships. all sorts of relationships. friends, family, dating, etc. what healthy relationships look like, what abusive relationships look like and what to do about them. naturally, sex and abstinence was talked about when we were talking about dating relationships. even though it wasnt sex ed it was still the best information about sex and abstinence I ever got from school.

I think that teachers should teach with the attitude that students shouldnt be having sex, but i think its a big waste to have a whole class devoted to teaching that. its the parents responsibility, and parents are the only ones that can really teach that anyway.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

well, some places are, and others aren't. I don't remember ever being taught about contraception in middle school. ... we just went through sex ed as fast as we could. it was one day.

Times have certainly changed. I had a friend who because of a family emergency was forced to put her homeschooled children in public school for one year . . . for the oldest, it just happened to be fifth grade, where a 'sex ed' class is a requirement. There was a parent's meeting one evening to prepare the parents for what was going to be taught -- out of THREE fifth grade classes (all averaging 25 kids per class), only FOUR parents showed up -- my friend and her husband, and two single moms. In any case, after hearing what the "curriculum" consisted of, my friends opted their child OUT of the program, but not before extreme pressure to leave their daughter in (they were even called at home by the school's counselor).

well, the fact is that teens don't want to avoid those situations.

Of course they don't -- so whose responsibility is it to help keep those kids away from temptation situations? Shouldn't the parents and the school(s) be partnering together to help make the children's chances more successful for remaining abstinent?

they might respect what their parents say, but not what the school says.

The school's are culpable -- remember my anecdote from above? The year before last my nephew (who is NOT homeschooled and IS being raised in a single parent household) went through fifth grade (and that "sex ed" course). Do you know what happened when he started SIXTH grade (middle school)?? The school held two DANCES for them! Talk about sexing up the kids and setting them up for failure!

sex ed had absolutly nothing to do with it.

Bull! Maybe not directly, but indirectly it most certainly DOES! We live in a highly sexualized society nowdays. I don't EVER remember as a little girl seeing the types of commercials on the tele that today are ROUTINELY played even during the "family hour." Commercials for warming KY lotion, Victoria's secret lingerie, shampoo commercials simulating sexual climax, and racy commercials for R-rated commercials. You don't think those things, PLUS sex ed being in school don't have the cumulative effect of desensitizing children to the dangers and immorality of sex? Sorry, it's all part and parcel of a bigger picture, that by REFUSING to address is being given license and carte blanche.

sex ed can give some practical ideas to students on how to succesfully practice abstinence, and teens that are already planning on being abstinent will listen, but it doesn't do much for everyone else

My point is this -- abstinence is not a "sex ed method" to be taught in school. It is a philosophy of living, a moral code, a way of life that is and should be considered the PREFERRED way to live. We are talking about SCHOOL -- academics, education. There is NO PLACE in school for this type of thing, sex education is NOT academics. School should NOT be about "socialization," it should be about education. Parents need to become parents again, the schools need to work with the parents, not the other way around. I'm sorry, nobody should be playing to the lowest denominator, only the highest standards should be set. When expectations are lowered, so are any incentives to do the right thing or consequences for doing the wrong thing.

[DeclinetoState]

The word "sex" is commonly acknowledged to mean different things to different people. The same can be said for "abstinence." Channeling Bill Clinton, are we?

Abstinence is usually taken to mean NOT HAVING SEX. It's not that complicated.

What constitutes abstinence "failure"...? I think it's called, "having sex." Good grief! Did somebody get paid to write this drivel? If so, how much? (Pardon the expression.)