• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The dangers of youth abstinence pledges are becoming clear

You're really interested in children having sex, aren't you?
What are you accusing him by by opposing a policy that causes relationship problems later in life?

It's also ineffective at preventing pregnancy or the spread of STDs.
Abstaining from sexual activity is a surefire way to prevent pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted diseases. But programs advocating abstinence often fail to prevent young people from having sex, researchers write in the September issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health.


Such programs, sometimes referred to as "abstinence only until marriage" programs, typically advocate monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the only appropriate context for sexual intercourse and as the only certain way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.


That's "not just unrealistic, but it leaves our young people without the information and skills that they need," said Laura Lindberg, a coauthor of the report and a research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group that supports abortion rights. "We fail our young people when we don't provide them with complete and medically accurate information."


The analysis confirms previous public health findings that abstinence-only education programs don't succeed in reducing rates of teen pregnancies or STDs. Moreover, public health data indicate that such programs "have little demonstrated efficacy in helping adolescents to delay intercourse," the authors write.
 
Says someone who has no problem with over half a million dead Americans. Your poutrage means nothing. :)



You don't need to broadcast your ignorance of human sexuality that loudly, Coto. I can safely say that I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do. ;)
How can you say you know more about sexuality than someone who has been happily married for decades?
 



Conservative sexuality has done a wonderful job of masking itself as a "purity" movement, claiming that "saving oneself until marriage" is one of the best things a young person could do. Purity rings, purity balls (dances, not genital ornaments), purity pledges dominate this movement, all with one single goal: If you wait until marriage with someone of the opposite sex to do anything sexual, you are a good person. Otherwise, you are a bad person. Never mind if you are LGBTQ; the "purity" movement leaves you out entirely.

What this movement really is is a propaganda campaign to make conservative parents feel like they're in control of their children's sexuality. It denies youth the right to learn about and explore sexuality in a safe, healthy manner. Consider Western European countries, which have far fewer illusions about teenage sexuality yet have far lower rates of STIs. They don't shame their youth for having desires that are just as normal as the desire to eat.

The good news is that organized religion in the United States is collapsing, and hopefully, taking this toxic "purity" movement down with it.
The right to learn and explore sexuality? As a minor child who doesn't know how to make good choices. Yeah, cut em loose.
 
The right to learn and explore sexuality? As a minor child who doesn't know how to make good choices. Yeah, cut em loose.
Did it occur to you to teach them scientifically accurate fact based sex education instead of shaming and lying to them to trying to deny sex with the overview of religious belief?
To qualify for funding, programs must meet the "A-H" criteria. Much debate has occurred since on the ethics and efficiency of abstinence-only sex education. When abstinence programs failed to reduce the teenage birthrate, the Bush administration instructed the US Centers for Disease Control to stop gathering data, and also forced them to shelve a project identifying those sex education programs which worked, after they found that none of the successful ones were "abstinence-only". A majority of abstinence-only sex education have been discovered to teach serious inaccurate information.
 
This is such an absurd nonsensical statement. As if so-called science can preclude morality.
Morality is subjective. Everyone has a moral code of some kind. It likely differs from yours, which most probably consider a good thing, but they have one.

Science is normally not subjective (not when done correctly).
 
In one corner, we have a 21-year-old woman with "a deep shame reaction". In the other corner, we have 65 million Americans with incurable sexual diseases, 850,000 abortions per year, 34% of children living with an unmarried parent (up from just 9% in 1960, and 19% in 1980), and 70% of all US families being dysfunctional.

Phys251: Great Scott! There's a woman with "a deep shame reaction". It must be because saving yourself for marriage is a bad idea. It's a good thing there are no consequences to not saving yourself for marriage. Definitely nothing that could compete with a woman having a "deep shame reaction", in any case.

“Saving yourself for marriage” is an antiquated misogynist “rule” that is about controlling women, their choices, their bodies.

Cis men have also failed women repeatedly. Majority of rapists and spousal abuse is committed by cis men. But yeah, we really gotta “save” ourselves for all that.
 
You're really interested in children having sex, aren't you?
Keep going. Tell us all you know about adolescent sexual promiscuity. You had a lot of sex with a lot of people before marriage? Have a lot of sex with young unmarried teens now?
Maybe the OPer should state the age he claims children should start having sex for their mental health? From the messages, I gather that is the moment they enter puberty - age 11 for girls and 12 for boys.
Why are so many men of this forum fixated on sex with children - and furious at anyone who doesn't declare that children should have as much sex with as many people as possible as young as possible?

That seems a common theme on this sexuality forum.
Christ, conservatives are touchy on this subject.

I don't have a problem with parents or anyone else encouraging teenagers to be abstinent, but the reason is not because sex or people who have it outside marriage are "impure"--it is because teenagers can be poor decision-makers and don't always appreciate or know the long-term consequences of their actions.

The "purity movement" goes beyond that by making sex in general, and particularly sex outside of marriage, out to be something shameful. That's just a lazy and manipulative way of scaring children. I don't see what it accomplishes other than encouraging children to get married at 18, which is as ridiculous and irresponsible in this day and age as encouraging them to have sex, and ostracizing people for no good reason. Better to scare teenagers with the real consequences of unsafe teenage sex--diseases, pregnancy, etc.
 
This is such an absurd nonsensical statement. As if so-called science can preclude morality.
There are as many ideas of what is morality as who is or isn't god and the government cannot teach subjective morality without violating the 1st Amendment. If you don't want your child taught objective scientific facts you can pull them out of that class or send them to a religious school that will teach whatever mythical nonsense that you approve of.
 
There are as many ideas of what is morality as who is or isn't god and the government cannot teach subjective morality without violating the 1st Amendment. If you don't want your child taught objective scientific facts you can pull them out of that class or send them to a religious school that will teach whatever mythical nonsense that you approve of.
Actually there is no conflict between Catholicism and true science, because Jesus' word is the truth. The conflict arises between truth and the phony faux science the left teaches and calls 'science'.
"Condoms are a good idea for unmarried teens" has nothing to do with science, has nothing to do with the truth, and is grossly immoral.
 
There are as many ideas of what is morality as who is or isn't
Actually, there aren't. There is only one truth, and it has been determined by the Creator. Just because pot-smoking leftwingers have a different idea doesn't make it equally valid.
 
Says the person who feels that we're not even animals. What are we, protists? :LOL:



Human beings are animals, just like we learned back in the third grade. No amount of ignorant insistence by you is going to change that basic scientific fact. :)

If you want to see yourself as nothing but an animal, knock yourself out. "Animal" is a subjective term. "Species" is not. I am of the species homo sapien - and you are just an animal. OK.
 
Why are you being dishonest about what I said? I said we are above the animals, which we are.
Explain how we can be "above the animals" when we are literally animals. Go on, I'll wait.
 
How can you say you know more about sexuality than someone who has been happily married for decades?

Your sample size of one doesn't count.
 
If you want to see yourself as nothing but an animal, knock yourself out. "Animal" is a subjective term. "Species" is not. I am of the species homo sapien - and you are just an animal. OK.
Allow me to introduce you to the work of Carl Linnaeus. We are animals.

taxonomy2.png
 
How can you say you know more about sexuality than someone who has been happily married for decades?
Defending talibornagain repression again?
 
Actually, there aren't. There is only one truth, and it has been determined by the Creator. Just because pot-smoking leftwingers have a different idea doesn't make it equally valid.
Your God created pot....
 
Your God created pot....
His god also created lefties and knew that they were going to smoke pot.

His god also created the Covid19 virus.
 
Teaching them that only abstinence works has been proven to cause higher rates of teen and unmarried pregnancies, as well as STIs.
Because the statistics reflect the aggregate effect of good parenting and bad parenting.

Bad parenting is when parents declare "abstinence only" like dictators, but behave hypocritically (i.e. don't follow their own rules about sexual morality, which children readily perceive), don't explain to their children the many important reasons for sexual abstinence from a young age, don't teach their children the importance of avoiding morally compromising situations, don't instill within their children a strong sense of pride and moral propriety, don't properly monitor their children during adolescence, and/or set excessively strict guidelines that attempt to make sex into a dirty or disgusting thing.

All these failures of parenting get balled together with the good parenting and drag down the aggregate statistics, making them comparable to the "Try to use a rubber" amoral standard that has the world in such a colossal mess.

The lesson is that parents who want to raise morally upright children mustn't do a half-baked job of it, or else risk severe consequences if they do. But the goal of raising morally upright children who abstain until marriage is a good one.
 
Last edited:
Sex education can solve that.
The right kind certainly can.

The right kind of sex education includes the reasons why sex should only occur within a marriage covenant. It includes a frank discussion on the purpose of sex, the beauty of sex, the risks of sex, and God's design for sexual relations between man and woman. And it's lifelong education, as part of a much larger educational curriculum. Not an isolated discussion or last-minute injunction. See reply #70 above.

If there's any shred of truth in the OP, it's that too many Christian parents try to impose moral dictates (often selectively or hypocritically) rather than raising their children to understand the purpose and importance of moral laws. And many Christian parents are, unfortunately, ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches about sex and sexuality. They make sex out as though it's a perverse or disgusting thing, but in the right circumstances, within the right guidelines, sex is a beautiful thing. Something created by God to bond a man and his wife together with a unique degree of intimacy. Parents who fail to understand this can wind up damaging their children with ascetic attitudes and harsh prohibitions. Hence there are hazards to be aware of.
 
Last edited:
His god also created lefties and knew that they were going to smoke pot.

His god also created the Covid19 virus.
Yah, nobody said earthly life would be a bowl of cherries like leftwingers think it should be. There will be obstacles. How are you going to react?
 
The right kind certainly can.

The right kind of sex education includes the reasons why sex should only occur within a marriage covenant. It includes a frank discussion on the purpose of sex, the beauty of sex, the risks of sex, and God's design for sexual relations between man and woman. And it's lifelong education, as part of a much larger educational curriculum. Not an isolated discussion or last-minute injunction. See reply #70 above.

If there's any shred of truth in the OP, it's that too many Christian parents try to impose moral dictates (often selectively or hypocritically) rather than raising their children to understand the purpose and importance of moral laws. And many Christian parents are, unfortunately, ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches about sex and sexuality. They make sex out as though it's a perverse or disgusting thing, but in the right circumstances, within the right guidelines, sex is a beautiful thing. Something created by God to bond a man and his wife together with a unique degree of intimacy. Parents who fail to understand this can wind up damaging their children with ascetic attitudes and harsh prohibitions. Hence there are hazards to be aware of.
Yes, sex is very powerful. So many people underestimate it. It's like fire in that it can be greatly helpful or greatly harmful depending on how it is used. It is very challenging for kids to do the right thing today, what with the tremendous societal pressure from the godless left to do the wrong thing.
 
Defending talibornagain repression again?
You can namecall doing the right thing if you want, but the proof is in the results.

Leftwingers don't think anything should be difficult. The notion of self-denial or sacrifice or delayed gratification is alien to them for some reason. But therein lies the good stuff. This is the way God set it up.
 
Allow me to introduce you to the work of Carl Linnaeus. We are animals.

taxonomy2.png

Just wait until these biology deniers find out what nearly every living thing's behaviors evolved to help them do.
 
Back
Top Bottom