Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"you are the one who is practically venting steam out your ears.">> Well what do you expect?? He just had EAR SEX!!
Originally Posted By jonvn "Um, it isn't nonsense. MOST of the time, used properly, it doesn't fail. But sometimes it does." Yes, it can fail, this is true. But by emphasizing this, you give the impression that condoms are faulty, and offer little real protection. So why bother using them? While the incidence of failure is very low, the incidence of pregnancy and STDs without them is rather high. But what I find most amusing of all is that somehow this all applies to kids and that's fine. But when it comes to adults, I hear silence. Probbly because most people realize that applying these obtuse beliefs to all people under 30 is sheer idiocy that will be ignored. The only problem is that it's also ignored by people under 18. You need to provide everyone with proper, accurate, and timely information so that they can be as safe as possible. Not that "condoms will fail, so you better not." Because they won't "better not." They'll just not bother using a condom.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I cannot believe I am out of touch for thinking it is the parents responsibility...and noone elses, to properly raise one's child, including providing guidance on sex. Will my kids have sex prior to turning 30? I'd say there is a 90% chance they will. But, that doesn't mean I should not first and foremost promote abstinence. I'm telling you that I KNOW FOR A FACT that protection doesn't not always work...even when used properly...for preventing pregnancy or STDs. How is me telling them about birth control, STDs and pregnancy NOT telling them the proper information? My parents told me not to smoke. They told me over and over and over again. You know what? I've never had a cigarette in my mouth. Now, maybe that was just conincidence but I don't think so. Plenty of kids offered me cigarettes. I just chose not to do it. And, my parents constant communication with me is probably the main reason why. The same can be said for drugs. But, my parents weren't as communicative when it came to sex. Had they been, would I have waited? Maybe not...but maybe so. And, what is the harm in that?
Originally Posted By jonvn "I cannot believe I am out of touch for thinking it is the parents responsibility..." Yes, you are. Because parents don't always do it. When your hard and fast rules fail, what then? We just let people go out and get pregnant or get AIDS? That it? "But, that doesn't mean I should not first and foremost promote abstinence." They will think your "advice" is ridiculous, and ignore you. Furthermore, by giving such unrealistic advice to them, it will make other things you say less trustworthy as well. You are doing your children a disservice by pretending things are not as they are. "I'm telling you that I KNOW FOR A FACT that protection doesn't not always work..." Of course it doesn't always work. But do you know what never works? Doing nothing. "My parents told me not to smoke. " Smoking is not a biological imperative that you are driven to do. Neither are drugs. Sex is quite a different thing. You are fooling yourself if you think your kids are going to remain virgins until they are 30 years old. Completely and utterly, and for their sake, you need to change your attitude to one that more closely matches the reality of life. "And, what is the harm in that?" The harm is in not recognizing what really happens with people, and expecting your children in any way to not behave in a normal manner. By trying to foist an ideology on them that does not work, you are endangering them. Be that as it may. I have no qualms in telling kids that they should wait. That's perfetly fine, but if they don't, they need to use protection. The thing that is utterly beyond ridiculous here is the Bush Admin telling adult people that they should abstain until they are 30. It is so beyond out of touch with reality and so worthless an exercise that it defies belief. This is why we are losing in Iraq. We have an Administration that think that this sort of nonsense can fly in this world. Reality is meaningless, what is important is the narrow and unrealistic view of the world that can not hold. That is the big story here, not that you think you're going to somehow prevent your kids from doing something that they are physically supposed to be doing.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper When did I ever say I thought my kids would remain virgins until they are 30? I didn't. When did I say I had hard and fast rules? I didn't. You are trying to paint the Bush Administration as being completely out of touch. When I say I think they are correct for promoting abstinence you try to pigeon hole me every chance you get. I won't be pigeon-holed. I think abstinence is the the correct first step. Just as I think telling my kids will be the correct first step. When my kids challenge either of those things I will take the next prudent step. I will tell them about birth control, STDs, pregnancy....or liver disease, impaired judgment, drunk driving. The "reality" of kids having sex, group sex, "friends with priviledges" (I'm not THAT out of touch) etc has been brought on by an out of control media, the wild west that is the internet, etc. Sex isn't that much different than drugs or smoking. Peer pressure is driving a lot of the expirimentation. If I as a parent, the schools or the government for that matter can try to offset to some degree the pressure, why shouldn't I? It isn't an either/or agrument. You can try to make it seem that way...but it isn't.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Should have been, "Just as I think telling my kids not to drink will be the correct first step."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It isn't an either/or agrument. You can try to make it seem that way...but it isn't.<< Exactly. Jon, I think you're misfiring in trying to paint Wahoo as some out of touch extremist here. As a parent, you have to present all the facts, which is all he is saying. He's also trying to use himself as an example -- this is something I do as well. If I have made a mistake, or gotten into some trouble, in my life, I try and use that as a teaching device. Look what happened to me, don't let it happen to you. I know that sometimes they'll heed the advice, sometimes they'll have to learn the hard way. Wahoo doesn't seem like he 'needs to catch a clue'. Sheesh.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper This is a good example of the extreme devisiveness for deviseiveness sake that we are all faced with today. "The Bush Administration did X." "Wahoo is supportive of X." "Therefore, wahoo must be an extreme right-wing nutjob." I'm not. I'm a parent in an extremely complex world. What our children will have to face in the coming years is unlike anything any of us EVER had to experience. To suggest that kids are going to have sex therefore we should forget about encouraging them not too and just give them condoms and pray is out of touch in my opinion. And, it is the opinion of many of my well-educated friends, both liberal and conservative, who are not "right wing nutjobs." I want my government to promote abstinence...if they are going to take a stand one way or the other...because it is the most prudent stance to take. But, understanding the realities of life (having already lived a little myself) I do know that I am going to have to step in an (gasp) do some parenting.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I just don't think it's good that the government is giving funding for the adult part of the "abstinence only" program. Why are they feeling like they need to control out-of-wedlock births now? A study I saw recently attributed the high level of adult out-of-wedlock births to people who were not interested in marriage, not because they just happened to get "knocked up". I think more adult women are just choosing to have kids. So, now we're supposed to get reactionary and waste taxpayer's dollars to try to get people under 30 to abstain? It's a ridiculous waste of money...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I doubt the government really has a problem with people under 30 who can financially support their children. But, those who cannot put a lot of pressure on society through support programs, healthcare, the education system, etc.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan While it's true there are lots of people who make a concious decision to co-habitate rather than marry, and choose to have children together without being married, I think this is meant to focus on accidental pregnancies, and mothers who find themselves unable to afford to raise a child without government assistance. For the record, I think "abstinence-only" education is kind of the same as "birth control-only" education: part of the story. A well-rounded, here's all the facts approach has more credibility, I believe, and would produce better results in the long run. I think the funds should be spent on programs that tell the whole story, not just "use a condom and everything will be fine" or "just say NO".
Originally Posted By LPFan22 ~~~Abstinence is for losers who can't get any, and religious nuts...~~~ Hmmm, guess I'm a loser and/or a religious nut. Whatever. I made the choice when I was a teenager that I was going to wait to have sexual intercourse until I met the person I wanted to marry. I happened to meet my hubby just months before turning 30. We got married just months before I turned 31. Talk about timing, lol. Guess what? I'm not a nut or a loser. I made a personal choice that worked for me. There was peer pressure through the years but I didn't give in. I don't think there's anything wrong with a person who decides to make a personal choice. It's what works for that person.
Originally Posted By ecdc wahoo, I agree with most of your approach and think you've been reasonable. Where I agree with jon (despite his tactless approach) is the idea that anyone under 30 and unmarried should abstain. It's ignorant, foolish, and deeply out of touch with reality. When I think of my three younger brothers, all in their 20s and all unmarried hearing this, I can't fathom the laughter at the adminstrations naivete. It shows an administration so out of touch, and despite the President's pledge, not at all interested in bipartisanship. What those who support this approach seem to be doing to me is using scare tactics. They talk at great length about how protection can fail and how many ways you can be harmed. Which is technically true but gives no sense of context or balance; it's portrayed unfairly as if one was playing Russian roulette every time they where a condom. Whether the Christian right likes it or not, the vast, vast majority of unmarried 20somethings are sexually active and responsible about it and don't get STDs or pregnant. We can tell all the horror stories and personal anecdotes we want, but those are the facts.
Originally Posted By DlandJB ^^Well, sister LPFan22, you and I have something in common. I also believe and believed sex was for marriage and I waited too. And I did date (in fact, I dated one guy for 8 years before we broke up and I subsequently met my first husband, and that boyfriend was also committed to abstinence.) I was perfectly happy with my decision and I don't regret it. I know I would not have been interested in marrying any man who had been with myriad partners either. Self control is possible - it conveys respect. And, incidentally, I find this thread and the "shocked" nature of it hilarious, given that the original poster has been ranting recently about taking babies away from unwed mothers who find themselves pregnant. No birth control is 100% effective -- except abstinence. And, to clarify...while I think abstinence is legitimate to teach and should be the goal, I think sex education should be comprehensive. Kids are less likely to get tripped up if they have all the facts.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The proper age for sex is...seventeen. (ref. South Park) < when you're 17 it seems the proper age -- when you are the parent of a 17 year old - you have a completely different opinion.
Originally Posted By jasmine7 <<And, incidentally, I find this thread and the "shocked" nature of it hilarious, given that the original poster has been ranting recently about taking babies away from unwed mothers who find themselves pregnant. No birth control is 100% effective -- except abstinence.<< Thank you, JB! I was sitting here, thinking the exact same thing. It is not ludicrous to think that a person can wait until marriage to have sex. I planned to do so, until I was foolish with my first boyfriend in my early 20's, but I have decided to abstain until marriage. I truly feel it's just better all around. Thankfully, nothing serious came out of my goof, but it could have, and the thought of being single with a child terrifies me. This is just another reflection of our society's current mindset of "I gotta have it now!" We see it in finances (people splurging on credit cards instead of saving the cash for the goods they want), we see it in the health of our populace (choosing to eat out instead of cooking at home), and we see it in our relationships. It's rather sad, actually.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think stressing abstinence is appropriate. Will it work with all people under 30? No, it will not. SHOULD it work with all people under 30? I don't think so. I think there are people who can responsibly decide to have sex even though they aren't married. But I think it MAY make an impact on those who have "situational sex" (I just made up that term... do you like it?) without thinking about it ahead of time. For people in that situation I think it DOES help to pound into their heads that one time can result in pregnancy. One time can result in STD's. And this could perhaps influence both girls/women and boys/men. I don't think guys are terribly interested in getting an STD, and I don't think many would want to pay child support. They also need to know that ONE TIME can do it.
