UK teen celibacy

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Bifta

I agree, but, if these programs based themselves around initially educating their "members" (poor choice of phrase) properly then there wouldn't be a problem. I suspect some of the states in the USA which are fairly religious don't want such things as sex, STD's and teenage pregnancy discussed.

edit: must go to bed, nearly 2am!

I agree with that. If the abstinence programmes also actually educated about contraception & so on as well, then it could work better (well, at least they'd know what to do when they do eventually start having sex later on).

But the problem with the US ones, is, as you say, they are in fairly religious states, & the programmes themselves are (or can be) fairly religious. And so they do not teach *anything* other than abstinence.

Just look at Texas for an example of how not to do it: the *only* form of sex education in schools is abstinence teaching.

Perhaps it could work better over here, as the UK is not so strongly religious as much of the US is, so it would hopefully not be so "faith based" & there could also be proper teaching of safe-sex & so on.

But I still think it would be better to have proper sex education - & at a younger age.

They *will* still have sex - better they be prepared for the consequences.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Bifta

I agree, but, if these programs based themselves around initially educating their "members" (poor choice of phrase) properly then there wouldn't be a problem. I suspect some of the states in the USA which are fairly religious don't want such things as sex, STD's and teenage pregnancy discussed.

edit: must go to bed, nearly 2am!

Think you've hit the nail on its head there bifta.
If these schemes taught both abstainence and safer sex they'd be much more effective.
But religious groups don't seem to want that

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I'm saying these schemes to get people to abstaine don't work.
They do more damage than good in that they concentrate on abstainence and don't deal with safer sex, well what's the point if you're not having sex? Problem is, most don't abstain forever and eventually have sex, but then have no idea about contraception or protection.

Absolutely. They don't abstain forever, so when they do have sex, they know less about safe-sex, condoms, etc etc than kids who had "normal" sex ed (which itself is rather lacking).

As for sex ed, too little too late. Kids need it before they start having sex not after.
Maybe we should look to Holland for how to educate kids as they seem to have got it right.

Definitely. It needs to be earlier, & it needs more detail. They need to know about it *before* they start having sex, not during or after. And they need to be properly taught about safe-sex, & what will happen if they do not practice it.

Holland...yeah. Odd one that. Much younger age of consent than the UK, yet a much lower teen pregnancy rate, & I assume they also have a lower teen STD rate than us too. So presumably they have much better sex education than we have in the UK.

EDIT: http://www.nhsinherts.nhs.uk/hp/heal..._pregnancy.htm

England has the worst record for teenage pregnancies in Europe - the teenage birth rates are twice as high as Germany, three times as high as France and six times as high as the Netherlands.

EDIT again:

Think the UK is bad? Look at the US...

http://www.wiretapmag.org/story.html?StoryID=14691

If you feel that using the word "contraception" or "condom" is necessary to comprehensive sex education, don't move to Charlotte, North Carolina. The city's public school guidelines prohibit students, teachers and administrators from uttering these words within the walls of a classroom. The tendency to evade discussion and education about sexuality may be why the United States claims the top spot in birth, abortion and sexually transmitted disease rates among teens in the industrialized world, significantly exceeding rates in European countries.

(snip)

The United States has 13 times the teen birth rate of the Netherlands, 25 times the gonorrhea rate of Germany and three times the teen abortion rate of France, according to the 2001 National Vital Statistics Reports. American teenagers begin having sex at around age 15, an average of two years earlier than their European counterparts

(snip)

President George W. Bush has responded to the nation's high STD and birth rates among teens by cracking down on sex education, proposing a 2003 budget that sets aside $135 million for "abstinence-until-marriage" education programs, according to the California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Web site. The sum is a $33 million increase over the funding for 2002. No federal funding is currently allocated for comprehensive sex education.

Yet San Francisco Stop AIDS Project communications director Shana Krochmal believes that comprehensive sex education is a crucial means for preventing STDs. "It's important for us to be realistic about what teens will do," Krochmal says. "Although abstinence is the only 100 percent effective protection against AIDS, there will still be teens who choose to have sex. Because of this, we need to arm them with the tools that they need to be safe."

[kronas]

so now some of us agree on reform being needed on sex education, who would prefer to wrestle with parents who will be against graphic detailed explinations ?

[Chris W]

I had sex education every year at school since i was 10... is this a feature of the school's that i went to or is it standard? i would be interested to find out what other people have had... never had the sex talk from the parents though... which i am glad about... because i wouldn't want them to get embarressed! the most i have had is my mum saying 'i hope you aren't doing anything that we would disapprove of!'

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by kronas

so now some of us agree on reform being needed on sex education, who would prefer to wrestle with parents who will be against graphic detailed explinations ?

I totally agree that it needs to be reformed, & that they need to be taught in more detail, & at an earlier age.

But yes, parents (who should teach the kids themselves too!) would probably be "up in arms" over it. As would certain newspapers...

Anyway. I need to go to bed.

Originally Posted by Bifta

I think the quote from the article originally quoted sums it up perfectly:
Quote: Abstinence is the only way truly to protect yourself against getting a sexually transmitted disease

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Want to bet...?! Especially since I've *already* posted demonstrating that it *is* possible to get a "sexually transmitted" disease *without* having sex.

[Xaccers]

Perhaps cybersex should be promoted as a safe sex alternative?

[Jon M]

*sigh

Why is it that every time a differing or alternative viewpoint is expressed, (especially on moral or lack of moral issues) people whine and get upset saying "don't come here and say that, you've no right to push your views on me or anyone else" blah blah..

What they're really showing is that they are so insecure, that people holding different views make them uneasy about their own position.

No-one can "push" their views onto you, they can present a convincing argument, but thats as far as it can go.. the rest is in your own head my friends.

Also, picking up a point I noticed earlier in the thread... the word "PROVEN" was batted around a bit and I just wanted to make the point that "proof" is subjective.
Something that convinces you or me, may not hold enough weight to convince someone else.
Don't fall into the trap of holding proof at the same level as fact it's a misguided standpoint.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Graham

Want to bet...?! Especially since I've *already* posted demonstrating that it *is* possible to get a "sexually transmitted" disease *without* having sex.

No, you can contract a disease that is normally transmitted through one form of sexual contact or another, in my opinion, if (for example) you contract HIV through sharing needles you have contracted HIV, not a sexually transmitted disease, I think the clue for you is in the phrase "sexually transmitted".

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Perhaps cybersex should be promoted as a safe sex alternative?

The danger with that though is that they'd end up wanting to take it further anyway.

Originally Posted by Bifta

No, you can contract a disease that is normally transmitted through one form of sexual contact or another, in my opinion, if (for example) you contract HIV through sharing needles you have contracted HIV, not a sexually transmitted disease, I think the clue for you is in the phrase "sexually transmitted".

If you or anyone has contracted HIV or herpes or hepatatis or any other such disease I doubt they'd give a *damn* about pedantic hair splitting differences as to whether it's "sexually transmitted" or not.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Graham

If you or anyone has contracted HIV or herpes or hepatatis or any other such disease I doubt they'd give a *damn* about pedantic hair splitting differences as to whether it's "sexually transmitted" or not.

If it's not transmitted sexually, how is it a sexually transmitted disease? Surely it's just .. a disease?

Originally Posted by Bifta

If it's not transmitted sexually, how is it a sexually transmitted disease? Surely it's just .. a disease?

If you were a haemophiliac who had contracted HIV through contaminated Factor 8 blood products, would you *care*?

Or would you sit on your moral High Horse and declare "well at least *I* didn't get it from sex!!"

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Graham

If you were a haemophiliac who had contracted HIV through contaminated Factor 8 blood products, would you *care*?

No, and I don't particularly care at the moment either, you're being obstructive purely for the sake of it. If you contracted HIV through a blood transfusion, then you've contracted a disease, it was not directly sexually transmitted and that (as far as I can tell) has been the whole gist of this thread.