1 2
#1418383
OhJohnNo
The best analogy I've heard on this issue involved zombies.
Abstinence-only education is like saying "We're not going to let the Zombies into the building."
"But what happens if they DO get into the building?"
"We're not going to let them into the building!"
"But-"
"WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM INTO THE BUILDING!"
Meanwhile, proper sex education is more like saying:
"We're not going to let the Zombies into the building."
"But what happens if they DO get into the building?"
"Then we have shotguns, hazmat suits, turrets, and anti-zombie-virus inoculations. Pays to be careful, after all."
Zombies: making everything better since forever.
7/1/2012 4:04:15 AM
#1418385
Raised by Horses
Teenagers are going to jump each others' bones whether you like it or not. "Abstinence only" only makes things worse. With pills and condoms you at least minimize unwanted pregnancies and STD spread. Sorry, moralizers, but you're fighting a battle that's already been lost for millenia.
Most amusing are the people who, when asked why they support abstinence only, reply "because we're Christians". Jesus Christ was a lot of things, but a poster boy for preventing pregnancy through the practice of not fucking is not one of them.
7/1/2012 4:08:00 AM
#1418386
Matante
Yeaaaah, talk about preventing forest fires while there's a catastrophic one going on, and forget that the smaller range ones are necessary for certain species of trees' survival.
Even if the analogy made sense, it wouldn't prove your point!
7/1/2012 4:08:34 AM
#1418387
Sgt
... And in other news, it's apparently impossible to have sex without condoms.
7/1/2012 4:08:36 AM
#1418391
Exatron
Haven't we learned that constantly trying to suppress fires just makes them worse when they happen?
7/1/2012 4:27:03 AM
#1418393
Reynardine
If memory serves me, young people were playing with those matches half a century back, and if rumor serves as well, a century ago also.
7/1/2012 4:34:07 AM
#1418412
John_in_Oz
"Sex resembles a forest fire because I don't like either of them."
Got it.
7/1/2012 4:54:06 AM
#1418417
D Laurier
Sex Ed PREVENTS that "forest fire" you are so worried about. It teaches kids what sex is, and teaches them that they have the right to refuse to have sex if they dont want to.
It also teaches them about the REAL risks involved (ie: STDs, Unwanted pregnancy, etc).
Religious loonacy OTOH only keeps kids ignorant and afraid...and readily exploitable.
7/1/2012 5:07:04 AM
#1418419
Grimsoncrow
Yeah, kids should learn about sex from their local priest/minister , like before?
7/1/2012 5:13:07 AM
#1418421
Bad Wolf
Until recently, with the invention of effective birth control devices/medications AND comprehensive sex education, the most common marriage proposal used to be, "You're WHAT?!"
7/1/2012 5:21:19 AM
#1418426
fishtank
No it isn't.
Shut up and get laid.
7/1/2012 5:46:13 AM
#1418427
xmx
Not fundie.
7/1/2012 5:54:12 AM
#1418439
farpadokly
But what if you knew, for absolute certain, that those kids were going to play with the matches anyway? Wouldn't it make sense to teach them how to do it as safely as possible, in order to minimise damage to the forest and themselves? Isn't that more realistic than just saying "DON'T"?
7/1/2012 6:27:59 AM
#1418481
Brendan Rizzo
It's precisely the opposite. Sexual education is the prevention. Every other country in the world has proven this.
7/1/2012 7:25:11 AM
#1418488
Horsefeathers
Yeah, because teenagers don't have any interest in that whole "sex" thing until someone shows them a condom and tells them about birth control. It's not like they have some sort of sudden biological urge toward it combined with youthful lack of forethought or anything.
7/1/2012 7:33:26 AM
#1418538
Nagol
No, it actually helps to prevent pregnancies and STDs by teaching them how to have sex responsibly. They're going to have sex whether you like it or not, so you might as well teach them how to do it safely.
7/1/2012 8:32:55 AM
#1418539
Doubting Thomas
No, safe sex education would be like handing out buckets and telling kids to always have a bucket of water on hand if they're going to light fireworks. It's not a good idea to light fireworks until you're old enough, mature enough, and responsible enough (for instance, to keep a bucket of water on hand) to do it safely, and best to be left to an adult. But you know as well as I do that a lot of kids will want to light fireworks.
Abstinence-only is like telling kids to not even touch fireworks until they're married, not teaching them how to be safe with them, and then being surprised when they burn themselves and catch the house on fire.
7/1/2012 8:32:58 AM
#1418553
Berny
You fuckwits have been wrong about abstinence only sex ed since the beginning as data from every country teaching proper sex ed shows.
In fact, this is admirably demonstrated by the stats within your own country. The Bible Belt looses.
7/1/2012 8:59:51 AM
#1418560
because abstinance education works so well.
teenagers will never think of sex by themselves.
7/1/2012 9:11:12 AM
#1418640
checkmate
Among other things, abstinence is doing a great job in helping win the war against AIDS in Africa, so it should work aginst teenage pregnancy in the US.
But wait, if the teenies use condoms and birth control, they won't be getting pregnant, so where's the "high-risk behavior at a great cost to families and our entire nation"?
Oh yes, how silly of me to forget, pre-marital teenage sex leads to drug abuse, prostitution, mass murder, gambling, devil worship, voting Democrat, and holidays in that socialist hell hole Europe.
Btw, this reminds me of a story I heard back in the 60's. A girl is told by her mother never to kiss a boy because kissing leads to pregnancy. The girl gets pregnant anyway and can't understand why: she was careful not to kiss the boy.
7/1/2012 1:23:41 PM
#1418666
Lady Evil
A better analogy would be teaching kids how to safely build a campfire and that they should carefully extinguish it when they're done.
Insert your own Boy Scouts joke here.
7/1/2012 2:22:58 PM
#1418698
Ozymandias
Um, the teens already have the 'matches'. They're kinda born with them. Birth control would be analogous to fire extinguishers, while sex education would be a set of instructions on the matches and extinguisher, complete with big warning labels. Abstinence only programs leave out the instructions and extinguishers and just tell teens not to light matches without explaining that lighting matches cause fires, or even how matches are lit leading to accidental lightings because teens don't realize their actions are lighting the matches.
7/1/2012 3:49:44 PM
#1418705
What's wrong with teaching kids how to safely use matches? If they're out in the woods and they need a fire to stay warm, they should be able to know how to safely light it and keep it from getting out of control. In fact, that's pretty much something every boy scout is taught. Not so much the matches part, as they think you should learn to start a fire without them, but you do learn how to start a safely start and maintain a camp fire.
It's a horrible analogy for you, but it works fairly well the other way - It's unavoidable that people going into the woods to camp are going to start a fire. But by teaching them to do so safely, you limit the possible consequences. And, yeah, they should have fun - Roast some smores in the fire, sing songs around it. Just be careful.
7/1/2012 4:13:26 PM
#1418708
Old Viking
Why address a situation with knowledge when you can do it with ignorance?
7/1/2012 4:19:48 PM
#1418721
Fundies Make Me Sick
"Safe sex" education is a misnomer because there's no such thing as safe sex. Any type of sexual intercourse carries with it some risk.
That aside however, comprehensive sex education does not promote or condone casual sex. The purpose is to educate students about what sex is, the different kinds of sex, the risks involved with each type and safety measures that can and should be taken if a student decides to be sexually active. In fact, the classes discourage kids from having casual sex because it IS high-risk behavior and increases the likelihood of contracting disease.
While I don't know if I approve of giving teenagers access to condoms and birth control at school, sometimes, it's necessary because the reality is, kids are going to have sex and people who teach comprehensive sex education understand and accept this reality so they react accordingly.
The abstinence-only method has proven to be largely ineffective at reducing risky sexual behavior and in fact, kids who were taught it were MORE likely to engage in sex before marriage. Fundies need to come to grips with the real world and stop treating sex as something to be abhorred rather than embraced.
7/1/2012 4:57:40 PM
1 2