Shop More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
June 28, 2012
Image Size
38.2 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,678 (2 today)
Favourites
145 (who?)
Comments
246
Downloads
6
×
Abstinence only Education. by OurHandOfSorrow Abstinence only Education. by OurHandOfSorrow
"The worst thing to teach teenagers is abstinence only education!"

Regardless if any of you are personally going to wait till marriage to have sex, you all gotta agree it's completely ridiculous to expect all teenagers across the world to wait, right?

Waiting till marriage does not lower your risk of contracting an STI, having a pregnancy scare or the chance of having an abortion.

Abstinence does nothing but make some teenagers feel ashamed of themselves when they realize that their bodies are going against their teachers/parents/peers teachings that sex is only for two married people. It is perfectly normal to experience horny-ness when you hit that wonderful seven years of your life when you're a teenager.

You can teach teenagers abstinence only education till you're blue in the face, they're still probably going to go behind your back and engage in sexual activity anyway. Why? Because that's what teenagers do! Most of them are horny little bastards...Unless they're extremely asexual.

And sometimes it goes even further than: "Don't have sex till marriage!" Some of the teachings go as far as to tell teenagers that condoms and birth control to not help prevent STIs and pregnancy, when it is very clear that it does. Heck, if it weren't for condoms and birth control, I would have probably had an abortion by now!

I was mostly taught: "Just say no till marriage!" in school. We were taught about condoms and birth control and shit like that, but they always added: "Remember, kids! Just say no!"

Guess what? I had sex when I was 15 anyway. And thanks to my sex education classes, I've never been pregnant or had an STI in my whole life.

Get this: In countries like America, where they taught nothing but abstinence for 10 years: The teen pregnancies and STIs are high, and abortion is huge. It is more noticeable in states like Mississippi that don't teach sex education than it is compared to states that teach it.

While in countries like The Netherlands, where they teach sex education from the age of FIVE, the teenage pregnancies, transmitted STIs and abortions are the lowest in the WHOLE WORLD.

Facts and statistics on abstinence only education:


[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
our school has abstinence only education and now I've become the schools unofficial student sex ed teacher because people just come to me with questions.
Reply
:iconpokemonsonicgirl123:
pokemonsonicgirl123 Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually, there was a great decrease in teen pregnancy in recent years.
Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner May 13, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I actually read up somewhere that in those great European countries such as Holland, parents and teachers use an open and liberal approach to sex with their teenagers/teenage children, and allow them to talk about it openly, have boyfriends/girlfriends over for sleepovers, etc. And it really works too! Start reading about it here if ya wish: www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/…

If I was at one of the many catholic schools that are offered in Victoria, Australia (represent!) then I probably would've not have had the cooler, open approach to learning about drugs and sex than I did at my alternative school. Religion always likes to keep these matters private it seems, and it REALLY doesn't apply to today's society. I mean be religious if you want but some of the teachings are arachic, life is not black/white anymore because we have so much new information about all these categories of people. Is it really that bad or immoral even to have sex with a trusted boyfriend/girlfriend of months/years? Why does only marriage warrant a ticket to sex and family and stuff? It's only a ring on the finger, I don't see the connection between amazing family-ness and a ring, IMO. I guess I'm kind of biased because I'm atheist. I wouldn't mind if someone would want to try and "re-bunk" the ring and amazing family man/woman connection though, I love cool and calm debates ;)
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
"I mean be religious if you want but some of the teachings are arachic, life is not black/white anymore because we have so much new information about all these categories of people. Is it really that bad or immoral even to have sex with a trusted boyfriend/girlfriend of months/years?"
It shouldn't but you probably should only have sex with someone if you truly love them.
Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Hmm ok I kind of disagree with that but agree that you need some sort of emotional connection/know the person for a while before you have sex, not just after you've met them. Yes, I agree that having random one-night stands/prostitution are highly risky/questionable behaviours as you don't know the person and usually are less likely to be comfortable enough to actually discuss your sexual histories/protection which is of the upmost importance if you would like to stay healthy. However I endorse friends-with-benefits relationships or casual relationships because it allows people to be able to explore their sexuality while they may not have the time for a relationship (it is quite a commitment) or they do not want a relationship. I think if you can trust and are somewhat friends with someone and you are sexually attracted that should be allowed as well. If we were talking about a romantic relationship it's more than sex, and is much more serious and takes a lot more contact/time spent with each other to maintain and for girls/guys who are studying or have serious career commitments they may not be able to keep the amount of contact needed for a romance to thrive.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, I guess friends with benefits is sort of alright, but I still stand by my statement when I say you should be very close to someone to have actual intercourse; maybe not for touching or making out, but for something that involves the actual physical union of sexual reproductive organs, I stand by my statement that you should be in love with someone first. Obviously you don't have to be, but I think you should.
Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Why would you want people to be in love though? Just curious.
If both people are comfortable with each other and can protect themselves, I don't see the issue personally.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I don't really care that much what other people do with themselves, but psychologically speaking, people who have sex simply for the pleasure of it, tend to almost be engulfed in the sex like a drug. Sex is a pleasure right? Traditionally sex would usually be love-driven, so if it's not, it becomes almost like a drug, I think, because you're interested in the physical pleasure moreso than doing it because you love someone. Now if that's your perogative, fine then. I myself have that same type of relationship when it comes to my own online fetishes, but I know from experience that that too is... almost empty. Now what do I mean by "almost empty?" Simply that it's something that gets harder and harder to satisfy with each attempt, yet more and more of an addiction, almost like a drug.
Now of course, this isn't always the case with sex for pleasure, and I myself am not married, nor do I plan to ever get married, but I do understand what the christian types mean when they talk about increasing desires for sex for pleasure and things that encourage it (like contraception), dissipating the sanctity of union and family.
Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Hmmm sorry for the late reply. Here's what I respectfully disagree with though:

People who have sex simply for the pleasure of it, tend to almost be engulfed in the sex like a drug. Sex is a pleasure right? Traditionally sex would usually be love-driven, so if it's not, it becomes almost like a drug, I think, because you're interested in the physical pleasure moreso than doing it because you love someone.--

Even sex when you do it with someone you love or in a casual relationship is addictive by it's nature. The hormones and chemicals released in sex are no different when having sex for love or pleasure. It's addictive slightly in most people. My theory is that I don't think it's the relationship type that is the problem. It's a natural slightly addictive behaviour, and we humans have a lot of them...there's pleasure to be had in eating as well, now...sex is not as important for living as eating I'll give you that. But the reason I'm comparing these two is when you eat irresponsibly it's unhealthy and a lot of complications can arise. When you eat responsibly/healthily you thrive and your body can do a lot of things well for you. Same goes for sex. If you can manage the addictive side of sex, are responsible and moderate it enough; then you usually are sexually healthy.

But I do understand what the christian types mean when they talk about increasing desires for sex for pleasure and things that encourage it (like contraception), dissipating the sanctity of union and family--

I don't think seeking out sex for pleasure or wanting to necessarily means a disconnect between a desire for family. So I'm not completely sure why you brought this in, but nevertheless...contraception didn't make people horny. They were always horny, they were just taught to have a tighter control over their sexual conduct back in the days where Christianity was more wide-spread and dominated more of the world than it does now...and even in some parts people were vilified just for having sexual thoughts, so they may have been sexually repressed and tucked their desires away deeply inside of themselves because sex unless it was in a purely reproductive context was seen as a misuse of sex and people who slipped up were shunned. I think that's enough to discourage most people from indulging their libido because back then it was having a little sex for pleasure versus having society respect you. There's less on the line now, and that's a good thing, it's about time people were more free sexually.

Also I'm not sure if this is what your going for but when you say "dissipating the sanctity of union and family" it's almost as if people who would prefer to indulge themselves in sexual pleasure are always irresponsible. This is a myth, not to mention unfair on those sane people out there who happen to enjoy sex. Sex also doesn't mean someone is made weak or stupid, as is commonly portrayed. It's a natural part of life. Plus, to me, my method of madness would be to be less uptight about talking sex with my family if I had one (given I believe the kids are mature enough, I don't think most under ten years old are mature enough to understand it) because when you are not open with them they will be less likely to trust you with questions about sex; and it's more likely they'll go to the internet or their friends who are uninformed and just don't have the personal experience that a parent does. I'd feel better if my kid was not afraid of me and at least felt like they could tell me if they were sexually active, not if they were keeping it a secret from me and then something bad happened because they got the wrong information.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I understand your point and I do appreciate your ability to understand where the other side is coming from, but there are a few things you said that I would like to address.
"Same goes for sex. If you can manage the addictive side of sex, are responsible and moderate it enough; then you usually are sexually healthy."
Very true, but I do believe being in a family does help manage that because it busies you with other things, working to pay for the family, mending to the children's desire to play, eat, where clothing, etc. as well as giving them a good education. Though this is obviously not the only way to have sex, it is true that you don't typically see sex addicts that are married. It happens of course, but it's not nearly as common as sex addicts that are single; the male customers of prostitutes, people who look at online poor, strippers, serial rapists, etc. are typically single and wanting to stay that way.
"There's less on the line now, and that's a good thing, it's about time people were more free sexually."
I agree. I do think sexual desires are natural and I think they have a right to choose in that sense, but I'm not a religious Christian. I'm simply trying to get you to sympathize with the ethical issue christians bring up about this. To answer your question (which you twice ask) the idea is that sex is traditionally there for procreation, which is true historically, so if you have sex for pleasure instead, people are less interested in procreation and if they're less interested in procreation they're less interested in family, marriage, and children. Now I personally don't care that much that this is going on, but it is going on nonetheless and for religious people who have these beliefs about sex, it is a serious issue. Plus, sex is something very emotional and personal (you wouldn't ask your parents if and when they had sex would you?) so I personally do agree with the idea that it should be saved for someone you really love. Whether they're married or not is irrelevant to me but I don't think people should just be shoving their reproductive organs inside anyone.
"
(given I believe the kids are mature enough, I don't think most under ten years old are mature enough to understand it)"
You think children in their tween years are? I didn't fully understand sex until I was, like sixteen and I'm still a proud virgin ;)
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: