Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
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:
 
:iconuranusisagasgiant:
UranusIsAGasGiant Featured By Owner 1 day ago
15? Wtf?! Gross.....were your parents pissed?
Reply
:icontoastedtoast15:
ToastedToast15 Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You had sex when you were 15? I'm 16, and I've never even KISSED anyone before! I've never even gotten a DATE! (I'm not chiding you, I'm simply surprised that I am older than the age you had sex, and I still haven't even kissed anyone). And no, I am not ace.
Reply
:iconstylishcat100:
StylishCat100 Featured By Owner 6 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
The more you tell them not to do it, the more they'd want to do it. Inverse psychology.
Reply
:iconzadamakara:
ZadaMakara Featured By Owner Edited Jun 19, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
And the scary thing is is that my sex Ed teacher (when we had one for a week) told everyone that condoms break every time 
when I got home I borrowed a condom and managed to fit both of my feet into it without it breaking
but they always break 
Reply
:iconxghostthedog:
XGhostTheDog Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2015  Student General Artist
Gee, in my health class they only taught abstinence. I heard that they gave out condoms to kids too (I wasn't there that day so I have no idea what happened.) It seems like most adults have forgotten that teenagers are horn dogs. :P
Reply
:iconbluefoxycat:
bluefoxycat Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
They don't teach you how to do sex safely, either.
Reply
:iconnyuia:
NyuIa Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2015  Student Digital Artist
in my sex-ed class they taught us about masturbation and other stuff, nothing about "DONT HAVE SEX UNTIL YOU'RE MARRIED OR YOUR PENIS WILL FALL OFF"

seriously, i'm never gonna have sex, i'm asexual, but if other people do before marriage that's fine. 
Reply
:iconmetallicgirl:
MetallicGirl Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2015  Professional Writer
Starting sex ed at age five is ridiculous if you ask me, but teaching abstinence-only is also a bad idea. The kids don't listen all the time. I actually told myself (when I was 12) not to have sex until I was 19, but I ended up doing it at 16.
Reply
:iconkimba-417:
Kimba-417 Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2015
I just decided myself not to have sex till I'm at least 20. Nobody told me to, I just decided it. I DO want a boyfriend, though.
Reply
:iconvioletkat-214:
VioletKat-214 Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2015
coughfuckyouTexascough
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
The worst thing, really? I can think of worse things I could teach teens.
Reply
:iconthejame5x:
TheJame5X Featured By Owner May 11, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
I can tell, based off your Hitler profile pic. LOL 
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner May 11, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
:iconlolhitlerplz: :iconohuplz:
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2014  Professional Photographer
Ayep.  Thanks for posting this.
Reply
: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
:iconnyuia:
NyuIa Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2015  Student Digital Artist
haha, nice. at my school they said nothing about abstinence.
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
:iconredwingsdragon:
RedWingsDragon Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2014
I think that's cause the previous generation freaked them all out.
Reply
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl 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
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2014  Student Writer
You don't seem to realize that Catholic operate under the assumption that there are moral dimensions to sex.
Reply
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Hmmm ok? Moral dimensions? I'm only morally opposed to people having extremely casual sex where they do not even know the person well, I mean you are sharing bodies...so some amount of discretion should be involved. That is dangerous. But a ring is only symbolic to be honest. It doesn't actually mean anything in regards to sex. If people want to have sex after marriage go for it, but I feel that to force the same standard on everyone else is wrong.
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2014  Student Writer
You are comparing the Dutch state-where most types of drugs an prostitution are legal-teaching system to that of the Catholic Church-one of the oldest institutions in the world. 
Reply
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I'm comparing the systems of sexual education and nothing else. What do prostitution and drugs have to do with sexual education?

Ok. The Catholic Church is one of the oldest institutions in the world. No offence if you're catholic, but why does that fact that it's older imply that it's better?
Reply
:iconpeteseeger:
PeteSeeger Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2014  Student Writer
For one thing you stated that you were opposed to complete strangers having casual sex-which is in essence prostitution, except with money.

For second, I wasn't, I was simply pointing out you were comparing two polar opposites.
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
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl 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
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl 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
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl 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)
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner May 9, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
In a society where sex is key in the media, abstinence has such affects. But forty to 50 years ago, when sex wasn't such a thing,this wasn't the case at all.
Reply
:iconjustwanttobe:
JustWantToBe Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
THANK YOU! I had to take health at my school and I looked in our textbook for any mention of contraceptives. I found only one reference to condoms in the part on preventing STDs and even then it said abstinence was the way to go. Why, school, WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is so wrong with covering contraception in schools? It's not saying "go have sex," but it's saying there Is a way to have safe sexual pratices.
School, I am ashamed
:shakes head sadly: 
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner May 9, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually, it kind of is saying "go have sex" it's kind of making the availability of sex more available and more encouraged.
Reply
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
In my experiance, if a teenager wants to have sex, they don't give a fuck weather they know about pregnancy and STD protection, they will do it. Besides it teaches children that slut shaming is normal and even good!
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
"In my experiance, if a teenager wants to have sex, they don't give a fuck weather they know about pregnancy and STD protection"
Then what makes you think teaching them about pregnancy and protection makes any difference for the better? Children who do not and have not had sex, now know about sex because it's being taught to them in the schools. So if anything the issues brought on by sex, the teen pregnancies, the stds, etc. are increasing because children are being made more aware of its existence.

"
Besides it teaches children that slut shaming is normal and even good!"
Define slut shaming?
Reply
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Not true. People have urges, it's a human thing. Nt everyone but people do, and I have a friend who knew nothing about sex ed before she met me, she thought the labia and clitorus where the same thing! and she was famous around our school. what for? for being the one having most sex. Now me, I've had sex once with one partner, knows more about then she does, she didn't know how to use a condom and as a result eventually got pregnant at fourteen. Though she sadly has a miscarrige at three weeks. And as well as that  abstinence only education is bad becasue it still brings up the existance of sex. In fact, encourges it more then telling it like it is, and in that, having sex makes teenagers feel rebelious.

Slut shaming is when you insult a woman (or a man, though usually a woman) for having sex, either with multiple partners, or one, or also could be in the way she dresses.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
"Not true. People have urges, it's a human thing."
Only at a certain age do they start feeling the urges that you describe. People under the teen years don't feel the urges unless they're being taught to feel them. Since the 90s, demands for sex ed have grown and grown and grown, reaching to younger and younger ages, and what we are seeing is younger and younger ages having sex. You think girls of ages 12, 13, and 14 were losing their virginities in the 1940s? It was a different society back then, one where abstinence was the general societal consensus. The hippie movement was followed by an end to that age. For better or worse, society is much more sexualized today than back then, and THAT'S why abstinence-only ed doesn't work (today).
"
And as well as that  abstinence only education is bad becasue it still brings up the existance of sex."
Please explain to me how encouraging people NOT to have sex is encouraging of them to have it?
"
she didn't know how to use a condom and as a result eventually got pregnant at fourteen."
You know using a condom doesn't guarantee you not to get a pregnancy right? Abstinence is actually the only thing in life that does.
Reply
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yes, that age is when they start puberty. for me it was 11, for some older for some younger, and in the 40's it was a diffrent time, a diffrent society, today is today! and I've already explaind, becasue it makes teens feel rebelious! Also abstinence isn't the only perfect form of birth control, mine is working pretty well.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
What's your form?
"for me it was 11, for some older for some younger, and in the 40's it was a diffrent time, a diffrent society, today is today!"
So if each person's puberty is different, why can't the children just take it up with their parents instead of having government standards be set for all the public schools? Also, doesn't it make sense to have the sex ed be set just a little older than that, considering children when first starting out with puberty are often very confused and unsure of themselves? Doesn't it make sense to let them really get used to it before teaching them the really serious stuff?
"
and I've already explaind, becasue it makes teens feel rebelious!"
In society where sexuality is such a big thing, but again, this is the society that was bred as a result of the rejection of old christian values pertaining to things like abstinence, in favor of the type of ideas you're talking about. I'm not saying it's a bad thing necessarily, but the reason why abstinence doesn't really work anymore is because of the liberalization of issues like sex.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconask-keith:
Ask-Keith Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist
"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"
... Proud to be Dutch.
Reply
:iconatomic-cherrywolf:
atomic-cherrywolf Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2014  Professional Writer
Are you saying I'm a horny little bastard? Because I'm straight. And a virgin.
Reply
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm not straight, and I'm not a virgin. So am I a slut? No, I've been with one girl, and I know how to protect myself. And if I'd been with more. So what, it effects no one but me and my sexual partner.
Reply
:iconatomic-cherrywolf:
atomic-cherrywolf Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Professional Writer
Okay. No need to be upset. 
Reply
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well you know what, I am upset becasue I'm sick of the education system being shitty.
Reply
:iconatomic-cherrywolf:
atomic-cherrywolf Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Professional Writer
What grade are you even in?
Reply
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm not in any grade, I'm british, why is there an age restriction on having an opinion?
Reply
:iconatomic-cherrywolf:
atomic-cherrywolf Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Professional Writer
What does you being British have to do with anything?
Reply
:iconderpylicious8:
Derpylicious8 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
becasue I'm not in a grade, we don't have grades, our school system is not like that, we have years. (I'm year 10)
Reply
(2 Replies)
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

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

Stats

Views
2,397
Favourites
177 (who?)
Comments
279
Downloads
6
×