Should abstinence-only, or a comprehensive sexual education be tought to our children in public schools?

1. Abstinence only
2. Comprehensive Sexual Education
3. Nothing at all.

Hmm...just another thing religion effects in our daily lives, even though we are non believers.

Tags: Sex, ed

Views: 49

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It seems that the majority of us believe that a comprehensive sexual education in public schools would certainly be a positive thing in today's society.
Part of sex-ed that doesn't get focused on very often is the part dealing with different sexualities. I imagine some parents would have a fit to know that words like 'homosexual' 'bisexual' 'transgendered' etc. were used in class (without the words 'going straight to hell'), but sex ed is for kids, not parents.

At the very least, kids should know that there are people living happily despite their different sexuality. Kids should be made aware of any support groups that might exist or resources that might make things a little easier. Abstinence only and nothing at all aren't really going to address this.

Then again, from what I've heard from people living in some towns, sometimes it seems better to stay closeted until you can get the fuck out of the suffocating area they live in.
I completely agree.
There is currently no decent substitution for comprehensive sex ed. Studies have shown that abstinence only education actually increases the risk of STDs in youth because when they eventually decide to have sex, which inevitably happens more often than not, they do not have the right knowledge to do so safely.
2.

Because 1. didn't stop me worth a damn, and that's what I got. xD (And I learned through books. Romance novels gave me the talk.)
2 - overwhelmingly so.

This summer I worked for an organization that offers "support" to young pregnant women. HOWEVER this was also a religious organization. I no longer work there and I can say that nearly all pregnant teens that came to see me came from the Catholic schools, who do not have any kind of comprehensive sex ed program.

I also would like to back the idea that not only heterosexuality should be taught in schools; but all kinds.
Knowledge is power. It is important to know what your choices are and the consequences of those choices. We celebrate thinking for oneself, no? That is what this is about.
2. if everyone suddenly went Abstinent, we would be a very short lived species. Natural selection will be scratching its head and pulling the trigger.
#2 - would be preferable to me. After all, I am a Nurse and I feel it is important that young minds receive the facts, so they can be aware of the potential consequences of their choices.
It makes it less likely that a person will have an unwanted pregnancy, and decreases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
However, some people would argue that a comprehensive Sex Ed class would include religion based morals.
I don't believe sex should wait until marriage . . . but I do think it should wait until maturity. Maturity can be different ages for different people. I think that 16 years old is too young for sex. That's how old I was when I started having sex. Fortunately, it was a beautiful experience without any down sides (no pregnancy or STD) but I was just lucky. The point is that we can't rely on luck. I don't know any 16-year-olds who are really mature enough for sex.

So I would have to say BOTH 1 and 2 would work better than either one alone.
I agree. um...is that a snake going through your nose? *shudders*..I hate snakes.
2. Comprehensive.
Abstinence only doesn't work... and nothing is a recipe for disaster. Children who know nothing will become confused and terrified when their bodies start changing.

A little girl who has her menarche [first menstruation] and doesn't know about menstruation will probably think that either something is wrong with her... or she is dying. Imagine the terror!

And what about a boy who experiences nighttime ejaculation? Would that not frighten a child who knows nothing about it?

Not telling a child about their bodies is immoral and cruel. It puts the child at high risk for a later psychologically malignant sexuality. [Which... btw... is not a railing on the GLBTQ community! It is refering to individuals who 1. learn to hate their bodies and sexual functioning 2. Learn that sexuality is a sin 3. Believe themselves to be broken or sick]

RSS

Blog Posts

My Dad and the Communist Spies

Posted by Brad Snowder on August 20, 2014 at 2:39pm 2 Comments

Breaking Free

Posted by A. T. Heist on August 20, 2014 at 9:56am 5 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service