Abstinence only sex education - why tell kids to wait until marriage?

Question

Why not just tell them to wait until they are emotionally and financially capable of dealing with the possible consequences of sex? Why does the message have to insist kids wait until marriage, which obviously isn't even an option for gay teens? To me, it's obviously a religiously driven aspect. What I'm really wondering is, don't you think a message of abstinence focusing on how it's a sure-fire way of avoiding (most) STDs and pregnancy would reach more kids than saying you're worth less (or worthless) if you don't wait until marriage?

The following article was in the NY Times this morning and the example at the bottom of page 1 is especially interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/education/18abstain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
I'm just wondering why marriage has to be the point at which abstinence ends - why not just pointing out that, if you can't handle the consequences, you shouldn't be having sex.

That's a lot of random questions. Basically, just tell me how you feel about this marriage component to the abstinence message.

I'm not really asking about the efficacy of abstinence only education. I'm wondering why it focuses so much on marriage rather than attempting to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Forget what you feel about abstinence ed in general and tell me how you feel about the marriage component - i.e. if you are going to tout abstinence, wouldn't a health focus reach more kids?

Answer 1

I lost my virginity when I was 15. Do I regret it? Absolutely not. I was madly in love and am still best friends with the guy I gave it to. But I realize that I'm the exception to the rule.
My point is, teenagers are curious and they're risk-takers. Threatening them with eternal damnation is useless. Their brains are still developing and one of the major developments during adolescence is reasoning. They don't reason matters the same way adults do, so telling them not to do something because they'll go to Hell when they die if they do, will do no good. At that age, the last thing you're considering is your own mortality.
If you want to teach your kids about sex and ecourage abstinence, go for it, absolutely. But be realistic about it. Teach them the dangers of STD's and early pregnancy. If you know someone who had a child when she was young, let your kids talk to her about it. Fire and brimstone isn't a valid argument for them.

Answer 2

Abstinence only education works on the fearful, but doesn't work on kids who just don't believe in God.

Christians push for these programs because they reflect their version of God's will. That is great, if you have a bunch of teenagers who believe that God is ready to burn them for eternity for touching each other's goodies.

It doesn't work if you are dealing with rebellious kids, or kids who question tradition, or kids who just can't understand why people would believe in God in the first place. Those conditions include most teenagers. Most teenagers question authority, they rebel, and many of them don't think that the adults have it right about the existence of God. This is why Abstinance only programs are largely unsuccessful. The Audience isn't right.

Nature has made sexual drive paramount during the teenaged years, because that is when the body is most fit for delivering a healthy child. We should recognize this and teach kids about he responsibilities that go along with sex, instead of trying to tell them that their bodies are wrong, and that sex is icky. That is unnatural. Education is the key, and providing safe alternatives is the only way to slow down the rate of unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Telling kids that God doesn't like it will never work because most of them are in different stages of questioning God.

Tinyv - there is no going back. Society has progressed, and your contention that life was much better back then is competely flawed. There were still many unwanted pregnancies, but because of society back then, women were cast out of their homes as a result, and the children were put in orphanages because of the social shame attached. Marrages did have a higher rate of sticktuitiveness, but there were also many more hopeless, loveless situations. It is easy to look at the past through gold rimmed glasses and to pretend that things were soo much better, but if you were to read newspapers from those times, you would find that the people then were saying exactly what you are proposing now. They all thought that the world was a terrible place and the end was soon coming. They didn't think that because things were soo great.

Answer 3

I've went to several different schools growing up & in all my health & sex education classes they taught us about the risks of STI's (yes, they're illnesses now, not diseases) & pregnancy. They even taught us all the different contraceptives to use from male condoms to female condoms & birth control. All my teachers of course said abstinence til marriage is the best way to be. It really depends on what sort of community you grew up in--for instance, if it was a small conservative community, you probably had a sex ed class that only emphasized abstinence & not sex contraceptives.

Waiting til marriage does have its roots within religion & just look through history--men wanted virgin wives, not "dirty" women who have already been with someone else. But it's more than that too, parents don't want teachers or other adults giving an okay signal to teens to have sex.

Kids, regardless of what people tell them will often do the opposite. There are plenty of advertisements out there that DON'T promote abstinence, but promote emotional & mental readiness--like if you're just not ready, say no.

I made my own personal choice to remain abstinant til marriage, but it in no way has anything to do with religion since I'm Agnostic.

Answer 4

Minus the religious suspicion of your theory, if you think about it, wouldn't things be a whole lot easier if you were married?

- You have two incomes versus one.
- You have two parental figures in the child's life instead of one.
- The two parental figures can support one another, as well as the child in question.

Whether you are married, or in a domestic partnership, or whatever, wouldn't life be a whole lot easier if there were two people in the child's life versus trying to do it on your own?

Marriage, domestic partnerships, etc., is one of the measurements that the government uses to determine socio-economic status. I think that is why your marriage message is being preached the way it is, not because of religion. Unless, of course, you go to a religious school of some sort. Otherwise, I don't see that happening in any public school. People would start yelling about separation of church and state, and so on.

The problem with telling kids to wait until they're old enough to financially, and emotionally handle it is that the message will usually fall on deaf ears. Kids generally don't care, and are pretty nieve, depending on where you live. I don't know if the same message is taught where you are, but when I was in school, that message was being preached already. That year I was required to take the sex ed class, a sophomore, seven juniors, and two seniors were all pregnant. I was only a freshman at the time.

Answer 5

I think abstinence only sex education is flawed. Of course they should list the benefits of holding out until marriage (like emotional intimacy, avoiding STD's, etc.) However, that should not be the only message. I think you are right, they should let them know they need to be old enought to face the consequences of their decisions. They should instruct on different forms of contraception. Also, more emphasis should be made in teaching boys that sex is not a game. This day in age, there are STD's that are incurable. That is not a game.

Answer 6

I think Abstinence programs are stupid. Just telling people Don't have sex is like telling a fat person not to eat.

You should educate them on all the possible options and teach them different means of protection not just tell them that its wrong.

Education is the best tool to preventing problems not just saying don't do something

How many people can remember a time when your parents told you not to do something but you did it anyway because you wanted to see what the fuss was about. You had to learn the hard way didn't you?

Answer 7

I think it has alot to do with the emotional aspects of it.

1) Just the physical aspect of having sex with someone you don't love; this can be crippling sometimes to a person as they will feel used or pressured. Besides the obvious physical side effects, you can end up getting hurt from someone that you don't have established trust or intimacy with and you can end up feeling like an absolute fool. Therefore, the cycle of self-loathing can continue as you look to gain esteem through sex and it just does not happen.

2) Sex when you are married; the trust is already established along with the friendship and knowing that this person will stay with you through rough times (ideally). Not only are the physical needs met (and in a healthy way), but emotional needs are also nurtured.

Sex with someone you love and trust in 1000X better than with someone you know will not be there for you when you need it.

Answer 8

It's a person's choice to have sex or not to have sex. Some young people may choose to have sex whether some adults like it or not, and they're within their right to do so. Considering that a certain number of young people WILL choose to be sexually active, it's highly irresponsible not to prepare children for that kind of activity and to teach them about safe sex.

It's true, it's wise to abstain until one is capable of handling sex and the possible consequences thereof, and we should certainly tell young people that abstinence is the best choice if they don't want to get pregnant or infected with an STD, but again, as they're within their right to expose themselves to these risks (and many will, we know this), we should teach them how to MINIMIZE the risks as much as possible.

Answer 9

Certainly, if you are a person that attends church and listens to the messages, they will teach that sex should only be between a married man and woman to be pure. But abstinence before marriage is not just religion or ritualism. There are many people who have woke one morning to realize they married the person beside them out of lust and not love. At that point, mortgages, children and other obligations may be involved. Who's the real loser at that point? The innocent children. To make clear choices about selecting a life-mate, it is better to not have physical desires interferring with this very important decision. Many people who have sex before marriage will come to the conclusion that marriage is just a ritual, a piece of paper, that they don't need. What they are really saying is: "I won't make a committment to one person. I enjoy the relationship that I am in now, but if it gets hard or difficult, I'll just walk away". The difference between being single and married is committment. 85% of marriages where people co-habitated prior to marrying fail. The problem of saying to not have sex until you believe you can handle the consequences of sex is that you may not be aware of all of the consequences. A case in point: A young adult woman slept around with multiple partners. When she did meet a man who loved her, took care of her, valued her, and was willing to commit to her, she couldn't. They got married, but she could not break her behavior of having sex with multiple men. She could not commit to only him as she should and the marriage ended. The choices we make will determine the life that we lead. Why worry about being capable of handling the consequences of having sex. If you wait for your life-partner, there are no consequences.

Answer 10

This world is hypocritical. If a guy sleeps around he's a dog and if a girl sleeps around she a whore. But oh, it's okay to sleep with someone to see if the chemistry in bed is good. How many people have you slept with before marriage? How many of us have been around the block a few times and wish we would have waited? Have you had sex with anyone and once you've broken up you wish you could take it all back? But still we claim we have good morals and sound judgment. Yeah Right!!!!

Do you honestly know anyone who has waited until marriage before having sex and are still married today? Not saying it's impossible but it's definately hard to find. In my walk in life those people tend to be our grandparents who have been married 50+ years and going strong. I pray my son will wait til marriage but I'm still studying Scripture to find what God says about waiting.