Sex ed doesn’t cause people to use condoms either. No matter how much sex ed they have they will never stop teen preganancy or the spread of STD’s. Didn’t you see the study within the last month that said half of all teens have an STD? Sex ed does nothing to prevent STD’s.
Yes it does. Not every time, but it absolutely does.
And teaching kids that abstinence is good does work as well. Maybe not in every case but it does. So your claim that abstinence doesn’t work is meaningless because neither does ‘safe sex’ teaching.
Yes, I see your point. On the other hand, you don’t see many “boys gone wild” videos. With boys, it seems more likely to be all about sex. Whereas with girls, even of the girls gone wild variety, it seems to be a lot about exhibitionism and ‘girls just wanna have fun’ rather than ‘girls just wanna have sex.’
Again we are talking about children here. Children whose bodies and minds are not yet finished developing. Not teaching them to delay sex until they are older and more mature does them a great disservice.
Morally, I believe that no one should have sex outside of marriage. Logically/educationally, I believe children should be taught to wait to begin sexual activity. I would hope that everyone could get on board with that!
By your same logic we should not teach children not to use drugs, drive irresponsibly or light fireworks close to their faces. I mean, after all, teaching them not to do those things doesn’t stop many of them from doing it.
Again, I am not proposing my own moral standard to be taught in schools.
I am very, very sorry that you think that waiting to have sex until marriage is “unhealthy” and treats sex as something “shameful.” I am not ashamed of sex, never was. In fact, from my POV, those who have sex outside of marriage undervalue the beauty of it. And, the “unhealthy” option of abstinence until marriage means absolutely no worries about STDs.
Are you sure? Based on your posts, I doubt if they learned any Critical Thinking skills at home…unless your wife is brilliant!
Btw…Logic and Critical Thinking are taught at the college-level. If it isn’t needed in school, why would they do that? Your reasoning is more than a bit flawed. IMO, they should teach Critical Thinking in the Freshman year of High School.
Tom, the problem with this arguement is that you are trying to make your belief the moral standard by default. No matter what happens there is a belief that our moral standard is based on whether it is atheism, agnosticism, deism, or Christianity. If God is not the standard, by default atheism is the standard. There is no such thing as a neutral society. They must take a stand. And since the vast majority of this country is Christian, that should be the standard that guides us. It is a nation guided by its people. Frankly, I take issue at the idea that Christians should stand by while atheists try to make their own standard - or lack of a standard - the standard of the country. You expect us to say that we have no voice while your voice is that of the country. That is not how this nation works. This nation is a govt. of the people, for the people and by the people. That requires that the govt. should reflect what the people think. And since we have free speech and freedom of religion that necessitates that I can speak out about my belief about what is true and what should be done.
originally posted by rig94086
Thankfully, my teen isn’t a moron…he fell…he used a condom. Did I say, “son, as Catholics we don’t believe in using contraception?” No, I said, “son, I’m glad you’re not an idiot. As Catholics, we don’t believe in contraception; however, we also don’t believe in pre-marital sex. If you had told me that you had sex, but that I would be proud because you didn’t use a condom, I would have smacked you up-side the head.”
So you think your son is better off because he used a condom. If he hadn’t used a condom, would it have made a difference?
originally posted by JimG
Well, I guess I wasn’t really expecting that on CAF there would be a vast number of women chiming in to say that they felt exactly solely like Chen in their everyday attitudes toward sexual activity. But I was hoping for some insight as to whether or not women in general are more apt to opt for the “sex in the city” lifestyle compared to women in the past. Has the sexual revolution really turned women into the equivalent of hormonal 14 year old boys? [An example I use because at the age of 14, I thought a lot like Chen!]
I think there are a lot of women who feel like Chen and that maybe the numbers have grown. They feel with their emotions and body and don’t have a problem with it. I am also curious as to what percent because I hear this a lot from women. I’d guess as high as 50% but I kinda hope I am wrong. I hear women say my needs or my libido have to be met.
That said, it doesn’t undo the fact that some girls have sex solely to please their partner. These are the girls who are brought into premature relationships and for them it is bad news because it really becomes a total crash. They spin downward into bad or abusive relationships. They are pushed into sex by pressure from their peers. These are the girls I am more concerned with.
not shameful, but sacred. I would never teach that sex is a shameful act–but it should be considered sacred.
JimG–from a former viewer of Sex & The City–I recall that show leaving me feeling sorry for women who were depicted as talented, smart, and professional–yet would sleep with any loser than came knocking on their door. That show actually insulted women, in the sense that on the onset, it appears to show women as ‘having it all’ but when you really look at a few shows…these women pine away waiting for a man to make them feel worthwhile, pretty, and special. They didn’t see it themselves, apparently…because all their conversations revolved around…‘i wonder if he’ll call…’ ‘i wonder what he thought of last night,’…etc…etc…always wondering what men thought of them.
That is the paradox of that show. These women didn’t think very highly of themselves, underneath all of that fluff. For that reason, mainly, I stopped watching that show. It actually painted the picture that despite the great strides in woman-hood…they still only feel worthy of anything, if a man (any man apparently) finds them attractive and good in bed. (but I like Sarah Jessica Parker, so I stuck it out for a few shows)
The show should have been named…Desperate Single Women.
Sure. A condom reduces the risk of a pregnancy and STD, so it probably made a difference. If his girlfriend had become pregnant or he contracted an STD, that would not have been a good thing for a teenager to go through.
Do you think he would have been better off to have either of those things happen?
First, I’m pleasantly surprised at the NYT treatment of this subject. I was expecting some more commentary how “hard-line” or “extreme” the views of those students are, or something.
It is true that it would not be good for him to have gotten his girlfriend pregnant or contracted an STD. That still doesn’t make it best-case scenario. I’m not saying let’s rag on him, we all make mistakes, (myself included) but its disingenuous to also pretend that this was the best possible outcome.
I often wonder - if teenagers can be taught to have the presence of mind to effectively and consistently use contraception - why can’t they be taught to have the presence of mind to just remove themselves from the situation and not have sex? Though not to an overwhelming degree, using birth control is something that requires a certain degree of awareness and self-control - which seems to negate, or at least mitigate, the idea that the sexual urge in teenagers is so overwhelmingly powerful that they can’t stop themselves. It requires self-control to stop and put on a condom; how much more does it require to get kids to think of removing themselves from the compromising situation?
Remember that this overwhelming pressure and desire to have sex that teenagers experience (allegedly, I think a good percentage, especially girls, don’t even necessarily want to) comes to a fore only compromising situations - they can’t really be having sex while they are among a group of friends, for example. Why shouldn’t we encourage that the energy that goes into stopping, thinking, and deciding to put on a condom be used to stop, walk out of the room, and think about what you’re doing? All the energy that goes into making sure that protection is used “just in case,” really just works to undermine the effort that could have been spent preventing that scenario in the first place.
Just a thought.
Indeed. Perhaps you didn’t read my earlier posts. My son was taught abstinance and understands that pre-marital sex is a sin. In fact, he told me a couple years after this incident that he had “ruined his life.”. I had to explain to him that, no, he hadn’t ruined his life. Rather, he learned a lesson which will hopefully help him make better decisions in the future. Additionally, I reminded him that he received absolution and has a clean slate.
I do believe abstinance is the absolute best strategy and should have the strongest emphasis in sex education, as it does in my community’s schools. That said, I also believe that my son used correct reasoning by using a condom when he gave into temptation, rather than having unprotected sex.
Ok, as someone who’s experience is similar to your son’s, I completely agree that his life is not ruined, that God forgives him, and that he can marry and love successful, and he can learn and grow and move on. However, and maybe this is semantic, but I really don’t think that we can say that he did the “correct” thing by using a condom in any real sense.
We might suggest that premarital sex with a condom is “better” than unprotected, by avoiding the tremendous hardship of creating a child. Agreed. But with regards to the truth of who we are, and in the eyes of God who died for us, “better” doesn’t really mean anything. He (and I) still rejected what was God’s plan for us and our sexuality. Only God’s mercy and forgiveness makes what he did ok.
Maybe I just find commentary that starts with “at least…” to be kind of a waste of time, and a potentially harmful distraction. There is little, I think, that mitigates the tragedy of such sin, even if hardship is avoided in the process.
Your post is illogical…more evidence that Critical Thinking should be taught in school.
His giving in to temptation was definitely a “rejection of God’s plan.” It would have been better if he had remained chaste.
In light of that rejection, his decision to use a condom was still a “correct” decision. The alternative decision would have been to not use a condom. Are you saying that would have been the correct decision, or are you saying the decision is moot?
Alright, I’ll admit it didn’t make sense. What I was getting at is that there the point is moot.
Why are the only options–to use or not use a condom? How about not having sex!!!
Here’s the thing–it’s not enough, I agree, to just teach ‘just say no,’ and not give examples. My dh and I have talked about…WHAT LEADS UP TO SEX…and how to avoid THAT. If you only teach a kid ‘just say no,’ when he/she is already in a compromising position–yeah, the tempation will most likely win out. We have all been in places of temptation–and it’s avoiding the places, that will lead on away from being further tempted.
So…what needs to be taught, is that kids do not need to be attached at the hip to someone in high school…they don’t need to alone in a girl’s/boy’s room after school…they don’t need to be hanging out alone with someone from the opposite sex hour after hour…it’s in those lessons, that abstinence makes sense. Teaching kids that hanging out in groups is best, that dating within groups is best, that dating without sex, is best are all ways that you can have teachable moments that lead to abstinence talks. You have to teach kids how to avoid near occasions to sin, because once they’re in it, it will be hard(er) to say no. Not impossible, but harder. I wanted to add that, because I just know what seems to get through to our kids–and my son is exposed now to girls calling…wanting to invite him to parties, etc…but, hopefully, he knows to not get himself into compromising situations, that will cause him to make that wrong choice. Using a condom is never the only choice. Because sex is not the only choice. If he chooses to go another route that what we’ve tried to convey…we also have taught him that he will have to accept consequences in the event something doesn’t go as planned. It is not my life, it is his. Ultimately, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think.
I pray a lot too.:o
Well said. I just can’t look at it from the perspective of, well if it’s going to happen, let’s mitigate it…
It’s like admitting defeat prematurely.
Prepare a kid for failure…and he will be successful at it.
Was that in response to my son’s situation, or just a general rant/comment?