Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
"If it's wet and it's not yours, don't touch it."
During my freshman year orientation at college, a woman came and talked about "college life" with the new students. This is one of her lines and I remember it twelve years later. I cannot recall a lot about college classes, papers, textbooks or courses of learning, but I can recall this. 
Yeah, it's funny. But, I think she had a really good point. "If it's wet and its not yours, don't touch it." It's a crass way of promoting abstinence.
I think abstinence is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and this should be the mode of sex-ed primarily taught in schools. No religion, just gross biology - AKA fluids coming together.
Look at the failed No Child Left Behind Program and a host of other government funded programs built as attempts to "lift up" our youth. Throwing money at stuff is just a crappy, pass the buck, (litterally) way of dealing with problems.
It is proven over and over again that kids need routine and a hard, fast line drawn for them about boundaries about what is permissible and what is not - it's this way with daily activities, homework, moral lessons, etc.. We cannot deny that kids do flourish positively when they have defined guidelines set before them.
Educating kids about sex and then saying, "You shouldn't have it, but oh by the way, here is a condom," is EXACTLY the same thing as saying, "Have sex. I know you will. I do not think you have the ability to control yourself or your desires." IMHO, it isn't really a great compliment to our kids. Do we think them capable of so little?
I am not naive (in fact, I became sexually active at 15 even with all of the sex-ed and parental lectures), and YES kids will have sex - I'm not dumb. There will also be unwanted pregnancies.
But, if you take away the "acceptance" of a behavior and instead promote a more ridgid course of action that requires some dilligence and responsibility on the part of a group, I do think our nation's youth would rise to the occasion and we would see fewer unwanted pregnancies, STDs (BTW, I read that 1 in 4 people has HPV - scary), and emotionally broken kids.
Like I said previously, this doesn't even need to be a religious issue, simply a practical one. We know youth having sex leads to a host of detrimental life problems. Why not just promote a bio-based sex-ed abstinence lecture?
As a caveat, I am aware of the, "But what about those young girls that do get pregnant? They will be the outcasts of the school having to hide away for fear of judgement for their promiscuious behavior."
This is true. It would be an outcome of returning to sex-ed with abstinence playing the forefront. And, I guess we are then faced with a lesser of two evils situation:
1. Is it better to allow everyone to feel open and great about having sex too young and take on all the emotional and health problems, ripping apart families, financial burden of government, by promoting a confusing message, "Don't have sex, but if you do, here's a condom?"
2. Or, is it better to promote abstinence, recognize some people will have troubles, but see that the greater good will be served by a healthier, more stable society?
We're really into doing what's best for the 99%...so if the 99% here is the overall population of youth, then we ought to be making educational decisions for them based on what will help them the best. Right?
Re: "If it's wet and it's not yours, don't touch it."
Except that countless statistics point to absitinence only school districts and high teen pregnancy rates coinciding.
Abstinence only education is a failure. Plain and simple. And there is a middle ground between your #1 and #2 scenario. Talk about sex and prevention but also talk to your child about waiting.
Abstinence only eduction DOES NOT WORK. It wouldn't be a little trouble here and there, it is a huge difference.
And what reason do you give for remaining abstinent until marriage besides religion?
My parents taught abstinence only to us, guess whose sister got knocked up before she finished high school? And in fact, didn't even graduate. I know, anecdotes, but I'm just giving an example. My sister was too scared to ask for birth control, but my mom wouldn't have given it to her even if she did. She had sex anyways.
When I got to be her age, my mom gladly got me birth control, "for my skin."
Eta: when I got to be her (my sister's) age when she got pregnant.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129185925.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22022362
http://pamie.com/2012/11/how-i-might-have-just-become-the-newest-urban-legend/
If you teach children that the only way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence, you are lying to them. You are also leaving them ill-equipped to handle the sexual situations that they absolutely will encounter in their teenage years.
There is no evidence that leaving children completely uneducated about how to take care of themselves will be better for society.
Sex education should be educational.
Bolded = interesting.
But abstinence education USED to work. It did prove reasonable and helpful decades ago. Because it is an "old" way of education, does this make it wrong to continue to extol?
What changed, in your opinions, to cause abstinence education to cease being a helpful tool to get kids to wait?
The highest rate of teen pregnancy in US history was in the 1950s.
So things weren't better back in the day.
Why do you think it used to work?
Rock n Roll and dancing. And letting women wear pants.
What is with the idea that everything was better in the "olden days?"
It wasn't.
Here's something that will blow your mind:
Most Puritan couples who got married were in the family way at the time of the wedding.
Even the damn Puritans got it on before marriage.
The Puritans.
When did it used to work? Studies show that teenage birth rates are the lowest since they have recorded the data. The highest rate? In the 1950's.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/CDC-teen-birth/54140178/1
You guys should really read the Pamie link I posted.
You will lol and go ewwwww and then lol more.
Which is ironic because one would think the pants would provide a nice physical barrier. Weird.
This wasn't the thought process of the Victorians. When the zipper was introduced in the late 1800s, it was scandelous because it was thought to provide easier access than the buttons they'd been using.
Fascinating tidbit!
Ha! totally worth the read. And now I've forgotten what this post is about.
If you don't teach young people about sexual health - how to use a condom, the different kinds of birth control, how to prevent pregnancy and STDs, etc. then what are they going to do when they *are* old and mature enough to have sex?
Teenagers have been having sex since literally the beginning of humankind. Why anyone thinks that you're going to stop this is beyond me.
By the way, it's not 99%. About 43% of teenagers have had sex:
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/teens-having-sex-numbers-staying-steady/
This. If we aren't going to teach people about it in high school, then we need a comprehensive means of educating everyone at some later point in life, and obviously that's unrealistic since not everyone goes on to college or has good medical care, etc.
I love when the increasingly accepted logic here is to withhold essential information. Abstinence Only education makes me stabby. I'd rather have well-educated people having safer sex younger than a bunch of ignorant teens and young adults running around. As PPs said... they'll have sex either way. Not all of them, and maybe even fewer with abstinence education- but it isn't worth it if the ones who are risk STDs and pregnancy when they could easily be avoiding it.
Why should teaching our kids about sex be the responsibility of the education system? I would much rather, as a parent, be the one to discuss this with my kids.
My DD is 16 and we have had several discussions about this very subject. I didn't want to lecture her, I wanted to open a dialogue. Sometimes I have initiated the conversation and sometimes she has.
Every child is different, I think a parent can gauge the best way to discuss this with and educate their child.
Because not every parent is willing or able to have that conversation with their children.
And if the parents give the children bum information, then it's just perpetuating the ignorance.
For a good example of this, look at The Bump. How many women on there know exactly how their own body works as a reproductive tool when they first log on? I don't mean the sperm meeting the egg, but the realities of ovulation as opposed to the mythological 28-day, like-clockwork cycle.
I think it's important for basic sex ed to being very young, like 1st and 2nd grade (proper names for genitalia, the fact that women have babies, etc.) Then increase the information throughout school.
You do this basic stuff for reading and, in all seriousness, knowing how the human body works in a reproductive capacity is as important as knowing how to read.
I know what you mean, I effing hate it when the education system teaches our kids important lessons about life. I mean, it's the kids that don't have a good home life are already at an increased risk for stds and teen pregnancy, why does the school system need to step in? Personally, I don't want my tax dollars to be reinvested in society by avoiding unwanted pregnancy and the diminishing the propagation of various diseases.
I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic?
I can understand as Cinema said that not every parent wants to or is able to talk to their kids about sex. And yes, it is important to give them accurate information.
I don't have a problem with kids learning about the biology of sex in school. I just wanted to open a line of communication with my DD.
Teaching sex ed in school will not prevent open lines of communication. It will help prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
I highly doubt there is any school district that teaches the kids not to talk to their parents about sex.
I agree.
I went to catholic school so we never had sex ed. I would imagine it is more about the biology of how things work? Or do they discuss the emotional aspect as well?
I never had a strictly sex ed class. When I was in public school, we had someone come in during our health class and discuss the mechanics of the various forms of birth control, including pills, condoms, IUDs, and the like. They dispelled some of the urban legends surrounding sex, like how you can get pregnant the first time you have sex, how pre-ejaculate still contains sperm, etc. Then they asked if we had any questions. There was nothing about the emotional parts of having sex. Just the mechanics.
When I was going to private (Baptist) school, they separated the boys from the girls and went into detail about how our bodies worked. The boys were told about wet dreams and erections and the girls were given tampons and pads. That was it. There wasn't any discussions of going to hell if you had sex before marriage. Of course, that was pretty much assumed and didn't need to be said.
I was being sarcastic. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want schools sharing information about sex, it's consequences, and sexual safety. Parents can always talk to their kids about sex, but if it's taught in school then even the kids with uninvolved parents (the high risk kids) get education. And that's good for everyone because you don't have as many kids raising kids, and the less an std is spread the less likely your kid could end up contracting it.
It's weird because of all the things schools teach, teaching this topic could have the most direct benefit.
I understand what you're saying. I guess I forgot not all parents are as involved with their kids.
I still think those parents who can discuss this with their kids at home should. My mom never discussed anything like this with me (she gave me a book - lol)... I never wanted my DD to feel uncomfortable talking with me about anything.
I don't disagree that kids should discuss these things with their parents.
But, again, there is absolutely no harm in sex-ed being taught in schools. None.
ITA. It makes me sad that more parents don't talk to their kids about sex. It may be uncomfortable, but if their kid gets KTFU, then things will get a whole hell of a lot more uncomfortable.
My parents never talked to me about sex even though I was in a pretty serious relationship all through high school. If I were them I would have been highly suspicious, but I think they just didn't want to think about it. Thank sweet baby Jesus for Planned Parenthood.