alright, i'm warning you. i'm getting on the soap box.
so i came across something online complaining that bush has taken over our sex-ed program and making it "abstinence" only and that people who are looking for another reason to be pissed off at the president should "take action" and support the REAL act, which would teach both abstinence AND safe sex in public schools.
i have no problem with the REAL act, i think that sounds like a great idea, but everything else they had to say was pretty much bologna.
first of all, since when has this become the government's job? do you people think that children really don't know anything about sex by the time they enter the 9th grade? and where the hell are your parents?
so they were also saying that bush's program would teach "outright lies" and "outdated facts", like "condoms do not 100% prevent stds", "HIV is contained in sweat and tears", and "you can avoid jealousy, embarrassment, depression, etc. by abstaining until marriage". there is no scientific innaccuracy in this.
condoms are made of latex, which has tiny little pores, and some of these pores are big enough for stds, even sperm, to go through (remember they are 97% effective). so they make a big difference whether you use them or not, but it is STILL possible to contract an STD or get pregnant if you use one.
HIV is contained in any bodily fluids but it dies in the air. it needs warm fluid to survive -- so if you cry or sweat, which will eventually die or evaporate in the air, it won't harm the other person. so the truth is, it cna't be PASSED via sweat or tears, but it is still THERE.
as for the last one, this is a no brainer. while there are very lucky individuals among us who have no regrets or hurts about their past, there are many of us who do. there are a lot of people who wanted to wait until marriage and did and were very pleased with their resulting relationship/sex life, and there are many people who are still waiting and are perfectly happy doing so. and then there are those who wish they waited (i raise my hand into the air). GOD i wish i waited until damean. but i'm still thankful i waited as long as i did.
so whoever says abstinence until marriage is outdated, that's crap. i'm a history major and am familiar with not only the customs dating from, well, shortly after the time of Jesus, but also the medical practices. for centures sex before marriage was accepted, probably even expected, and getting pregnant outside of marriage was fine as long as 1) the couple got married before it was born or 2) the father took responsibility for the child after it was born (specifically in the west, this of course varies and depends on region, culture and religion. but i don't think the marriage and mating rituals of the mande apply here). it wasn't until the victorian era and the creation of the middle class when society's ideals for women began to change.
if you think women are having a hard time TODAY because they can't have an abortion in all 50 states, wait until you here this. it was believed that MEN were sexless and women were the seductresses - basically they wanted it all the time, and had to CONVINCE their husbands to sleep with them. it was actually a wife's DUTY to make her husband get her pregnant. but if and when their husbands wanted it, it was the wife's job to decline and remind their husbands of their purity. (yeah, i know, it makes no sense.) but at the same time, she had to preserve her chastity (yes, it was very contradictory, which is one of the explanations for the increase of "madness" among women during this time - more women were in the insane asylum than men). which means, this time she was expected to be a virgin until marriage, and then make as many babies as she can. she had NO choice about birth control, almost no way to get it and if she got pregnant, she had to have the child and back then there was a greater possibility that she and/or the child would die. this is all very confusing, so when i asked my professor "well... when did they have sex, then?" she explained the ideal couple was expected, sometimes even ordered by the doctor, to have sex once a month until she became pregnant (then, of course, no sex while she was pregnant). then after she had the baby, it would start all over again.
i don't think these are the "outdated" traditions that bush is trying to teach in school today. i'm not sure about the accuracy of "abstinence-only", but if that is what happens, just remember that's probably how our parents were educated and they turned out fine. i think the best thing the government could do is let the kids have a choice - they could learn abstinence only, or about birth control if they wanted to, or both if they weren't sure yet. and school isn't the only source of a child or teen's sex education -- i think the main responsibility lies with the individual, followed by the parents, the relationship they have with their kids and the communication between them. other sources include an older or trusted sibling or adult, the family doctor, books, planned parenthood, the internet, religious leaders, and even trustworthy friends.
oh, and this last one is hilarious. "most kids who have sex for the first time don't use a condom because they don't know how to use one." you mean the things don't come with directions? well, of course you're not going to pause for a moment to read the instructions and figure it out, but don't you think it would be a good thing to maybe check them out and read ahead, before the act itself? or maybe kids these days just don't give it any thought before they decide to do the deed. maybe they don't talk about it with their partner, or think about when they might be ready, or prepare themselves for such a rite of passage. i guess it's more like oh, well i just randomly decided to have sex now, looks like there's no protection on hand, i don't know what i'm doing but let's go ahead and figure it out anyway? i think if that's the state of things right now, kids need a little more than sex education.
i have no problem with the REAL act, i think that sounds like a great idea, but everything else they had to say was pretty much bologna.
first of all, since when has this become the government's job? do you people think that children really don't know anything about sex by the time they enter the 9th grade? and where the hell are your parents?
so they were also saying that bush's program would teach "outright lies" and "outdated facts", like "condoms do not 100% prevent stds", "HIV is contained in sweat and tears", and "you can avoid jealousy, embarrassment, depression, etc. by abstaining until marriage". there is no scientific innaccuracy in this.
condoms are made of latex, which has tiny little pores, and some of these pores are big enough for stds, even sperm, to go through (remember they are 97% effective). so they make a big difference whether you use them or not, but it is STILL possible to contract an STD or get pregnant if you use one.
HIV is contained in any bodily fluids but it dies in the air. it needs warm fluid to survive -- so if you cry or sweat, which will eventually die or evaporate in the air, it won't harm the other person. so the truth is, it cna't be PASSED via sweat or tears, but it is still THERE.
as for the last one, this is a no brainer. while there are very lucky individuals among us who have no regrets or hurts about their past, there are many of us who do. there are a lot of people who wanted to wait until marriage and did and were very pleased with their resulting relationship/sex life, and there are many people who are still waiting and are perfectly happy doing so. and then there are those who wish they waited (i raise my hand into the air). GOD i wish i waited until damean. but i'm still thankful i waited as long as i did.
so whoever says abstinence until marriage is outdated, that's crap. i'm a history major and am familiar with not only the customs dating from, well, shortly after the time of Jesus, but also the medical practices. for centures sex before marriage was accepted, probably even expected, and getting pregnant outside of marriage was fine as long as 1) the couple got married before it was born or 2) the father took responsibility for the child after it was born (specifically in the west, this of course varies and depends on region, culture and religion. but i don't think the marriage and mating rituals of the mande apply here). it wasn't until the victorian era and the creation of the middle class when society's ideals for women began to change.
if you think women are having a hard time TODAY because they can't have an abortion in all 50 states, wait until you here this. it was believed that MEN were sexless and women were the seductresses - basically they wanted it all the time, and had to CONVINCE their husbands to sleep with them. it was actually a wife's DUTY to make her husband get her pregnant. but if and when their husbands wanted it, it was the wife's job to decline and remind their husbands of their purity. (yeah, i know, it makes no sense.) but at the same time, she had to preserve her chastity (yes, it was very contradictory, which is one of the explanations for the increase of "madness" among women during this time - more women were in the insane asylum than men). which means, this time she was expected to be a virgin until marriage, and then make as many babies as she can. she had NO choice about birth control, almost no way to get it and if she got pregnant, she had to have the child and back then there was a greater possibility that she and/or the child would die. this is all very confusing, so when i asked my professor "well... when did they have sex, then?" she explained the ideal couple was expected, sometimes even ordered by the doctor, to have sex once a month until she became pregnant (then, of course, no sex while she was pregnant). then after she had the baby, it would start all over again.
i don't think these are the "outdated" traditions that bush is trying to teach in school today. i'm not sure about the accuracy of "abstinence-only", but if that is what happens, just remember that's probably how our parents were educated and they turned out fine. i think the best thing the government could do is let the kids have a choice - they could learn abstinence only, or about birth control if they wanted to, or both if they weren't sure yet. and school isn't the only source of a child or teen's sex education -- i think the main responsibility lies with the individual, followed by the parents, the relationship they have with their kids and the communication between them. other sources include an older or trusted sibling or adult, the family doctor, books, planned parenthood, the internet, religious leaders, and even trustworthy friends.
oh, and this last one is hilarious. "most kids who have sex for the first time don't use a condom because they don't know how to use one." you mean the things don't come with directions? well, of course you're not going to pause for a moment to read the instructions and figure it out, but don't you think it would be a good thing to maybe check them out and read ahead, before the act itself? or maybe kids these days just don't give it any thought before they decide to do the deed. maybe they don't talk about it with their partner, or think about when they might be ready, or prepare themselves for such a rite of passage. i guess it's more like oh, well i just randomly decided to have sex now, looks like there's no protection on hand, i don't know what i'm doing but let's go ahead and figure it out anyway? i think if that's the state of things right now, kids need a little more than sex education.