+671 Abstinence only education is just like "hold it" potty training. amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Are there still schools that teach abstinence only education?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think there still are some. Especially religious schools and schools in the Bible belt.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

oh dear D:

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My school taught us that way. It's in Michigan, and I think many other schools in the Midwest do as well.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Was it a religious school?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Public school, but it's a fairly religious area.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My private school last year did.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I live in Florida, and I learned it that way in my public high school. Not like anyone listened, of course.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The entire state of Florida is abstinence-only, I believe. But then again, we didn't even have sex ed at my high school.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I live in Florida and Sex Ed was just a very awkward week of PE class. It wasn't abstinence only, though.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think it's supposed to be, but I'm really not sure. My JROTC classes covered my gym and health credits, so I never took sex ed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe mine was an exception because it wasn't formally a Sex Ed class.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think mine might have. All it taught in sex ed was what happens if you get pregnant, and STDs.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I was taught, "Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die. Don't have sex in the missionary position, don't have sex standing up, just don't do it."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Was I the only one that caught that ?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

mine does

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I live in southern Indiana and that's pretty much all we got. Also very common in the deep south and private (especially religious) schools.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

self-control is not taught enough in our world today. Sometimes it is just not the time and place to void.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Are you talking about not having sex or not peeing?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

mostly not having sex... you should learn to control your hormones

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Lot's of people have sex because they think it's a good thing to do, not because they don't have the discipline to control their hormones. Besides, comprehensive sex education doesn't teach you to have sex, it teaches you everything you need to know to make safe healthy decisions about sex.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's mostly because they can't control their hormones especially teenagers... Tell me one time where a teen was like " Oh let's have sex because it is a good thing to do." Ummm, no. It is more like whoa that girl is hot I'd do her -_-

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ludacris taught me how to control those. And I'm sure he's more than willing to teach you, too.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

self control isn't the issue, education is. If a student knows how to protect themselves and why they need to do so and they still make the decision to have sex that's their decision. If a student has no idea of anything and just does it they have a better chance of getting pregnant or STDs

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don`t think whether or not your educated matters when you or a minor. Your body is still developing, your brain is not fully formed, and you must deal with so much at once. I don`t think its wise for ``children`` to be having sex just because they have adult bodies.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't say I think minors should have sex, I'm just saying they will. Not everyone, but I guarantee you there is virtually nothing you can do to prevent ALL minors from having sex. The best thing you can do is educate them

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Partly, yes, except that people //need// to pee to get urine out of the system, but one does not //need// sex to live.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

you kind of do?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The human race does, but not anyone in specific. Especially since there are some ¨asexual¨ people who survive without it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And when people are "sexual", they especially need it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Actually you are entirely wrong. Someone does not need to pee to get urine out of the system. You could hookup a tube to the bladder filtering out the pee into a bag, and then disposing the bag and replacing it when its full (like how they do it in hospitals). And with out sex there is no reproduction, ending the human race, meaning that we NEED to have sex to essentially "live".

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, I know about catheters, but that's not quite an option is it? An average person does not just think "Oh I don't want to use my 1 little muscle it takes to force pee out of me, I'll just shove this long tube through my urethra even though it's one of the most uncomfortable things to experience". No. People pee because that's how nature made it, catheters are only there if the natural way of peeing is blocked in some way, because otherwise one would die because as I said, one //needs// to pee to get pee out. Having sex does not let a person live any more than abstaining does, because sex provides nothing vital to the body. Pee, on the other hand, is the important removal of toxins in the blood, one that every single person has and needs. Two comments above, "@1614864 (BobWilson):" I explained your human race thing. People have lived whole lives without sex. People have not lived whole lives without peeing (or using catheters //if they need to//).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But, you do not NEED to pee to get the urine out of the body, there are other ways. And sex does not help people live longer, but it does keep the existence of humans last longer, which is pretty important. So sex is necessary.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's necessary for the species, it's not necessary for the person's life.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"...sex provides nothing vital to the body." Well that's just not true. There are actually many mental and physical benefits to having a healthy sex life.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Benefits =/= vital. Get a dictionary.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well I don't know about you, but I'd say maintaining health is pretty fucking vital.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Right. Because without regular sex you'd die.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You can remain alive without optimum health, but so what? Why is it such a horrible thing to admit that sex can improve your QUALITY of life?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ono Okay, since you're either a bit slow or very lazy, here: **vi·tal** Adjective /ˈvītl/ Synonyms: essential 1. Absolutely necessary or important; essential 2. Indispensable to the continuance of life

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Okay since you're an asshole, here: having sex can boost your immune system. That's VITAL to helping your body to fighting off infections. Have regular sex with and climaxing with your partner releases chemicals in your brain VITAL to maintaining a happy monogamous relationship. The list goes on but seriously dude just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to be such a fucking dick about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

onoonoonoonoonoonoonoonoonoono "Lifting weights can build muscles. Muscles are necessary to move limbs and stuff. Limbs and stuff are needed to live. Therefore, by this flawless logic, lifting weights is fucking vital for every person in the world." No. I realise sex has benefits. I know that! EVERYONE, I think, knows that! This is about the word VITAL which means ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND YOU CAN'T FUCKING LIVE without it. A heart is vital. Sex is not vital. Eating bananas is healthy. Can you live without them? Yes. Therefore, they're not vital. Sex is bananas.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're just mad because sex is vital.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

hmm Is that so? Explain to me the existence of virgins, then. If sex is vital, a human cannot possibly live without it, so all virgins would die.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Given your penchant for insolence, I stopped taking you seriously. Thus my nonsensical reply. Please stop talking to me, I'll do the same.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's the most awful way to end an argument. Nothing has been settled. If you can't handle a single use of "the F word" why do you even bother going on the internet. I only use it for exaggeration, since caps don't work very well.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I swear like a fucking sailor, that's not the problem. What bothers me is unnecessary rudeness. You insulted me immediately. I don't do that when I speak to people (even on the internet) and I expect the same in return. The argument is over. I won. I also looked up the definition (with your kind suggestion) and I looked up synonyms. I was correct in my usage.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You haven't won just because you think you're right. I think I'm right as well. Do you really think being synonyms is enough to make both adjectives always apply? For example, I'm mean. Synonyms for mean: base, vile, poor, low, stingy, sordid, average, shabby, middle, medium But I'm not shabby. I'm not average. I'm not stingy. Same here, sex is healthy, it provides some health, but it's not vital as it's not 100% necessary. But sorry for the insults. I'm in a bad mood. Finals, what can you do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My original point was that you were mistaken when you said sex doesn't provide anything vital to the body, not that sex itself is vital. If I drink a glass of orange juice I'm giving my body essential nutrients, am I not? Will I die if I don't drink it? No, because I could just take some vitamins supplements or somehow get them elsewhere. Same with sex. Sure you can abstain but sex reduces stress, lowers blood pressure, provides exercise, and people who orgasm frequently are said to live longer. (Just to name a few.) Now a person is able to receive most of these benefits from many other ways, definitely. But that doesn't change the fact that sex still does provide these things which are vital to your overall body health which, again, was my point. And it's kind of funny how you went off on that tangent about synonyms when you yourself provided them as your dictionary definition in your earlier comment. Just saying. Anyway I hope you understand my point.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's always much better when people can have a discussion with no one stooping to insults or name calling. Anyway, my dictionary came up with vital |ˈvītl| adjective 1 absolutely necessary or important; essential : secrecy is of vital importance | it is vital that the system is regularly maintained. • indispensable to the continuance of life : the vital organs. 2 FULL OF ENERGY; LIVELY : a beautiful, vital girl. 3 archaic fatal : the wound is vital. I'd say that sex is full of energy and provides something lively to the body. and I did all that without a single needlessly concescending remark!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, sex is healthy. That's not the argument here, is it though? "Vital" is **not**, I repeat, "healthy". They are different words. With different meanings. This is like the fifth comment I'm writing that's saying this, because yet again the counterargument is "but sex is healthy in THIS way and in THIS way". It IS healthy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, dude, you got rude when you started picking at the exact meanings of the word "vital". Now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to change what it was you said. That doesn't work.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Okay, what was the initial argument? Please, I would love it if you'd show me how I've been proven wrong. This is my initial argument: "Partly, yes, except that people need to pee to get urine out of the system, but one does not need sex to live." And I actually think I'm still defending that, and nothing has been changed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The argument is about whether or not sex is vital, and so the definition is incredibly important and not only semantics.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It was originally about whether or not sex "provided anything vital to the body," not sex being vital itself. It just snowballed from there. :/

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm referring strictly to the argument Nacklefoodle was in and not the general argument the post brings up.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Nacklefoodle won a LONG time ago. Even before it started, and especially when he brought up the fact that all virgins would be dead if sex was vital.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That was countered when I brought up the fact that vital can be defined as more than just absolutely necessary for the body to survive.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But you're wrong; it clearly wasn't used that way. So it's over.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you say so

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I agree with Nacklefoodle. Sex isn't vital to a human life to create it yes but they have been many people to live their entire lives without having sex, it may have caused them not not be a happier or as livelier as you so put it but it ISNT NEEDED. to be able to rid your body of waste whether it be forcibly or natural is NEEDED!!!!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My apologies if you found my responses rude. I get a bit cross when I need to repeat a statement multiple times, yet to hear the same exact illogical response.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In other words, "When people don't immediately admit that I win, I ignore whatever their logic is and I get mad and start name calling" Look, I really don't want an argument here, but the fact is that you started an argument over semantics. Like Courage Wolf said, the original argument was whether or not sex provided anything VITAL to the body, so ALL definitions of vital need to be taken into account. By one definition of the word, yes, sex DOES bring something vital to the body. Full of energy or lively. Whatever the definition is, you started throwing insults about needlessly just because you didn't want to admit you were wrong in this case and that's just not cool. I've said what I need to say. I don't think I wanna spend any more time on this as I really don't want this to turn into a full blown argument.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I hate debates like this. There's nothing controversial or interesting to debate; you two are just misunderstanding a simple term. It's like, If I'd said "I'm not gay" and you two would argue that I //am// gay, because I was acting happy. No. I didn't mean that, and you know I didn't mean that. I meant peeing is vital/necessary/needed/can't live without it. I meant that sex is NOT those things. And you two went on to describe how it's healthy, which is irrelevant.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Whatever you say.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And lol, why would I say peeing is vital and sex isn't, if I'd meant vital as "full of energy"? Why would anyone ever argue that peeing is more energetic than sex? I was discussing pure necessity.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ha ha "You're a naughty baby and that's concentrated evil coming out the back of you!"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think students should be taught to masturbate, but kids should be taught about all the sex organs and preventative stuff. A lot of schools in Sweden(?) start learning sex ed stuff in kindergarten and they have one of the lowest teen pregnancy/STD rates, according to my textbook.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In kindergarten, I remember learning about how flowers and fruit fruit were made, how chickens lay eggs, and that babies come from mommy's tummy. It wasn't very informative but it was kind of age appropriate considering I was too dumb at that age to understand anything more complicated.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's cool that your school did that. I don't think my school talked about that ever. By kindergarten I knew that "privates" were involved, and that nobody except a doctor (while a parent is there) should touch them. But that's because my mom was paranoid.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Would teaching to masturbate be very helpful? I kinda figured that all out the second I saw a naked woman.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's just ignorant. They never even taught us how to put on a condom.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://ctrlv.in/60257

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Thanks! I really needed that! Um, wanna babysit for me later?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I like how this is from Juno, a movie where a girl gets impregnated. I would say it is ironic, but if I'm wrong about it being ironic people will lose their shit.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*cough* nackledfoodle *cough* wary

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I love the nacklefoodle joke so much.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

y You're safe, this is irony. A contraception reference/tip from a film about teen pregnancy is the exact opposite of what one might expect, and that's what makes it ironic.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

How would they teach abstinence anyway? "You shouldn't have sex. Play cards or some shit".

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No no it's more like, "sex is the most evil, vile thing in the entire world. You should wait to do it with the person you love." lolwut

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's ok to commit evil as long as it's with someone you love.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's why it's ok to murder your wife! y

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But you'd better not do any weird stuff with the body afterward--you're not married at that point.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

From the source! Give me a moment, I need to go hide a body.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I went to a catholic all girls school that taught abstinence only sex ed, they just taught us about pregnancy and stds, and not contraception. They taught us that we should wait until we are married and save yourself for your husband, and not to give into any urges.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Except your body doesn't require sex for survival (although the human race might, it can wait). In addition abstinence doesn't give you cancer

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sex doesn't give you cancer either. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever if you NEED it or not. The fact of the matter is that some people WILL do it. Safe sex should be taught because these people need an education on other methods to protect themselves. That's like taking a math problem and saying "You can only use one method to solve this". Different methods work better for different people.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

1. Never said it did, and never said sex was bad but the comparison was. 2. For most math problems there is only one method, if there's more, one is usually best. 3. Abstinence is the only proven way. Condoms break, pills fail, withdrawal is sketchy for obvious reasons. If you wanna have sex great, but you shouldn't come crying to the people that were preaching abstinence when you can't afford your AIDS medicine when those methods that "work better for different people" inevitably fail. 4. I'm not trying to get into an argument about abstinence versus condoms, I just wanted to point out that the analogy was dumb. I remember the good old days when the air was clean and sex was dirty

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"Abstinence doesn't cause cancer" If you didn't mean to say the opposite did, then that comment is completely irrelevant. There are actually many different ways to solve a problem and sometimes different ways are the easiest. Have you ever tried graphing polynomials? The roots for different problems can be found in many different ways.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I could be very wrong but what I understood from his comment was "abstinenece doesn't give you cancer"..but holdig in your pee does. wary

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Holding your pee gives you cancer? I know it gives you a bladder infection.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I did say "I could be very wrong" ...I was just assuming though I was too lazy to google if holding in your pee gives you cancer.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The Broadway guy was right. Holding your pee for long amounts of time over your life can lead to bladder cancer. And yes, there are some problems that multiple methods can solve. I also said one way is usually best. But this isn't an argument about algebra; abstinence has been proven to work 100% of the time while no other method has. And I also thought Face had some good points. First, yes it is the parents job to educate their children on this subject. Also, these teachers aren't preaching about the morality of premarital sex, they are trying to educate kids about making good choices. Why do you think they teach the benefits of abstinence? They don't do it because they like to ruin your fun, they do it because it's been proven to be the safe and responsible thing. And while a qualified instructor to teach about pregnancy might be nice, it doesn't take a genius to say "If you don't have sex, you won't have a baby!" But again, I'm not trying to argue that sex is bad, but the "hold-it potty training" analogy was flawed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You don't have to educate kids about what can easily be explained in one fucking sentence. That isn't any type of education. You need a qualified instructor to fucking teach the actual goddamn symptoms of STDs and how pregnancy works. Sex Education isn't just to where a goddamn condom. If teaching about safe sex should be left to the parent, so should teaching about abstinence. You can't have one fucking thing in there just because you like it better. We learned about safe sex and abstinence at my school. Those are two smaller parts of sex ed. They teach about the diseases and all of the different things that have to do with sex and pregnancy. Then they tell you that abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent these things, but if you do have sex you can use a condom. They also taught about other forms of birth control, like the pill, and said that you should use a condom with it. They also taught about many different side effects from these different methods and about why this might happen.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Also, don't say you aren't trying to argue about it when you bring up multiple points on the goddamn subject.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well someone is a little sensitive. So what exactly is a qualified instructor? Someone who went to college and got degrees in education and sex ed? That sounds like most health teachers. Or maybe your idea is a porn star? And I can't really tell whether you're arguing that sex ed should or shouldn't be taught at school. In my health class we learned about stds, safe sex, abstinence, the reproductive systems, etc. It isn't just wannabe priests screaming "FORNICATORS GO TO HELL!!!", they actually TEACH. And yes Jacob two-two (obscure movie reference...google it), there are methods of birth control other than abstinence (to see a full response see above comments, thank you). If parents are mad about this being taught, they obviously aren't teaching it themselves which is why someone else should. If the parents are already teaching this like they should, why would they care? And you started it. I said these two things aren't alike and you said safe sex should be taught, not abstinence, thus sending a simple unrelated comment into a perpetual battle of words about the morality and logistics of sex.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes. A health teacher. I am arguing for sex education. Where the fuck did you think that I assumed sex education was wannabe priests? lol I don't know if you're actually reading the comments or not. Maybe you're just trolling. Did you read your own first comment? It can very easily be construed as saying that sex causes cancer. And if you didn't really want to argue about this, you wouldn't be arguing about it. Simple as that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Alright friend. And I will give you one thing: you're right I can see how my first comment wasn't clear

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If they want to have sex that badly they should ask the parents to do their jobs and teach their children. They shouldn't complain about it. That is a parents job to make sure they understand what sex can mean to a person and how to be safe with it. Especially since a lot of parents like to claim that these teachers are over stepping their boundaries when their kids come home and tell them about something they didn't want their children to hear -_-

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The schools responsibility is to teach the many, not the few. Their job is to provide the students with an education. Abstinence is mostly a religious and moral thing that should have no place in an educational facility. The parents can teach the abstinence and a trained instructor can teach actual saftey tips and give real information on pregnancy.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Everyone who wants to have sex should have sex, everyone that doesn't want to have sex shouldn't have sex. Case closed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

How can you say no to a primordial instinct? It's not about lack of discipline and indulgence of evil It's our choice in whether acting on it will give us the desired outcome or not. In other words "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO SO MOTHAFACKA"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I love this.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm currently in a sex Ed class, and my school is really cool about it. The health teacher said abstinence is great and all, but he knows it's unrealistic for all teens to practice. So he just told us the best forms of birth control, how to put a condom on, and many clinics where teens can get free birth control without out parents knowing. It's probably because Chicago has the highest amount of teens with STDs, but at least they're not saying sex is evil.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*our

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My health teacher brought in a box FULL of different kinds of contraception and pamphlets with contact information for clinics. We watched videos, and he allowed us to anonymously ask him any questions about sex. He would then answer them in class the next day. And of course, a lot of the questions were very immature and out-there. We did learn abstinence as well.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My sex Ed class I middle school was great. We had a really cool teacher who easily talked about things and taught us about birth control, condoms and a women's cycle. Our high school health class sucked.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe if my district taught proper protection alongside abstinence, there wouldn't be so many pregnancies in our school and there wouldn't be two whole pages in the yearbook about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What's "hold it" potty training?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My high school health class went like this: "Let's be realistic. Asking you all to practice abstinence is wishful thinking on my part, so I'm not going to do that. "BUT here's what will most likely happen to you if you have sex: http://bit.ly/zcdgRb, http://bit.ly/s7ytyL, and also http://bit.ly/AcxEjG". [I didn't use ctrlv.in for those pictures because I didn't want to force pictures of venereal diseases on you guys. Thank me later.]

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Excuse me while I go stab my eyes out.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The vagina looked like a twisted up ear.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm still so confused about the first one.. how the... what the... HOWD THAT HAPPEN?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I've went to Catholic school my whole life and they never taught us about sex. The only thing they had was people come in and tell us that abortion was wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

We had sex ed in 8th grade and we were taught "abstinence plus" which is basically "don't do it yet, but if you do here's how to be safe." The class wasn't required, and in high school we had child development which wasn't required either, though I really think it should be.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

i think abstinence only education is dumb because some people will have sex. It's like not teaching someone how to drive. Sure, you can go a long time or even your whole life without it but some people want to do it and there's nothing wrong with that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This post has 666 you are rights...I clicked you are right to change it 667.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're lost, let me help- http://mylifeisaverage.com/

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The Catholic school abstinence education classes everyone's talking about aren't any different than my school's, and it's a regular ol' suburban public school.

by Anonymous 12 years ago