getting vile diseases by not having the presence of mind to resist their natural inclinations?
Related posts:
- Why can’t it be illegal for people infected with venereal diseases to engage in further sexual activity?
- Should people with sexual dysfunctions be encouraged to seek help?
- Aids in DC: Why aren’t the children slowing or stopping sexual activity?
- Is indulgence in too much sexual activity causes tuberculosis?
- How do you get rid of premature ejaculation?
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Educate people about all the facts, all the options, and all the consequences and responsibilities associated with those actions.
Then make a recommendation toward the most reasonable course of action based on the risks, the severity of risks, and the frequency at which the risks should be expected to occur.
Those who screw up should be helped to overcome the consequences if they show that they’ve learned from their mistakes, if in-fact they knew what they were getting into.
The biggest problem with sex education is that it does not deal with the most difficult aspects: the hormonal drive and emotional responses. We tend to teach sex education the same way we do a recipe to make brownies: this + this + this = this.
However, there are huge emotional and sex drive pressures that are nearly impossible to prepare for. The best education includes giving people principles they can apply that prevent them from being placed in those tenuous emotional situations before they are ready for them.
Many people who don’t intend to have sex, and who know all the safe-sex facts don’t actually plan on having sex. They just wind up in a situation where sex takes over. For instance, they’re out on a date where they don’t intent to have sex before hand, so they don’t prepare to have sex. Then the moment present itself, and it’s over before they realized what they’ve done. The principle application for someone who’s not intending to have sex, is to ensure that they are properly chaperoned so that someone else’s senses can kick in when theirs doesn’t. Someone who’s less moral may choose to have sex, but then they can prepare by bringing condoms, taking the pill, and/or having their partner tested before they engage in activities.
Of course, 15-year-olds who "never see it coming" simply will not take these precautions. Chaperons and situational avoidance are the best tools against these poor decisions.
It’s one thing to teach abstinence, but we don’t give our kids the tools to fight their emotions and hormones so that they can employ their intent to be abstinent. Many people want to be abstinent. They simply haven’t been given the mechanisms to appropriate their desires.
So the question doesn’t stop with sex education. It goes beyond into the desired intent of the person involved, and then equipping that person to successfully achieve their intent.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Condemming it does not solve the problem for the unwanted babies how have to leed a miserable life just because their parents didn’t have condoms.
So thats why I make sure my boys know where I keep condoms and that I dont know or care how many there are in the box.
And for the "Christians" out there: doesn’t you bible say, that you should not judge others? Who are you to then condemm others for their actions or, as you put it: "natural inclinations" ?
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I think the best answer is that kids make mistakes. I don’t think they deserve a death sentence for making them. Give them condoms, but educate them about sex so they can make an informed decision.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Giving condoms to children is like giving them a permission slip….>
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
There is no question – If I had a child I would want hime to be alive. I would prefer that he does not have a promiscuous sex life; but there is simply no choice between life and the SMALL chance that he might decide to screw because he has a condom. If a child want to have sex, he will do so, whether I gave him a condom or not.
I say lets keep children alive.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
It’s better to educate people and give them the means to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancies.
Condoms are necessary because people have sex. Just saying they shouldn’t is naive and – frankly – stupid
And sex is natural, healthy and good for people emotionally and physically. Doing it safely is better than not doing it.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Let me ask you something: How often do you resist your natural inclination to eat? Teens ARE going to have sex, as they have since the beginning. It’s pure idiocy to not teach them how to protect themselves.
Very well said, Boba Fett and Mia
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I think a sensible approcah, honest facts and information should do the trick.
If you are going to have unprotected sex, these are the risks xyz…
rather than try and preach abstinance and not actually educate children.
of course try and promote self woth and self respect, but to be armed witth the knowledge of how to prcatice safe sex (and what might happen if you don’t) is a gift which you can use thoughout your life.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Condoms don’t condone sexual activity any more than seat belts & airbags condone automobile accidents.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Proceeding from sin to sin is this world´s solution, but not God´s.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
getting laid is all well and good for pleasure, but more guys need to start wrapping their gear to avoid 2 things
1 – making babies, unless that’s your intention
2 – catching a bad case of the clap, or something worse…..
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I don’t have this dichotomy to contend with. I think if sex is practiced responsibly and honestly between consenting individuals there is not a problem. Part of getting people to be responsible for their choices is to teach them to use protection if they are sexually active. Immorality to me is to deny people information and access to protection that could prevent disease and unintended pregnancy. People are sexual beings, this has always been so and is not a modern development. I would hope that if my child were under 16 they would wait as there are adult responsibilities and emotions involved. I would also want to protect them from much older individuals exploiting them. Otherwise I think its more moral to have them protected and knowledgeable and understand the reasons why. Rather then tell them sex is a sin and don’t do it. Sex is natural and part of our humanity.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
The Pope is taking a lot of heat for suggesting teaching "restraint" on sexual matters.
While some people laugh at that . . and others get angry . . .
the question remains, "Which method reduces disease more?"
In New York City where they hand out condoms with no questions asked to ANYONE of ANY age . . . . the STD rate is through the roof.
SO . . . . condoms do NOT always reduce diseases . . . including HIV
Look at the SDT rate / HIV rate in ultra conservative (religous) Utah . . . and compare that to New York. Same humans . . . same diseases . . . why is the rate lower in Utah?
Because Utah teaches morality and responsibility . . . .
Go figure ! ? ! ?
Dan in Miami
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
No it’s better to teach them that chastity is a better way, and the joy of learning of each others likes and dislikes within marriage. Also they should know the full horror of A.I.D.S. and the stigma of other S.T.Ds plus the dangers to their future fatherhood/childbearing capabilities
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Neither: you can tacitly dissuade children from sexual activity by informing them of the issues at the proper time, and then trust them to be responsible, and loving them when they mess up. Just because we condemn the sin does not mean Christians condemn the sinner.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Why would you come on Yahoo Answers and waste 5 points to ask a rhetorical question? *looks at the popes messages about condom use in africa* ………………………….you know what, never mind.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Who the hell gives condoms to kids?
Do you think that by asking a warped question that you’d catch someone out?
FOOL.
The use of condoms is demonstrably effective against the transmission of pathogens. Abstinence is, by comparison, extremely unreliable.
p.s. Lovely simile, Boba Fett.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Providing condoms to children does not necessarily condone sexual activity. It’s better to teach them about what can happen if they have unprotected sex (unwanted pregnancy, diseases) and then give them the means to prevent that from happening. It makes a lot more sense than teaching abstinence. They will always experiment with sex, and if they are going to, then they need to know about possible consequences, and means of prevention.