Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
You clearly know nothing about the many different branches of Christianity Fiend, and what some of them preach.
Now I'm not necessarily saying the people behind this course are amongst them
Scary Monster wrote:
It is worth adding for the record that the only 100% reliable form of contraception IS abstinence.
Observer article wrote:
Her ring came from the Silver Ring Thing, an evangelical initiative recently introduced to Britain from the US, with which her parents' local church is involved.
Silver Ring Thing is critical of contraception, suggesting it is dangerously fallible
And when I say there could be other definitions of dangerous, it is possible to catch STIs through fallible contraception, not just end up pregnant.
The problem with this course (one of them anyway) is that ultimately is an abject failure. Most people who undertake it end up having pre-marital sex anyway, but are actually less likely to use contraception. So they are far more at risk of the very STDs and pregnancies the course spooked them about.
But a ring is jewellery. If the girl was to wear he ring, then everyone else would do the same. at most schools (like mentioned earlier) have a no jewellery policy because of health & safety.
the original Observer article wrote:
However, research by Columbia and Yale Universities found while those who pledge chastity may delay first sex, 88 per cent of them eventually break the promise, and are then less likely than non-pledgers to use contraception.
I'd call something that has an 88% failure rate and that actually leaves its participants more at risk of catching the very things it fights against than other people 'an abject failure'. Wouldn't you?
If we just carry on dishing out condoms and colourful leaflets on where to get a morning after pill after a one night stand STD rates are going to carry on increasing. Only by adopting elements of the US model and adapting it to British society and changing attitudes will STD rates and teen pregnancy rates fall.
I'm With Stupid wrote:
Would it not be more effective to look to a better role model, such as Holland or Sweden rather than the country with the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the developed world?
There's been a lot of studies with very conflicting results. Either way teenage pregnancy rates in the US have fell. The US has lots of abstinence programmes. In the UK with no emphasis on abstinence teen pregnancy rates are rising. (Of course welfare reform has been a factor in the US too). I wouldn't call it an 'abject failure' based on one study when there's lots of other conflicting studies, it'll probably be easier to gauge the impact over a longer period of time. In the mean time I don't see anything wrong with more of a dual approach.
Do you have any links to any other conflicting studies?
Incidentally, even in the US, luckily the influence of such people is still small amongst the general public. If there have been any fall in preganancy rates I somehow doubt they have had much to do with chastity courses.
yes quite right according to the real laws of human nature it is a sin to foresake sex
I'm With Stupid wrote:
Well actually there's no such things as right and wrong in nature.
I did a public health course on teenage sexual health and studies show that abstinence + sex and relationships education is the most effective method of preventing unwanted teenage pregnancies. Better than sex education alone, with abstinence only programmes the least effective. No surprises there, but don't undersell the idea that proper relationships education (which may or may not include an element of abstinence) is effective at reducing teenage pregnancies and improving sexual health.
I wasn't. And I am certainly not against a sex education that includes a message of maturity and responsibility and that tries to educate people about the problems of teen pregancies and STDs. I just thing intitiatives such as the sliver ring thing go well too far and are not only counterproductive but deeply reprehensible.
I don't disagree with an abstinence approach, but realistically everyone should have decent sex education which isn't based solely around different types of contraception (how many teenagers use femidoms or caps?) or solely STIs (although the rates are going up and up so something needs to be said), but rather on the relationship aspects such as resistance to peer pressure and having respect for one's own body.
I'm With Stupid wrote:
That's what happens in Holland. They have open discussions in classes and promote the idea of waiting until you are ready, but not just waiting because it's 'wrong' or because your parents want you to. Promoting abstinance is promoting the idea of going against your natural urges. It's trying to counter peer pressure with peer pressure from the opposite point of view, rather than giving teenagers the necessary information to make their own choices. The education should focus on making whatever choice you want for the right reasons, and equipping teenagers with all of the facts (physical and emotional) they need to carry out their choices in a mature and responsible way.
I wouldn't say "reprehensible" but I do think they miss the point.
At least we're all agreed that there is something very wrong with the sex education the kids currently get at school.