Encouraging (Not Mandating) Abstinence: Harmless or Not?

Post Reply New Topic

This is NOT a thread on abstinence-only education, which is complete utter drivel. Take it to another thread if you insist on talking about the failures of abstinence-only education. This is also NOT a thread on masturbation, as science shows that it's harmless. Abstinence, for the purposes of this discussion, is any form of sexual contact with another person(s).

That being said, in the US, most sensible and sane parents/teachers are still encouraging abstinence, while also teaching options for contraceptives/safe sex if they do not stay abstinent, and are relatively tolerant and accepting.

This is apparently not the case for some places, where adolescents having sex is not only accepted, but actively encouraged and condoned by parents and educators.

My family had major problems right about the time I was due to get the "birds and bees" speech, and so never got it, but learned most things on my own. I've held the former view until now on the matter of sex, due to risk of STDs and pregnancy, even if protection is used (protection works very well, but not 100% because nobody uses it ideally). I'm undecided on this issue as of now.

I would like to pose the question though, should abstinence be even encouraged? Attempting to mandate it is a bad idea, I know, but I've noticed that those who were given a comprehensive sex education that promotes abstinence tend to actually follow it and actually stay abstinent as opposed to those only exposed to abstinence only. But again, even knowing that abstinence removes pretty much all risk from sex while safe sex does so MOST but not all of the time, should we be encouraging our teenagers to stay abstinent (while also teaching safe sex) or should we encourage sexual activity (with safe sex)?

We should teach personal responsibility when it comes to sexual activity. One way of exercising that is thru safe sex but abstinence is the only fail safe way. If you get pregnant or an STD then it is your responsibility.

So basically, the same view as I have- but some people have said that encouraging abstinence is still implicit slut shaming, is useless, and counterproductive, as it still encourages sexual repression.

Encouraging abstinence through shaming is harmful and ineffective.
Abstinence should be encouraged because there are many physical and emotional consequences of sex with which a young person may not be prepared to cope. But no one should be made to feel ashamed if they DO become sexually active.

Shaming is something that mostly the abstinence-only dumbasses do, really. But what I'm talking about is that some people say that even encouraging abstinence is still implicit slut shaming.

I would disagree with those people. Parents/teachers/adults encourage and discourage young people about all sorts of behavior and choices. Why not sex? If someone thinks their teenager will benefit from being sexually active, then by all means they should encourage it. The great majority of parents, however, probably feel sex is NOT in their teenager's best interest. In that case, they absolutely should discourage it. That's the job of a parent - looking out for your offspring's best interests.

Of course, you have those fundie idiot parents who ruin everything and cause all the pregnancies and STDs out of their kids rebelling...

And another common thing for those people who are against even encouraging abstinence to say is that:
1. Safe sex is pretty much perfectly effective and that people who are against even taking that slight risk are just paranoid
2. Having sex is healthier than not having sex (exercise, bonding, release of stress, etc)
The first I think is understating failure rates of condoms and birth control, the other...not sure if that's true or not.

This does not address the emotional/psychological effects of sexual activity



Run, swim, hug, masturbate, meditate.... Does anyone seriously think their teen should have sex because it's GOOD EXERCISE?

Such as? I'd like some good arguments- the other website that I'm running this thread on (NationStates) is ridiculously left-wing.



Not so much that as bonding and release of stress. Basically, their argument rests on the premise that since teens will be having sex anyways, there's nothing you can do about it and you might as well should encourage it for the benefits and hope they use protection (and anyone pointing out that protection is not always effective is labeled as paranoid and irrational, as sex between two people without STDs is pretty much safe).

I don't know about that. Especially for boys, I think there are next to no emotional consequenses. I imagine that even a lot of girls are perfectly ready for sex at a very young age. I mean, nature obviously intended teenagers to be making babies (hence the high sex drive), so it naturally follows that most would be emotionally ready for it. Physical consequences, well, you have a point there.

Personally, I've chosen to wait a while to have sex until I'm in a stable, loving relationship with someone I feel very emotionally comfortable with. But other people usually choose to have sex at a young age, and I honestly don't see what's wrong with it.

Teens, you have to admit, rarely have sex for the right reasons, and are less likely to ensure their own safety. For example, I would suggest going beyond simply using condoms and birth control- I would have a partner tested for STDs before we did anything. I am curious about the "emotional consequences" part though- I've heard it mentioned a lot but is there a basis for it? And if so, what exactly are those consequences?

that however is only because of lacking sex ed at a proper age,
abstinence can easily be mentioned and explained in sex ed but it cannot and should not replace it.

I don't think anyone here is advocating replacing it. But some people (on forums at a game that I play) say that even encouraging abstinence is a bad idea, and I want to see if you at WP agree.

to me that depends entirely on how and why abstinence is encouraged.

it is at times used in a way as a weapon meant to stop people having sex(this shouldnt be the goal, personal safety and personal desire should be a goal)

there is limited material and substance in abstinence so i also dont think it should be more than one of the half dozen options discussed, it shouldnt take precedence.

Last edited by Oodain on 15 Dec 2012, 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm personally not on board with it.
"Encouraging" no sex = DISCOURAGING sex, and there's enough repression surrounding sexuality in our culture, and by that, I mean real, honest human sexuality.

People for some time now have been made for some reason uncomfortable with the idea that many teenagers WANNA F*CK,
and they refuse to believe that them acting on their inclinations can be anything but bad, for no other reason than their age.

It's about time they got over it.

Now that I've thought it out, here's my opinion on the issue. Sex ed classes should encourage no particular view on sex aside from being safe and avoiding unwanted consequences. However, the material should be presented in an unbiased way, giving due consideration to each viewpoint and possible course of action, but favoring none. However, if parents wish to encourage their child to remain abstinent (without guilting or shaming them), then they absolutely have the right to do that. There's nothing wrong with a parent sharing their beliefs with their kids, as long as they don't try to force them on them.