<p>I think we can agree that the time to educate our kids about about sexual health, whether you choose to promote abstinence as part of that message or not, is long before our kids are off to college. My question was specifically to Beliavsky about his post #270, which stated
I am still hoping he will clarify this. Is he saying that a highly-ranked school is worth the risk that his by-then adult (18 and up) children might engage in sexual activity while they’re away from home, but that a lower-ranked school does not justify that same possibility? I just don’t get what the students’ academic records have to do with their sexual choices.</p>
<p>Parents send their children to 4-year residential schools so that they can </p>
<p>(1) study at the college level
(2) get a valuable credential for the work force
(3) enjoy the “college experience”</p>
<p>Some parents may judge the “college experience” to have little or negative value, so that if their children can still accomplish (1) and (2) by attending college at home, the parents may prefer that, especially if the residential college choices available to the child are not more rigorous or prestigious.</p>
<p>Riprorin see post by Lindz. I don’t think it’s prudent to " only" promote abstinence based on the research. We can hope our children will “wait” for many good reasons, but expecting this leads to many unwanted pregnancies. Children whose parents teach abstinence don’t use birth control because that means they were " planning on having sex" which has been frowned upon. In order to remain “virtuous,” they tell themselves this was done in the heat of the moment and won’t happen again. Unfortunately is usually does and without protection.It is the abstinence only parents who are often the last to know that junior is sexually active.</p>
<p>I promoted that my son avoid physical confrontations. I paid for and took him to Tae Kwon Do lessons for 9 years.</p>
<p>I promoted systematic and continuous car maintenance but taught him how to change a tire and jump a battery.</p>
<p>I paid for tuition at a school that taught US government even though he could not vote until age 18.</p>
<p>I promoted delaying sexual activity, but paid tuition to a school that taught safe sex practices.</p>
<p>I promoted abstinence from alcohol, but explained that rather than ride with a driver who had been drinking or drive himself if he had been drinking, he could call me.</p>
<p>My parents did not promote abstinence. They promoted safe choices, healthy choices, and how to protect myself. My parents are not idiots- they knew I would have sex before marriage just like they did. Hell, my parents told me NOT to wait until marriage. My mom told me from a fairly young age that sex is indeed a rather important part of committed, long-term relationships and that you should make sure you’re sexually compatible before committing to spending your life with that person. </p>
<p>Oh, and we’re not religious so we don’t hold any religious connotations about premarital sex. It’s a basic biological function and we treat it as any other. It has increased risks, but so do many things. They taught me about those risks and made sure I had proper protection. </p>
<p>Seems to have worked out well.</p>
<p>I will not promote abstinence with my children. I will empower them to make their own choices about whether they want to practice abstinence or safer sex practices (preferably within long-term committed relationships).</p>
<p>I never promoted abstinence, but I have always given my kids the opinion that I think physical intimacy should be intimate. I gave them the information to make their own informed choices.</p>
<p>And the openness to talk to me, to get birth control, and ask any questions they might have had.</p>
<p>I had a standard speech about the condomn, which I’ve actually overheard them giving verbatim to friends, as in, 'If you aren’t ready to go and buy condomns, you aren’t ready for sex." etc…</p>
<p>But, I think the problem with abstinence only teaching is that it is so often the girls without information who end up with unwanted consequences. So, it’s useless to prevent disease.</p>
<p>That was my mom too. I didn’t get the sense that she thought marriage before sex was the ideal and she was just “being realistic”. She believed sex was an important part of a committed relationship, though, and was very concerned that I not rush into it or be coerced into it before I was ready. Also concerned that I protect myself against STDs and pregnancy.</p>
<p>I teach my kids that I think sex should be part of a committed relationship - but I wasn’t abstinent before marriage, nor were my parents. Why should they be?</p>
<p>I read it the same way, redpoint What a sad commentary on this culture that other people are simply usable and disposable. And diseases didn’t go anywhere. What a risky way to live.</p>
<p>Don’t get overly depressed TM. There are other articles on here, with valid up to date stats, which indicate this is no more prevalent today than it ever was.</p>
<p>I am one of those 2 parent, work all hours couples and if we could have married an additional wife or husband to take up the slack when my kids were young I would have gotten hitched w a third spouse in the relationship in a heartbeat. Who wants to clean toilets or the cat vomit? Not me. I always think that people make a huge deal about how wonderful being a SAHM is until something goes south… Then everyone crabs about paying alimony for life. And she’s been home for 20 years w no up to date skills and a blank resume. I think if you are pushing for your wife to stay home you should pay her a salary and she should invest it under her own name.</p>
<p>Also , I would never promote abstinence . Given the later dates for marriage these days, would you really want a 35 year old virginal child w no life experience?</p>
) lol</p>