I'm sorry, but this video is stupid. it is human nature to have sex. i oont believe there is a God until i actually see him. but, from a christian standpoint, "god" made sex hormones.. he created biology.. biological studies prove that its is HUMAN NATURE to have sex. Bashing people who do is mean. And yeah waiting til your married is nice, but that was really implanted in peoples head way back in the day when they got married YOUNG so idgaf if ppl have sex. put SEX EDUCATION in all schools. :)
I can't believe we're wasting so much money on this useless garbage. If I was in class being taught that, I'd force myself to drink the spit just to prove a fucking point.
true. you shouldn't have sex before you are ready... but I don't believe in waiting till marriage. people are sexual beings by design.
The truth is most teens statistically 80-85% of tyhem lose their virginity before high school anyay.. and a lot of them form happy successful marriages later on and families without the guilt of losing their virginity
I will definitely not have sex before i marry. However. This kind of program is wrong. This is just going to make non virgins feel bad. It's not wrong to have sex it just depends on what your conscious tells you. Follow your heart.
@robertsfunny1995 or like... idk any other parts of the economy.. like any of it. dude, reading your comments... i thoroughly believe you have no idea what your talking about.
if your being sarcastic in these at all then you clearly dont understand the internet or sarcasm.
Thats awful This mindwashing is what creates bullies in high school one rumor gets out about a girl having sex and then al lthe people who have been in this course think that people who have had sex are just trash when there just as human as anyone else
@thatgraymoon yeah, if it's time for people to stop wasting tax-dollars on abstinence programs then it should also be the time people start listening to them‼
Parents, this is exactly what these abstinence-only classes are teaching your kids. They teach them that they become less human once they've had sex. An OBJECT loses it's value when it's considered "used". Not a human being.
the teacher of this class ironically has candy that hasnt been chewed, so if you want some candy just stay after class and he hands it out in his red, windowless van.
The ideas behind these abstinence-only campaigns are... abhorrent? Barbaric? Deranged? Is there a word that means all three?
It's not the abstinence thing in itself that's so objectionable; it's the reasoning behind it, the "cup of spit" routine.
Seriously, it shouldn't bother someone that their partner, male or female, has had previous partners. I like to know that a girl I'm about to kiss hasn't given a bj to some other guy earlier in the day, but that's the limit of my arrogance.
@JCLeSinge True point but I'm actually one of those girls who've had many boyfriends and they all asked me to do stuff, but yet i never did anything with them. Because I believe in waiting, not necessarily until marriage but until I find someone I truly love. So yeah...even though it's so rare, i'm actually one of those few girls.
Bizarrely, I've seen exactly the same metaphors used by feminist thinkers... although they were more in the line of promoting lesbianism on the grounds that otherwise successions of evil bastard men would "spit" in a woman as if she were a cup, then steal her "petals".
@bbphnix: Human sexuality is a vast spectrum. There's room for abstinence until marriage if some people choose, same as some people are naturally celibate. Polygamy isn't the universal nature of all people; some are naturally polygamous, others are monogamous, same as some people are gay or bisexual. About the only things that should be sexually taboo are kids and animals.
I would honestly pull my kids out (if I had them) from any school that allows this to be taught. It's utterly shocking that this is what passes for sex education in a developed country.
Hahah, whoooa. So, how young is the target age here? Cause this seems like it was written for elementary students and that is FUCKED up. This should only be shown to seniors in high school who already know enough to think for themselves (hopefully) and might at least find it amusing.
What! How wrong it is to teach young minds this crap! Its saying once you have sex you're a filthy piece of shit and no one will want you anymore. Its strange during my school days (22 year old here) we were taught to have self-esteem and pride in ourselves no matter what, that backfired and made my generation a selfish bunch of assholes but NOW LOOK! They're teaching children the contrary...have sex before marriage and be ashamed forevermore-the end! Stupid...
Oh my gosh, just listening to that makes me want to puke. What kind of sick person would teach kids that they loose all their beauty and value if they have sex before marriage? Did it ever occur to this speaker that some of the kids that he/she is talking to were victims of rape or incest? Does s/he want to re victimize these children? What of the kids who have already had sex? How can you tell a child that they are already worthless? What utterly hateful, damaging tripe.
I think there is something to be said of telling students that unless they are virgins they are less of a person.
...I think it's this kind of attitude, one that suggests that sexual women are less valuable then women who abstain from sex, both promotes abuse, and makes victims of abuse reluctant to report it. This is true for all women, regardless if they have a hymen or not.
Ok seriously, abstinence is great, I condone it. but to teach children that you lose your beauty and value just because you have had sex prior to marriage??? AND I AM NOT PARTIALLY CHEWED AND SPIT OUT CANDY! This is ignorant and disgusting to know that this is what you're teaching your children.
This is so stupid. Abstinence, while it is a good option for not getting STDs/STIs, is not the only option to teach young people. If school officials think this will work, they really need to look at the percentages of teen pregnancies. If this is all they are teaching in schools, those percentages will go up. Teens need to learn about sex and how to protect themselves in case they decide to start having it. Telling someone that they're vile and disgusting just for having sex is absurd.
i whuld not want to have sex with someone that has no experience in it. virgins are so naive and have unrealistic expetations. having experiencs spouse is good for your sex life.
What are we teaching our children!?!?! Seriously, I am so PO'ed about this! So if they don't fit into a perfect little box, if they aren't little angels at all times, and if they make mistakes, they are trash, used pieces of candy that no one will ever want again? WTF????? We need to teach kids to value themselves and to yes, not have sex with everything that moves, but also that it is important to be safe if they do decide to have sex with someone.
I think the risk of AIDS and whatnot, nevermind the risk of having a kid, is enough to instill a similar cup-of-spit image in the most impressionable minds. Maybe this'll end up backfiring like DARE... How many stories have we heard about kids going drug-gung-ho after learning what lies they had been taught?
Another thing. Who's teaching lessons like these?! It's ludicrous and not believable and if anyone has been teaching like this they are the in the minority. Also, you're almost 3 months late in your fight as the federal gov't stopped funding to abstinence only educators in Sept. And your measurement for success is wrong - a center in my area provides education and medical services and counseling and has a 70% conversion rate from those who consider abortion to those who deliver.
This is stupid. From a Christian point of view, abstinence is the ONLY acceptable choice. It is a wall built at the edge of a cliff to keep our kids from going over. But we are to be at the bottom of the cliff with an ambulance just in case. No one is disgusting for losing their virgnity before they should. Btw, condoms don't protect hearts (from abortion aftermath or being dumped). Abstinence is the only guaranteed protection.
@333daughteroftheKing Never leaving your house is your only guaranteed protection against getting hit by a car. But doing that would be ridiculous, so we teach children to be vigilant when walking on the sidewalk & crossing the street. You talk about condoms not protecting hearts, but neither does paralyzing people with fear that having sex will cause irreparable psychological damage. Teach kids to be mature & value themselves for who they are, not for who you want them to be.
@333daughteroftheKing America is not a Christian nation. Read the treaty of tripoli from 1787. America is a secular nation. You are free to believe in God and act religiously in any way you wish(as long as your beliefs don't violate the law), but the constitution forbids endorsement of religion and religious laws(seperation of church and state).
Not everyone believes in abstinence, and not everyone stays abstinate. Sex ed is to teach safe sex for people who don't. Religion can't be taught.
This is disturbing... This is like saying wait till marriage and show kids to not used condoms and other kinds of preservatives and its wrong. I wish if they are going make a Abstinence video at least mention the preservatives at least.
This is all true! When I was in highschool they make us chew up food and spit it in the water and then told us that the cup of chewed food and water was someone who wasnt a virgin
Agreed. I was in a residential treatment center at 17 because of the emotional problems stemming from sexual abuse. We were taught that all sexual contact was dangerous, until marriage- like marriage was going to shield us from disease and bad feelings. When they told us that having sex with one person meant having sex with all their partners, the whole group of girls erupted into tears- this meant some of them had slept with family members by being raped.
@babyfister I'm sorry to hear that; it was insensitive to say that them. I never really saw the logic with sleeping with the other partners, it's not like the fluid or finger prints stay on the person.
At first I thought this was about abstinence but I realized it is the complete opposite. If you think about it, abstinence defies the human purpose of replication. Having sex does not make you "used" or anything like that.
I was in an Abstinence Only lecture at church as a kid. They told us to imagine that our sexuality was like a pearl necklace (fundy perv) with a big jewel in the middle that we would wear on our wedding days. Every time we kissed someone we would give away one of the small pearls, if we had oral sex a bigger pearl would be lost. If we didn't practice abstinence then our wedding day we would have nothing beautiful to wear. I'm getting married next year and I hate jewelry anyways.
This is disgusting. I can't believe that children are taught this in school. This is shame based education and it not only doesn't it work but it would cause kids to look down on others who make different choices then they do.
@smexytbone Even if a couple are married, if intercourse is non consensual (as in, she does NOT want to have sex but the husband has sex with her anyway) that is rape.
Im sorry, I will NOT preach Abstinence to my children!! The message here is that there is something WRONG with the child, or person, that they are WORTHLESS. No fucking way !!! Let me find out the public school is preaching this GARBAGE to my kids....On like Donkey Kong!!!
Yeah keep the fundamentalist crap away from our children while they are in public school, please ... I dont give a damn if 99% of their parents are Mormons, that shouldnt be how we do things :( And dear God don`t send me the bill for the douche who thought of telling kids to drink spit
Hi! Great video. I'd change one thing: dont say that STUDENTS have been harmed by this crap, say OUR CHILDREN....that brings it closer to home i think.
End it? Why not change it? The methods use to bring across the point aren't effective and in many ways demeaning but the general message is not bad...
@Oats162 I disagree...the general message here is that there is something wrong with you, or you are foul and disgusting if you have sex before marriage. That is a bad message. Yes, abstinence is a valid option, but the reasons they are giving to wait are not valid or healthy ones.
Mm, yes, it's difficult, but I.. kind of take offense to the idea that it's "selfish." I understand what you meant, but I would equate it to saying that "getting a divorce is selfish." It's not-- living with integrity cannot be considered selfish.
On legalities and social stigma, the poly community has a lot of overlaps with the kink community. Progress through one generation at a time, right? ;)
No I wasn't really speaking to the effectiveness or not of pro-abstinence. This would be more direct to that:
"Despite years of evaluation in this area, there is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education delays teen sexual activity. Moreover, recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs."
Also, bah! canadians! :P It's not the same, you don't have our govn't.
@morgainari Yeah, I don't know, I'd describe Canada as more laid back I guess, but I guess that thought stems from general stereotypes, lol
I have no idea how one would conduct a survey that shows the correlation between abstinence only strategies and contraceptive use, and even if it was indeed a strong survey, I would struggle to call something as generalized as that as a strong correlation.
ahh, pro-abstinence. Personally it definitely didn't hurt me, but it may not have helped either =/
We lack a supportive infrastructure for raising children, period. We lack a supportive infrastructure for teaching kids how to create healthy and satisfying relationships, period.
@morgainari I meant more like lawfully, and the treatment the kids might have from other people who find out about their situation, it's like an exponent on top of all the problems normal relationships have, it's hard to basically make a commitment to a poly family for the rest of your life for your children I could imagine when culture doesn't even accept it yet.
Ew. I just realized I managed to use "assumptions" twice in a sentence. That was unintended.
Also, Some lovely statistics! Guttmacher Institute:
"...for the first time since the early 1990s, overall teen pregnancy rates increased in 2006, rising 3%." "...The US continues to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates n the developed world--almost twice as high as those of england, wales, and canada..." "By 2002, 1/3rd of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception."
@morgainari The problem is statistics like this could be skewed for so many reasons. I live in the city, and there is not one teen who doesn't know about contraception. My personal theory is that it's not being implemented in rural areas as effectively, where the transfer of information may be slower and facilitated less efficiently.
but then again, I live in Canada ;)
also, the stat shouldn't be generalized to relate to the overall effectiveness of pro-abstinence, but that's obvious xD
And at what age, exactly, should we say someone is "old enough to understand safe sex"?
I'm not sure if you keep missing that this ad is highlighting the flaws of abstinence-only sex ed, cause you keep saying "this is why this ad exists." For the record, most anti-drug campaigns are moronic also.
But abstinence-only programs are UNETHICAL because research has proven not just that they don't work, but that they're DANGEROUS because they encourage kids NOT to use condoms for fear of being "sluts
0. I realize it's not an ad but can I just continue to refer to it as such since it is almost what it's kind of become >_>
1. Yeah, because people not getting married until later means not getting married at all -_-
I don't think monogamy is the one true way at all either. I believe that there is no better way to raise a child right now than monogamy though. That is my argument. I can't think of a decent other way to raise a child. Let me know what you think..
@Lampheader I also said that plenty of people are regularly choosing NOT to get married. Not everyone chooses marriage, it's that simple.
Monogamy alone is not a good model to adhere to because of a belief that it's healthier for children, and here's why: monogamy does not garauntee that the relationship is not dysfunctional, and dysfunctional relationship models are far more damaging to children's later ability to develop healthy interpersonal relationships with others, than divorce...
@Lampheader ...or healthy, non-monogamous relationships. Most child psychology research supports the idea that supportive and loving environments, regardless of the actual configuration of parents, step parents, adoptive parents, gay parents, or non-parental adults in the home, is what is most important for kids. Kids of poly parents are not growing up irrepairably damaged and derranged, any more than kids of gay parents or straight married couples.
@morgainari Here's my problem with poly parents. My mom and dad worked countless jobs as immigrants from Asia just to support me and themselves. They were always there for me, all the time, and man, if they weren't, I'd hate to see how that would color my life.
It makes sense in theory. But I just cannot imagine a father/mother who splits time between multiple families being there for their children just as much as if they were all living under one household. Maybe that makes me right, or not..
@Lampheader I think you might be basing your assumptions of what a poly family looks like on some assumptions...? Most of the poly people I know, kids are a very very big deal, and bringing them into the picture requires a lot of thoughtful consideration. The idea of having "multiple families" is not really how poly relationships usually work, because usually the highest tenent is to keep the kids' lives stable, and negotiate relationships around the idea, "It takes a village to raise a child"
@morgainari And I would agree with the idea of poly families, except I find the idea of poly families selfish. Like obviously, in theory, the idea is great, but the execution of it is at least difficult and comes with certain hardships, at least in this generation. We don't have the infrastructure in place for it, and I'm sure you know what I mean. The difference is I speak in terms that reflect and relate to current times, and you keep talking about the theoretical value of everything.
I meant we use the word "dirty", among other ways, to describe someone who's had sex with a lot of people or is very sexually promiscuous, possibly. Obviously, we do, for better or worse. I say no emotional attachment because it means people have fully objectified sex, which normally wouldn't be a problem, except in this society AGAIN because you're missing the crux of the point, everyone gets MARRIED in this society. And that's why being "dirty" doesn't fly in society, and I get that as a teen
@Lampheader Everyone does NOT get married in this society, there are higher than ever rates of adults choosing to put off marriage, the average age of first marriage is older than it has ever been, and plenty of adults choose NOT to get married at all. That's not even including those of us that don't give a crap about what society says about how monogamy is the "One True Way." And it is crap, I assure you.
@Lampheader Likewise, a "large" # of sexual partners (however you define that) is not defacto proof of objectification of sex. You can objectify sex and still claim abstinence; you can objectify sex and be married to your first and only sexual partner. Larger #'s of partners has a statistically increased risks for exposure to disease, but that depends highly on whether said person is mindful of safety precautions or not. Driving a car is fucking dangerous if you don't wear a seatbelt too.
@morgainari Look, objectifying sex is obviously ok, it's like how owning guns is ok. The problem is you're giving people the means with which to amplify the effects of bad decisions they make in their lives. If there was abstinence, there would be no teenage pregnancy, for one. I'm saying abstinence might make sense to push onto your kids for as long as you can because by the time they figure out otherwise, they've matured enough to handle sex in a safe manner.
@Lampheader No no no. Pushing abstinence onto your kids for as long as possible has such a horrible effect of distorting what sex actually IS. It's like setting up alcohol as this monolithic substance that only adults can ever have-- it makes you want to drink alcohol so that you can BE an adult. Or it makes you afraid of alcohol. But it fails to teach you that alcohol is neither good nor bad, only what you do with it that really matters.
@morgainari NO NO NO. Look, I went to a catholic high school. So abstinence is pushed everywhere. They bring in teenage parents to further illustrate the fact. Fact of the matter is, we live in the 21st century. We have some of the most informed kids ever concerning this. You could google sex and you'd immediately get a general idea of what it is. No one I know had sex just because they wanted to be an adult, or anything like that. They're attracted to the other gender and want to have sex..
No, there is "something wrong with that", because there's no reason to associate being dirty with having lots of partners. Having lots of partners (or people "thinking" that you have had lots of partners) doesn't make someone "dirty," unless somehow you are associating that with the sex itself. Btw, why are you associating Large # of partners = low emotional attachment?
@Lampheader And dating a guy who's been with "thousands" of girls is so much better? Actually, it would worse, because in men a lot of STDs are not as likely to show symptoms, and some don't even show up at all.
it's the societal aspect I'm appealing to. Would you like your mate to have been/be a huge slut in the past? Probably not, because it says something about their overall character
I mean this is certainly in the extreme, and this education sucks because it does absolutely nothing to deter girls and guys from having sex at all anyways, I'm just pointing out that it's just a very aggressive and exaggerated way of putting something real
@Lampheader No, it is not "putting something real." The idea that there is something horrible and dirty about sex is at the very core of this "you wouldn't want to have sex with [someone who's had too many partners], would you?" idea.
Look I know that it's easy to think, "Well yeah, someone who would have sex with just ANYONE..." but try to break that down: What is a "huge slut"? how many is too many? 5? 10? 15? 50? 200? What counts as sex? PIV intercourse? Oral? Anal? Fingering? Same-sex?
@morgainari you're trying too hard to be politically correct. I like to think of dirty as just having dual meanings, since English is king of homonyms. Someone who has sex with a lot of people without emotional attachment might be called "dirty" as slang. And there's nothing wrong with that.
The problem is sticking this person in a society that has generally accepted monogamous relationships. You see the conflict in interest of adults telling children "sex everyone up?" I see it, and I'm 19...
@Lampheader No, there is "something wrong with that", because there's no reason to associate being dirty with having lots of partners. Having lots of partners (or people "thinking" that you have had lots of partners) doesn't make someone "dirty," unless somehow you are associating that with the sex itself. Btw, why are you associating Large # of partners = low emotional attachment?
@Lampheader I see a constant conflict between adults trying to tell "children" (that is how they look at teenagers, whether they ought to or not) about safer sex because of health reasons, while gritting their teeth because they don't really want to be encouraging those same "children" that it's "okay to have sex." But that conflict is something I'm constantly trying to correct, because it's basic premise that we don't want teens having sex is flawed.
@morgainari If you're not old enough to understand safe sex, then you're not old enough to have it period. There's one problem. Another problem is kids who become desensitized/addicted/reliant on sex, which by itself isn't a problem, but goes hand in hand with a bunch of other problems I'm sure you could imagine. You know what's a good way of preventing these problems? Kids not having sex at all. Thus, the reason why this ad exists.
@Lampheader Desensitization or reliant on sex is an issue that is not unique to "kids", nor is it a symptom inherent to teenagers having sex. Research has indicated that sexual activity among high schoolers with healthy self-esteem and mental outlooks, is actually correlated with increased academic performance, and feelings of being supported, probably due to the intimacy of their relationships. You have to disassociate the sex, from the pathologies that may be lurking in the general population.
@morgainari Abstinence is, however, an outdated concept because it's efficient. Safe sex is something far better to push because it's realistic and non-limiting and cool, but it has to be tempered with the right cultural perspective as well. Look, I did high school. The nerds who did well and made good decisions with their lives mostly stayed to themselves, had relationships with a girl/guy or what not, but never really virginity stealing stuff. The people who did were also stoners, worse peers
@Lampheader And you also have to disassociate the "sex as a destructive behavior," from OTHER destructive behaviors, because focusing on the sex rather than an overall society that is damaging to self image and encourages negative behaviors as a root cause -- makes all attempts at solving the problem moot. So no, "kids not having sex at all" is NOT "a good way of preventing these problems."
@morgainari It was never like, "you know what, we shouldn't do sex because my parents said so", it was like "I'm not ready to get emotionally involved right before I go to university and I'm 16". If you tell kids simply that it's ok to have sex, this kind of level-headed thinking is going to get lost in a lot of places. This is why I think the actual best path is promoting safe sex, but having certain values that abstinence pushes hard (being emotionally ready, finding the right person) is good.
@Lampheader I went to high school too :P lol, I promise. I agree that "I'm not ready to be having sex yet" is a really awesome statement, and that's what we should most be pushing for, but even most "comprehensive sex ed" often fail this test.
And the "readiness" test isn't the same for everyone. I don't think that we need to be structuring this idea that sex is this really huge emotional commitment, omg you'll be with this person forever. (Regardless of marriage.) 20+'s can be stupid too.
@morgainari We're just agreeing with each other now on things >_>
The main point of disagreement was that the teacher was wrong for pushing abstinence like this. And I agree because:
- It's crude and explicit
- I personally don't have the same viewpoint
The second reason is irrelevant because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the teacher is pushing abstinence aggressively and effectively despite the two gripes because the point made may strike home with some, and I hope it NEVER WORKS
@Lampheader *Laughs* I'm okay with agreeing on plenty of things. But I will point out, a lot of teachers get stuck with abstinence-only education, or censored from talking more about sexual topics than they would prefer, because of local policy makers and fear of freaked out parents that can ruin careers.
@morgainari Finally, the real problem with this ad is that it's ineffective. It's because it's so "wrong". It's not "wrong", it's just politically wrong. There is a lot of societal truth to what the bear says, lol, it's just so crude and poorly thought out.
Let me contrast with an example. Anti-drug campaigns often depict images of drugged out victims, or people who are down and out after doing drugs. This isn't fair for the same reason that it isn't fair to look down upon sex before marriage.
@morgainari And finally finally, if anti-drug campaigns are allowed to show a skewed image of drug-users, then I don't see any reason why something like an abstinence campaign can't show a skewed perspective of oft-sex-users. Again, this ad sucks because it's crude and ineffective, but I think that it is the correct direction for pro-abstinence people to go if they wanted to push their point. But the idea of abstinence doesn't work in the 21st century. Haha..
Not to mention the fact that assigning "value" to a person based on their sexual history is really fucked up in that is serves to create and perpetuate a climate of sexual violence and patriarchy. Way to go, Christianity!
comfortable doing it (which I’m sure the aforementioned politicians could have benefitted from knowing). This means having information on how to avoid pregnancy and STIs (including abstinence!) from a REALISTIC mindset that acknowledges the fact that people are clearly having sex, and that shaming ourselves for being sexual is only harming society.
clear that condemning and denying your own sexuality will only lead to disaster (not to mention the fact that Christianity is totally hypocritical, misinformed, and downright untrue). Therefore, the LAST thing our society – which, much like ancient Greece and Rome, is highly sexualized – needs is the next generation of people being taught that it is WRONG and BAD to sleep around.People should be able to do whatever they want and should feel
What we REALLY need is a program that, rather than denying children the right to accurate information about not only sex and sexual health, but human sexuality in all its complexity, including having healthy relationships, respecting ourselves and others, etc. Not only do the states with abstinence-only education programs also happen to have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STIs, but one internet search of Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Troy King, etc. etc. will make
WRONG outside of marriage and that you are BAD if you masturbate and that you will go to HELL if you happen to be gay and that you have SINNED if you want to express yourself sexually in whatever way that happens to be. It’s no wonder that you’re making comments like “Hollywood is spending way more on ways to promote that it is okay to sleep around” – you’ve clearly been brainwashed into thinking sex is BAD and WRONG too!
available to the public and the public was beginning to understand that – gasp! – most people actually WANT to have sex! In fact, without intense sexual urges (ie. hormones), we would. ..actually…never…reproduce. Ever! Ironically, the Christian beliefs behind the abstinence-only programs that are the real problem here; they preach that sex is
thank you for making this video. Abstinence-only sex education never helps children, it only hurts them & makes them feel like worthless garbage. i am a teen myself and although i know I am worth more than my hymen, I cannot say that about other girls my age. especially girls who already have body & self-worth issues.
Love the bears by the way.
Maybe in the next vid you can focus on how teens are more likely to have more dangerous forms of intercourse when they go through Abstinence only
The creators are genius. I love the bears and I love the exposure of the reality and BS around abstinence only education. Thanks for th service. I am big fan.
Yes I agree that it is alarming that the U.S. spent over $1.5 billion for abstinence-only programs but when Hollywood is spending way more on ways to promote that it is okay to sleep around. You can turn on the TV or go to a movie and when do you see them helping the situation that our youth face. They are making more money then the US spends to try and aid in these circumstances. I think we are mad at the wrong people on this one. Children spend more time watching TV and Movies than in class
@num1opinion You make a good point, in a way, but Hollywood doesn't use taxpayer money to make those movies. And parents can turn off or disconnect the TV.
Teaching kids about avoiding negative consequences of sex by teaching them to abstain is like training soldiers by telling them that the best way to stay alive in a firefight is to avoid war and all fighting in the first place.
@num1opinion I've read that research seems to show that 1of the best ways to avoid negative consequences of sex is a combination of things, the most important factor being that a consequence-free and open place be provided for kids to ask questions and have frank discussions.
Somehow I doubt the things they're teaching here provide a safe and open environment for frank discussions, anymore than a preacher/congregation chanting "God hates gays" encourages a struggling gay teen to open up.
@num1opinion II totally disagree with you when you say that you think we're "mad at the wrong people." While I can see how you’d think that, I don’t think you’re looking at the issue broadly enough. The fact that Hollywood is often highly sexualized isn’t reflective of the entertainment industry in itself, but is rather a testament to what is considered acceptable by society. This makes sense in the context of the broader civil rights movement, when the pill and abortion finally became...
Just substitute "sex" for "christian fundamentalism" and "virgin" for "christian fundamentalist" and you pretty much have the definition of institutionalized ignorance...and troglodytic morality.
It appears that abstinence makes you perverted and insane.
bcourter82 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WOW....This reminded me of my video, Prescription Strength Abstinence - check it out on my channel.
HedgesPictures 1 month ago
@robertsfunny1995 and @smexytbone I think he/she mean spousal rape, as in your husband/wife rape you when you clearly doesn't want sex.
jjbunny79 2 months ago
Abstinence-only education teaches self-hate and rebellion and stresses fags. ENOUGH SAID
ilovetacos38 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AmplifyYourVoice
I'm sorry, but this video is stupid. it is human nature to have sex. i oont believe there is a God until i actually see him. but, from a christian standpoint, "god" made sex hormones.. he created biology.. biological studies prove that its is HUMAN NATURE to have sex. Bashing people who do is mean. And yeah waiting til your married is nice, but that was really implanted in peoples head way back in the day when they got married YOUNG so idgaf if ppl have sex. put SEX EDUCATION in all schools. :)
skw0416 4 months ago
I can't believe we're wasting so much money on this useless garbage. If I was in class being taught that, I'd force myself to drink the spit just to prove a fucking point.
BlankPacer 6 months ago
true. you shouldn't have sex before you are ready... but I don't believe in waiting till marriage. people are sexual beings by design.
The truth is most teens statistically 80-85% of tyhem lose their virginity before high school anyay.. and a lot of them form happy successful marriages later on and families without the guilt of losing their virginity
casablanca4381 6 months ago
I will definitely not have sex before i marry. However. This kind of program is wrong. This is just going to make non virgins feel bad. It's not wrong to have sex it just depends on what your conscious tells you. Follow your heart.
ladylunaray 7 months ago in playlist Animated bears
Dayum, these voice actors are good. Im glad they went all out to hire the best people.
D35troy3r199 7 months ago
Hey Use Candy is still Candy! lol
Se7enBeatleofDoom 8 months ago
These are THE most misogynistic cartoon kittens I have ever seen.
BlackstarSirius 9 months ago
I did not know that 2 GIRLS, 1 CUP is the curriculum in the Abstinence-Only Program. ><
ChavoMysterio 9 months ago 2
Well if we stop doing these programs the money will probably just go to those stupid homosexual "education" programs.
robertsfunny1995 9 months ago
@robertsfunny1995 or like... idk any other parts of the economy.. like any of it. dude, reading your comments... i thoroughly believe you have no idea what your talking about.
if your being sarcastic in these at all then you clearly dont understand the internet or sarcasm.
BASSunlimited 9 months ago
@robertsfunny1995 How about putting that money into better young driver's ed programs? Or Stop Rape Programmes?
GDOBSSOR 7 months ago
@robertsfunny1995 There. Are. A. SHITLOAD of better things to spend over a billion dollars on than this misogynistic rubbish.
GDOBSSOR 7 months ago
@GDOBSSOR But still. They'd end up wasting it all on that homosexual crap.
robertsfunny1995 7 months ago
@robertsfunny1995 Um, no they bloody wouldn't you blithering idiot.
GDOBSSOR 7 months ago
Thats awful This mindwashing is what creates bullies in high school one rumor gets out about a girl having sex and then al lthe people who have been in this course think that people who have had sex are just trash when there just as human as anyone else
mtneves77 9 months ago 2
Drinking spit? The piss, whenever I had one of those abstinence lessons I only heard the metaphors not experienced it -_-.
robertsfunny1995 10 months ago
@thatgraymoon yeah, if it's time for people to stop wasting tax-dollars on abstinence programs then it should also be the time people start listening to them‼
robertsfunny1995 10 months ago
Parents, this is exactly what these abstinence-only classes are teaching your kids. They teach them that they become less human once they've had sex. An OBJECT loses it's value when it's considered "used". Not a human being.
gir908922 10 months ago
the teacher of this class ironically has candy that hasnt been chewed, so if you want some candy just stay after class and he hands it out in his red, windowless van.
basketcase0a0 10 months ago
The ideas behind these abstinence-only campaigns are... abhorrent? Barbaric? Deranged? Is there a word that means all three?
It's not the abstinence thing in itself that's so objectionable; it's the reasoning behind it, the "cup of spit" routine.
Seriously, it shouldn't bother someone that their partner, male or female, has had previous partners. I like to know that a girl I'm about to kiss hasn't given a bj to some other guy earlier in the day, but that's the limit of my arrogance.
JCLeSinge 10 months ago
@JCLeSinge True point but I'm actually one of those girls who've had many boyfriends and they all asked me to do stuff, but yet i never did anything with them. Because I believe in waiting, not necessarily until marriage but until I find someone I truly love. So yeah...even though it's so rare, i'm actually one of those few girls.
smexytbone 9 months ago
Bizarrely, I've seen exactly the same metaphors used by feminist thinkers... although they were more in the line of promoting lesbianism on the grounds that otherwise successions of evil bastard men would "spit" in a woman as if she were a cup, then steal her "petals".
JCLeSinge 10 months ago
I think they should teach both. But definitely not like this!
vamplust667 10 months ago
I love spit.
DrFoxtopus 10 months ago
this is sickening..... premarital sex is a good thing, marriage all together is unnatural.... fuck this shit!!!!
bbphnix 11 months ago
@bbphnix: Human sexuality is a vast spectrum. There's room for abstinence until marriage if some people choose, same as some people are naturally celibate. Polygamy isn't the universal nature of all people; some are naturally polygamous, others are monogamous, same as some people are gay or bisexual. About the only things that should be sexually taboo are kids and animals.
JCLeSinge 10 months ago
@JCLeSinge interesting argument
bbphnix 10 months ago
@JCLeSinge interesting argument
bbphnix 10 months ago
JESUS CHRIST
LacedwCruelty 11 months ago
hahah i wish this happened in my school
Jakob1414 11 months ago
HAHAHA!
Whoever said that sex is like drinking a cup full of spit either has spit fetishes or has had some very terrible experiences.
HAAHA! XD
GoldenGal42 1 year ago 3
I would have drunk the cup down in one shot.
nvmarcus 1 year ago
Remember, if he beats you it's best to just say you fell, because you're spoiled goods now and no one else will ever want you.
blahsblah2001 1 year ago 3
I would honestly pull my kids out (if I had them) from any school that allows this to be taught. It's utterly shocking that this is what passes for sex education in a developed country.
ScreamingTc 1 year ago
14 people are virgins who drank a cup full of shit *ahem*... I mean spit.
moonodude17 1 year ago
Hahah, whoooa. So, how young is the target age here? Cause this seems like it was written for elementary students and that is FUCKED up. This should only be shown to seniors in high school who already know enough to think for themselves (hopefully) and might at least find it amusing.
FiggyMoonpowder 1 year ago
Isn't this just a dubbed over insurance commercial?
"I don't know we are just bears... or dogs or something."
I know I've seen this on TV before.
Kurimei 1 year ago
That was scary. I dont mean like abstaining was scary, the cartoon was so bad i had nightmears
GeneralJonyx 1 year ago
What! How wrong it is to teach young minds this crap! Its saying once you have sex you're a filthy piece of shit and no one will want you anymore. Its strange during my school days (22 year old here) we were taught to have self-esteem and pride in ourselves no matter what, that backfired and made my generation a selfish bunch of assholes but NOW LOOK! They're teaching children the contrary...have sex before marriage and be ashamed forevermore-the end! Stupid...
GhostWritersDragon 1 year ago 4
Ohhh God why was I eating when I was watching this?
jessicagreenwalt 1 year ago 3
I guess it's possible that my sexual partner could be aroused by my drinking a cup of other people's spit. If it worked, I'd do it!
mmbah543 1 year ago 4
Oh my gosh, just listening to that makes me want to puke. What kind of sick person would teach kids that they loose all their beauty and value if they have sex before marriage? Did it ever occur to this speaker that some of the kids that he/she is talking to were victims of rape or incest? Does s/he want to re victimize these children? What of the kids who have already had sex? How can you tell a child that they are already worthless? What utterly hateful, damaging tripe.
CanadianQueer 1 year ago 31
I had the spit one done at my school. Not very helpful in real life.
ladyinpink9 1 year ago 8
"They lose their beauty and value"
"Who would want used candy?"
I think there is something to be said of telling students that unless they are virgins they are less of a person.
...I think it's this kind of attitude, one that suggests that sexual women are less valuable then women who abstain from sex, both promotes abuse, and makes victims of abuse reluctant to report it. This is true for all women, regardless if they have a hymen or not.
mymelody955 1 year ago 8
What a shame that an unmarried, deflowered lady must force her partner to make due with her mere personality, friendship, affection, etc. ;)
mymelody955 1 year ago 6
Teens who learn abstinence rather than safe sex are the most likely to become pregnant.
anvita99 1 year ago 25
@anvita99 because they have sex anyway but aren't taught about protection.
howerut 1 year ago
Bitches are like chewed candy when I'm done with them, married or not
CapumOfOuttaSpace 1 year ago
Ok seriously, abstinence is great, I condone it. but to teach children that you lose your beauty and value just because you have had sex prior to marriage??? AND I AM NOT PARTIALLY CHEWED AND SPIT OUT CANDY! This is ignorant and disgusting to know that this is what you're teaching your children.
noawkwardsilences 1 year ago 3
This is so stupid. Abstinence, while it is a good option for not getting STDs/STIs, is not the only option to teach young people. If school officials think this will work, they really need to look at the percentages of teen pregnancies. If this is all they are teaching in schools, those percentages will go up. Teens need to learn about sex and how to protect themselves in case they decide to start having it. Telling someone that they're vile and disgusting just for having sex is absurd.
Daeism 1 year ago 5
i whuld not want to have sex with someone that has no experience in it. virgins are so naive and have unrealistic expetations. having experiencs spouse is good for your sex life.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
Oh god
nikoincroatia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I, for one, like chewed candy.
thegildedbat 1 year ago
I, for one, like chewed candy.
thegildedbat 1 year ago
What are we teaching our children!?!?! Seriously, I am so PO'ed about this! So if they don't fit into a perfect little box, if they aren't little angels at all times, and if they make mistakes, they are trash, used pieces of candy that no one will ever want again? WTF????? We need to teach kids to value themselves and to yes, not have sex with everything that moves, but also that it is important to be safe if they do decide to have sex with someone.
wildernessgrrrl 1 year ago 8
I think the risk of AIDS and whatnot, nevermind the risk of having a kid, is enough to instill a similar cup-of-spit image in the most impressionable minds. Maybe this'll end up backfiring like DARE... How many stories have we heard about kids going drug-gung-ho after learning what lies they had been taught?
a3453453452 1 year ago
Another thing. Who's teaching lessons like these?! It's ludicrous and not believable and if anyone has been teaching like this they are the in the minority. Also, you're almost 3 months late in your fight as the federal gov't stopped funding to abstinence only educators in Sept. And your measurement for success is wrong - a center in my area provides education and medical services and counseling and has a 70% conversion rate from those who consider abortion to those who deliver.
333daughteroftheKing 1 year ago
@333daughteroftheKing they're still recieving funding. which is why Texas is still teaching AOSE.
why all the chatter about abortion? i didn't see anything about it in this clip. i miss something on a previous page?
girlevolving 1 year ago
This is stupid. From a Christian point of view, abstinence is the ONLY acceptable choice. It is a wall built at the edge of a cliff to keep our kids from going over. But we are to be at the bottom of the cliff with an ambulance just in case. No one is disgusting for losing their virgnity before they should. Btw, condoms don't protect hearts (from abortion aftermath or being dumped). Abstinence is the only guaranteed protection.
333daughteroftheKing 1 year ago
@333daughteroftheKing Never leaving your house is your only guaranteed protection against getting hit by a car. But doing that would be ridiculous, so we teach children to be vigilant when walking on the sidewalk & crossing the street. You talk about condoms not protecting hearts, but neither does paralyzing people with fear that having sex will cause irreparable psychological damage. Teach kids to be mature & value themselves for who they are, not for who you want them to be.
FunnyFeminist 1 year ago 11
@333daughteroftheKing What about the virgin Mary? she was a virgin, and had a child. So no guarantees!
ZPM7 1 year ago 4
@333daughteroftheKing America is not a Christian nation. Read the treaty of tripoli from 1787. America is a secular nation. You are free to believe in God and act religiously in any way you wish(as long as your beliefs don't violate the law), but the constitution forbids endorsement of religion and religious laws(seperation of church and state).
Not everyone believes in abstinence, and not everyone stays abstinate. Sex ed is to teach safe sex for people who don't. Religion can't be taught.
farmerdude5 1 year ago
@333daughteroftheKing abstinence doesn't protect hearts either.
howerut 1 year ago
These people that come out with this shit are screwballs.
GANGARENE 1 year ago
This is disturbing... This is like saying wait till marriage and show kids to not used condoms and other kinds of preservatives and its wrong. I wish if they are going make a Abstinence video at least mention the preservatives at least.
Pupuki182 1 year ago
@Pupuki182 do you mean contraceptives? preservatives are used to keep food from spoiling.
elephant37020 1 year ago 3
This is all true! When I was in highschool they make us chew up food and spit it in the water and then told us that the cup of chewed food and water was someone who wasnt a virgin
christinamforte 1 year ago
I bet girls who were raped/molested just feel wonderful now. I can see this mentality in the late 1800's but now?
YaoiHuntressEarth 1 year ago
@YaoiHuntressEarth
Agreed. I was in a residential treatment center at 17 because of the emotional problems stemming from sexual abuse. We were taught that all sexual contact was dangerous, until marriage- like marriage was going to shield us from disease and bad feelings. When they told us that having sex with one person meant having sex with all their partners, the whole group of girls erupted into tears- this meant some of them had slept with family members by being raped.
babyfister 1 year ago
@babyfister I'm sorry to hear that; it was insensitive to say that them. I never really saw the logic with sleeping with the other partners, it's not like the fluid or finger prints stay on the person.
YaoiHuntressEarth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OMG.... this is disturbing
gryphonkeen 1 year ago
If having sex is wrong I don't want to be right.
MrDonkDonkerson 1 year ago 5
At first I thought this was about abstinence but I realized it is the complete opposite. If you think about it, abstinence defies the human purpose of replication. Having sex does not make you "used" or anything like that.
arturo74r 1 year ago
Comment removed
irisironside 1 year ago
@irisironside are you serious?? That's pathetic
gryphonkeen 1 year ago
I was in an Abstinence Only lecture at church as a kid. They told us to imagine that our sexuality was like a pearl necklace (fundy perv) with a big jewel in the middle that we would wear on our wedding days. Every time we kissed someone we would give away one of the small pearls, if we had oral sex a bigger pearl would be lost. If we didn't practice abstinence then our wedding day we would have nothing beautiful to wear. I'm getting married next year and I hate jewelry anyways.
irisironside 1 year ago
@irisironside Besides, someone who judges you on one factor alone is not the spouse for you.
YaoiHuntressEarth 1 year ago
This is disgusting. I can't believe that children are taught this in school. This is shame based education and it not only doesn't it work but it would cause kids to look down on others who make different choices then they do.
theMaverickJester 1 year ago
It's the people who teach these abstinence-only lessons who also don't believe in rape within marriage
Guysefton 1 year ago 72
@Guysefton I'm pretty sure they encourage rape within marriage
deut 22:28-29
figureoflight 1 year ago
@Guysefton I'm sure more than just the abstinence only teachers don't believe in rape within a marriage. Geez! Who does?!
333daughteroftheKing 1 year ago
@Guysefton What do you mean rape within marriage? Rape anywhere isn't right...
robertsfunny1995 10 months ago
@Guysefton What do you mean rape within marriage?
smexytbone 9 months ago
@smexytbone Even if a couple are married, if intercourse is non consensual (as in, she does NOT want to have sex but the husband has sex with her anyway) that is rape.
Guysefton 8 months ago
I wonder how the spit tasted?
dubopp 1 year ago
I would challenge abstinence advocates to produce a spit related metaphor for sex within marriage. Drinking hundreds of cups of the same spit?
GOG777 1 year ago 2
Im sorry, I will NOT preach Abstinence to my children!! The message here is that there is something WRONG with the child, or person, that they are WORTHLESS. No fucking way !!! Let me find out the public school is preaching this GARBAGE to my kids....On like Donkey Kong!!!
fullerton6609 1 year ago 4
This video makes me sad - abstinence programs hurt people
CroNuS19785 1 year ago
this is terrible!
nyldek 1 year ago
Yeah keep the fundamentalist crap away from our children while they are in public school, please ... I dont give a damn if 99% of their parents are Mormons, that shouldnt be how we do things :( And dear God don`t send me the bill for the douche who thought of telling kids to drink spit
c6burns 1 year ago 2
Hi! Great video. I'd change one thing: dont say that STUDENTS have been harmed by this crap, say OUR CHILDREN....that brings it closer to home i think.
Good work to whoever made this!
ashwix 1 year ago
End it? Why not change it? The methods use to bring across the point aren't effective and in many ways demeaning but the general message is not bad...
Oats162 1 year ago
@Oats162 I disagree...the general message here is that there is something wrong with you, or you are foul and disgusting if you have sex before marriage. That is a bad message. Yes, abstinence is a valid option, but the reasons they are giving to wait are not valid or healthy ones.
iamundinespragg 1 year ago 84
Mm, yes, it's difficult, but I.. kind of take offense to the idea that it's "selfish." I understand what you meant, but I would equate it to saying that "getting a divorce is selfish." It's not-- living with integrity cannot be considered selfish.
On legalities and social stigma, the poly community has a lot of overlaps with the kink community. Progress through one generation at a time, right? ;)
morgainari 1 year ago
No I wasn't really speaking to the effectiveness or not of pro-abstinence. This would be more direct to that:
"Despite years of evaluation in this area, there is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education delays teen sexual activity. Moreover, recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs."
Also, bah! canadians! :P It's not the same, you don't have our govn't.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari Yeah, I don't know, I'd describe Canada as more laid back I guess, but I guess that thought stems from general stereotypes, lol
I have no idea how one would conduct a survey that shows the correlation between abstinence only strategies and contraceptive use, and even if it was indeed a strong survey, I would struggle to call something as generalized as that as a strong correlation.
ahh, pro-abstinence. Personally it definitely didn't hurt me, but it may not have helped either =/
Lampheader 1 year ago
We lack a supportive infrastructure for raising children, period. We lack a supportive infrastructure for teaching kids how to create healthy and satisfying relationships, period.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari I meant more like lawfully, and the treatment the kids might have from other people who find out about their situation, it's like an exponent on top of all the problems normal relationships have, it's hard to basically make a commitment to a poly family for the rest of your life for your children I could imagine when culture doesn't even accept it yet.
Lampheader 1 year ago
@morgainari And since teens are treated more like burdens and/or troubled delinquents in American society, it's no wonder.
YaoiHuntressEarth 1 year ago
Ew. I just realized I managed to use "assumptions" twice in a sentence. That was unintended.
Also, Some lovely statistics! Guttmacher Institute:
"...for the first time since the early 1990s, overall teen pregnancy rates increased in 2006, rising 3%." "...The US continues to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates n the developed world--almost twice as high as those of england, wales, and canada..." "By 2002, 1/3rd of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception."
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari The problem is statistics like this could be skewed for so many reasons. I live in the city, and there is not one teen who doesn't know about contraception. My personal theory is that it's not being implemented in rural areas as effectively, where the transfer of information may be slower and facilitated less efficiently.
but then again, I live in Canada ;)
also, the stat shouldn't be generalized to relate to the overall effectiveness of pro-abstinence, but that's obvious xD
Lampheader 1 year ago
And at what age, exactly, should we say someone is "old enough to understand safe sex"?
I'm not sure if you keep missing that this ad is highlighting the flaws of abstinence-only sex ed, cause you keep saying "this is why this ad exists." For the record, most anti-drug campaigns are moronic also.
But abstinence-only programs are UNETHICAL because research has proven not just that they don't work, but that they're DANGEROUS because they encourage kids NOT to use condoms for fear of being "sluts
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari Let me go point form
0. I realize it's not an ad but can I just continue to refer to it as such since it is almost what it's kind of become >_>
1. Yeah, because people not getting married until later means not getting married at all -_-
I don't think monogamy is the one true way at all either. I believe that there is no better way to raise a child right now than monogamy though. That is my argument. I can't think of a decent other way to raise a child. Let me know what you think..
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader I also said that plenty of people are regularly choosing NOT to get married. Not everyone chooses marriage, it's that simple.
Monogamy alone is not a good model to adhere to because of a belief that it's healthier for children, and here's why: monogamy does not garauntee that the relationship is not dysfunctional, and dysfunctional relationship models are far more damaging to children's later ability to develop healthy interpersonal relationships with others, than divorce...
morgainari 1 year ago
Comment removed
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader ...or healthy, non-monogamous relationships. Most child psychology research supports the idea that supportive and loving environments, regardless of the actual configuration of parents, step parents, adoptive parents, gay parents, or non-parental adults in the home, is what is most important for kids. Kids of poly parents are not growing up irrepairably damaged and derranged, any more than kids of gay parents or straight married couples.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari Here's my problem with poly parents. My mom and dad worked countless jobs as immigrants from Asia just to support me and themselves. They were always there for me, all the time, and man, if they weren't, I'd hate to see how that would color my life.
It makes sense in theory. But I just cannot imagine a father/mother who splits time between multiple families being there for their children just as much as if they were all living under one household. Maybe that makes me right, or not..
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader I think you might be basing your assumptions of what a poly family looks like on some assumptions...? Most of the poly people I know, kids are a very very big deal, and bringing them into the picture requires a lot of thoughtful consideration. The idea of having "multiple families" is not really how poly relationships usually work, because usually the highest tenent is to keep the kids' lives stable, and negotiate relationships around the idea, "It takes a village to raise a child"
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari And I would agree with the idea of poly families, except I find the idea of poly families selfish. Like obviously, in theory, the idea is great, but the execution of it is at least difficult and comes with certain hardships, at least in this generation. We don't have the infrastructure in place for it, and I'm sure you know what I mean. The difference is I speak in terms that reflect and relate to current times, and you keep talking about the theoretical value of everything.
Lampheader 1 year ago
I meant we use the word "dirty", among other ways, to describe someone who's had sex with a lot of people or is very sexually promiscuous, possibly. Obviously, we do, for better or worse. I say no emotional attachment because it means people have fully objectified sex, which normally wouldn't be a problem, except in this society AGAIN because you're missing the crux of the point, everyone gets MARRIED in this society. And that's why being "dirty" doesn't fly in society, and I get that as a teen
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader Everyone does NOT get married in this society, there are higher than ever rates of adults choosing to put off marriage, the average age of first marriage is older than it has ever been, and plenty of adults choose NOT to get married at all. That's not even including those of us that don't give a crap about what society says about how monogamy is the "One True Way." And it is crap, I assure you.
morgainari 1 year ago
@Lampheader Likewise, a "large" # of sexual partners (however you define that) is not defacto proof of objectification of sex. You can objectify sex and still claim abstinence; you can objectify sex and be married to your first and only sexual partner. Larger #'s of partners has a statistically increased risks for exposure to disease, but that depends highly on whether said person is mindful of safety precautions or not. Driving a car is fucking dangerous if you don't wear a seatbelt too.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari Look, objectifying sex is obviously ok, it's like how owning guns is ok. The problem is you're giving people the means with which to amplify the effects of bad decisions they make in their lives. If there was abstinence, there would be no teenage pregnancy, for one. I'm saying abstinence might make sense to push onto your kids for as long as you can because by the time they figure out otherwise, they've matured enough to handle sex in a safe manner.
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader No no no. Pushing abstinence onto your kids for as long as possible has such a horrible effect of distorting what sex actually IS. It's like setting up alcohol as this monolithic substance that only adults can ever have-- it makes you want to drink alcohol so that you can BE an adult. Or it makes you afraid of alcohol. But it fails to teach you that alcohol is neither good nor bad, only what you do with it that really matters.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari NO NO NO. Look, I went to a catholic high school. So abstinence is pushed everywhere. They bring in teenage parents to further illustrate the fact. Fact of the matter is, we live in the 21st century. We have some of the most informed kids ever concerning this. You could google sex and you'd immediately get a general idea of what it is. No one I know had sex just because they wanted to be an adult, or anything like that. They're attracted to the other gender and want to have sex..
Lampheader 1 year ago
No, there is "something wrong with that", because there's no reason to associate being dirty with having lots of partners. Having lots of partners (or people "thinking" that you have had lots of partners) doesn't make someone "dirty," unless somehow you are associating that with the sex itself. Btw, why are you associating Large # of partners = low emotional attachment?
morgainari 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great Work, Emily and Advocates staff. This hits the nail on the thumb, as my mother used to say. Thanks, Anna Forbes
asforbes1 1 year ago
Great Work, Emily and Advocates staff. This hits the nail on the thumb, as my mother used to say. Thanks, Anna Forbes
asforbes1 1 year ago
Great Work, Emily and AIDS Alliance staff. This hits the nail on the thumb, as my mother used to say. Thanks, Anna Forbes
asforbes1 1 year ago
This is not sex education. It is religous right dribble. It is so pathetic. Totally laughable.
rgoddess1 1 year ago
well to be fair the analogies are excessive but in the correct direction
don't tell me you'd want to date a girl who's had sex with thousands of guys
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader And dating a guy who's been with "thousands" of girls is so much better? Actually, it would worse, because in men a lot of STDs are not as likely to show symptoms, and some don't even show up at all.
clandestinesuit 1 year ago
@clandestinesuit no it's the same for guys as well, I'm just a guy so I identify best with a guy's perspective first >_>
no need to go so indepth with that, I may be wrong but I'm not sexist, lmao
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader
Why would I give a fuck what anyone else did with their body as long as it makes them happy and isn't harming anyone else?
AnachronisticAlien 1 year ago
@AnachronisticAlien you wouldn't, logically, you're correct
it's the societal aspect I'm appealing to. Would you like your mate to have been/be a huge slut in the past? Probably not, because it says something about their overall character
I mean this is certainly in the extreme, and this education sucks because it does absolutely nothing to deter girls and guys from having sex at all anyways, I'm just pointing out that it's just a very aggressive and exaggerated way of putting something real
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader No, it is not "putting something real." The idea that there is something horrible and dirty about sex is at the very core of this "you wouldn't want to have sex with [someone who's had too many partners], would you?" idea.
Look I know that it's easy to think, "Well yeah, someone who would have sex with just ANYONE..." but try to break that down: What is a "huge slut"? how many is too many? 5? 10? 15? 50? 200? What counts as sex? PIV intercourse? Oral? Anal? Fingering? Same-sex?
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari you're trying too hard to be politically correct. I like to think of dirty as just having dual meanings, since English is king of homonyms. Someone who has sex with a lot of people without emotional attachment might be called "dirty" as slang. And there's nothing wrong with that.
The problem is sticking this person in a society that has generally accepted monogamous relationships. You see the conflict in interest of adults telling children "sex everyone up?" I see it, and I'm 19...
Lampheader 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lampheader No, there is "something wrong with that", because there's no reason to associate being dirty with having lots of partners. Having lots of partners (or people "thinking" that you have had lots of partners) doesn't make someone "dirty," unless somehow you are associating that with the sex itself. Btw, why are you associating Large # of partners = low emotional attachment?
morgainari 1 year ago
@Lampheader I see a constant conflict between adults trying to tell "children" (that is how they look at teenagers, whether they ought to or not) about safer sex because of health reasons, while gritting their teeth because they don't really want to be encouraging those same "children" that it's "okay to have sex." But that conflict is something I'm constantly trying to correct, because it's basic premise that we don't want teens having sex is flawed.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari If you're not old enough to understand safe sex, then you're not old enough to have it period. There's one problem. Another problem is kids who become desensitized/addicted/reliant on sex, which by itself isn't a problem, but goes hand in hand with a bunch of other problems I'm sure you could imagine. You know what's a good way of preventing these problems? Kids not having sex at all. Thus, the reason why this ad exists.
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader Desensitization or reliant on sex is an issue that is not unique to "kids", nor is it a symptom inherent to teenagers having sex. Research has indicated that sexual activity among high schoolers with healthy self-esteem and mental outlooks, is actually correlated with increased academic performance, and feelings of being supported, probably due to the intimacy of their relationships. You have to disassociate the sex, from the pathologies that may be lurking in the general population.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari Abstinence is, however, an outdated concept because it's efficient. Safe sex is something far better to push because it's realistic and non-limiting and cool, but it has to be tempered with the right cultural perspective as well. Look, I did high school. The nerds who did well and made good decisions with their lives mostly stayed to themselves, had relationships with a girl/guy or what not, but never really virginity stealing stuff. The people who did were also stoners, worse peers
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader And you also have to disassociate the "sex as a destructive behavior," from OTHER destructive behaviors, because focusing on the sex rather than an overall society that is damaging to self image and encourages negative behaviors as a root cause -- makes all attempts at solving the problem moot. So no, "kids not having sex at all" is NOT "a good way of preventing these problems."
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari It was never like, "you know what, we shouldn't do sex because my parents said so", it was like "I'm not ready to get emotionally involved right before I go to university and I'm 16". If you tell kids simply that it's ok to have sex, this kind of level-headed thinking is going to get lost in a lot of places. This is why I think the actual best path is promoting safe sex, but having certain values that abstinence pushes hard (being emotionally ready, finding the right person) is good.
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader I went to high school too :P lol, I promise. I agree that "I'm not ready to be having sex yet" is a really awesome statement, and that's what we should most be pushing for, but even most "comprehensive sex ed" often fail this test.
And the "readiness" test isn't the same for everyone. I don't think that we need to be structuring this idea that sex is this really huge emotional commitment, omg you'll be with this person forever. (Regardless of marriage.) 20+'s can be stupid too.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari We're just agreeing with each other now on things >_>
The main point of disagreement was that the teacher was wrong for pushing abstinence like this. And I agree because:
- It's crude and explicit
- I personally don't have the same viewpoint
The second reason is irrelevant because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the teacher is pushing abstinence aggressively and effectively despite the two gripes because the point made may strike home with some, and I hope it NEVER WORKS
Lampheader 1 year ago
@Lampheader *Laughs* I'm okay with agreeing on plenty of things. But I will point out, a lot of teachers get stuck with abstinence-only education, or censored from talking more about sexual topics than they would prefer, because of local policy makers and fear of freaked out parents that can ruin careers.
morgainari 1 year ago
@morgainari Finally, the real problem with this ad is that it's ineffective. It's because it's so "wrong". It's not "wrong", it's just politically wrong. There is a lot of societal truth to what the bear says, lol, it's just so crude and poorly thought out.
Let me contrast with an example. Anti-drug campaigns often depict images of drugged out victims, or people who are down and out after doing drugs. This isn't fair for the same reason that it isn't fair to look down upon sex before marriage.
Lampheader 1 year ago
@morgainari And finally finally, if anti-drug campaigns are allowed to show a skewed image of drug-users, then I don't see any reason why something like an abstinence campaign can't show a skewed perspective of oft-sex-users. Again, this ad sucks because it's crude and ineffective, but I think that it is the correct direction for pro-abstinence people to go if they wanted to push their point. But the idea of abstinence doesn't work in the 21st century. Haha..
Lampheader 1 year ago
Whew! That was a long rant!
warnis06 1 year ago
Not to mention the fact that assigning "value" to a person based on their sexual history is really fucked up in that is serves to create and perpetuate a climate of sexual violence and patriarchy. Way to go, Christianity!
warnis06 1 year ago
comfortable doing it (which I’m sure the aforementioned politicians could have benefitted from knowing). This means having information on how to avoid pregnancy and STIs (including abstinence!) from a REALISTIC mindset that acknowledges the fact that people are clearly having sex, and that shaming ourselves for being sexual is only harming society.
warnis06 1 year ago
clear that condemning and denying your own sexuality will only lead to disaster (not to mention the fact that Christianity is totally hypocritical, misinformed, and downright untrue). Therefore, the LAST thing our society – which, much like ancient Greece and Rome, is highly sexualized – needs is the next generation of people being taught that it is WRONG and BAD to sleep around.People should be able to do whatever they want and should feel
warnis06 1 year ago
What we REALLY need is a program that, rather than denying children the right to accurate information about not only sex and sexual health, but human sexuality in all its complexity, including having healthy relationships, respecting ourselves and others, etc. Not only do the states with abstinence-only education programs also happen to have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STIs, but one internet search of Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Troy King, etc. etc. will make
warnis06 1 year ago
WRONG outside of marriage and that you are BAD if you masturbate and that you will go to HELL if you happen to be gay and that you have SINNED if you want to express yourself sexually in whatever way that happens to be. It’s no wonder that you’re making comments like “Hollywood is spending way more on ways to promote that it is okay to sleep around” – you’ve clearly been brainwashed into thinking sex is BAD and WRONG too!
warnis06 1 year ago
available to the public and the public was beginning to understand that – gasp! – most people actually WANT to have sex! In fact, without intense sexual urges (ie. hormones), we would. ..actually…never…reproduce. Ever! Ironically, the Christian beliefs behind the abstinence-only programs that are the real problem here; they preach that sex is
warnis06 1 year ago
thank you for making this video. Abstinence-only sex education never helps children, it only hurts them & makes them feel like worthless garbage. i am a teen myself and although i know I am worth more than my hymen, I cannot say that about other girls my age. especially girls who already have body & self-worth issues.
Love the bears by the way.
Maybe in the next vid you can focus on how teens are more likely to have more dangerous forms of intercourse when they go through Abstinence only
PixieRebel10 1 year ago
Right wing christian fanatics are delusional and dangerous.
MovieMakingMan 1 year ago
The creators are genius. I love the bears and I love the exposure of the reality and BS around abstinence only education. Thanks for th service. I am big fan.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
texshelters 1 year ago
I would never have sex with an animated bear. Ok, maybe I would, if I was really, really drunk.
liberalguy513 1 year ago
We should be looking at who is promoting not who is trying
num1opinion 1 year ago
Yes I agree that it is alarming that the U.S. spent over $1.5 billion for abstinence-only programs but when Hollywood is spending way more on ways to promote that it is okay to sleep around. You can turn on the TV or go to a movie and when do you see them helping the situation that our youth face. They are making more money then the US spends to try and aid in these circumstances. I think we are mad at the wrong people on this one. Children spend more time watching TV and Movies than in class
num1opinion 1 year ago
@num1opinion You make a good point, in a way, but Hollywood doesn't use taxpayer money to make those movies. And parents can turn off or disconnect the TV.
Teaching kids about avoiding negative consequences of sex by teaching them to abstain is like training soldiers by telling them that the best way to stay alive in a firefight is to avoid war and all fighting in the first place.
composerdoh 1 year ago
@num1opinion I've read that research seems to show that 1of the best ways to avoid negative consequences of sex is a combination of things, the most important factor being that a consequence-free and open place be provided for kids to ask questions and have frank discussions.
Somehow I doubt the things they're teaching here provide a safe and open environment for frank discussions, anymore than a preacher/congregation chanting "God hates gays" encourages a struggling gay teen to open up.
composerdoh 1 year ago
@num1opinion II totally disagree with you when you say that you think we're "mad at the wrong people." While I can see how you’d think that, I don’t think you’re looking at the issue broadly enough. The fact that Hollywood is often highly sexualized isn’t reflective of the entertainment industry in itself, but is rather a testament to what is considered acceptable by society. This makes sense in the context of the broader civil rights movement, when the pill and abortion finally became...
warnis06 1 year ago
I'm SO glad we don't have these in Britain. My God. It's actually disgusting someone could teach a child this, how awful.
MargotVoguey 1 year ago
that animation is of low quality. it is terrible.
JubbaTheHott 1 year ago
@JubbaTheHott um duh its from a make-your-own-animated-video generation sit. you're never heard of it? Have you been living under a rock?
firewalkwme 1 year ago
@firewalkwme it's still terrible animation. and did you mean "site"?
JubbaTheHott 1 year ago
Just substitute "sex" for "christian fundamentalism" and "virgin" for "christian fundamentalist" and you pretty much have the definition of institutionalized ignorance...and troglodytic morality.
Yeah, and the earth is 5,000 years old...
cbmtrx 1 year ago 2