Bristol Palin Says Abstinence 'Not Realistic at All'

I've never thought of preaching abstinence as a realistic approach.

I say its more of an excuse. There are many teens out there (I was one of them) that did NOT engaged in sexual behavior before I was married. Sure its hard, but it can be done.

Teens don't respect or use the word NO often enough!

It might be a teenager's excuse, but it's also a sad reality. Teenagers are having sex, whether it's right or wrong and preaching abstinence never has and never will stop them. Some maybe, but most no. It is the responsibility of the adults around them to teach them how to protect themselves should they choose to have sex. Abstinence should be taught as part of a broad sex education class, not exclusively.

Rightly or wrongly, sex is not that meaningful to teenagers/young adults. If teens don't see it as a sacred thing, why shouldn't they do it? Its not illegal. Its much more helpful to accept that teens are going to have sex, and educate them about the importance of using contraception, than it is to tell them 'just say no'.
Teaching them self-respect is also very important. There's a difference between having sex outside marriage because you want to, and being pressured into it, or thinking that it will make you cool/popular/etc.

Exactly!!! Just think how many adults have sex outside of marriage...I was single for 15 years and the majority of men didn't date me long because I had to say "no", if for no other reason, than I had to give my daughters an example. Abstinent single adults are definitely the minority - the adults of this society have allowed teens to be bombarded with sexuality all their lives. Look at how much plastic surgery has gained in popularity just in the last decade!! Elders are ashamed of their wrinkles and their years; new mommies are pressured to lose their "baby fat" ASAP, even it will be used up during breastfeeding; even men are coloring their gray hairs & doing their best to fight baldness.
I'll bet if we looked at strict communities such as the Amish, we'd find most teens practicing abstinence. It's hypocrisy to say no to them based upon age

Can we just say, "Powerful people raise brats, too?"

While organized religion has taken a real beating in the modern USA, it is nevertheless true that a good moral underpinning can help a lot. It's not perfect, however. Two of the best kids I knew in high school had to get married.

And, of course, that is another thing that has changed. Back then, an "oopsie" had real consequences, most of them negative.

No, I don't think abstinence is a realistic approach. To me, teaching abstitence in school is another problem that we have in this country that shows we can't separate church and state. Abstinence until marriage is a religious thing, and I know some atheists may practice abstinence until marriage because they choose to, and it can have nothing to do with religion, but the christian church teaches it and so do many other religious institutions, so to me, it's about religion, it's just been masked and made about stopping unwanted pregnancy, etc. Just like the law in GA that you can't buy alcohol on Sundays, another problem with church and state separation that has been masked it's been made to seem like it's not about religion. The idea of teaching children in schools not to have sex until marriage is ridiculous, because the school is not one to set morals, it's there to educate. In order to educate, you give them information, not preach to them, so they need to give them information about birth control, statistics of how effective it is and what is the most effective method, etc. A lot of people don't believe in abstinence until marriage, myself included. That doesn't mean I promote young teenagers having sex with multiple partners and spreading all kinds of disease, I do think most people should wait until they are mature enough to handle the consequences but that doesn't have to mean being married. Granted, i don't believe in marriage in general I think it's a pointless social institution that has no function whatsoever.

I think she is giving her experience as a teen mother. Abstinence only did not work for her. But she has a beautiful baby and the support of her family. So I don't think she needs to excuse herself.

My biggest problem with abstinence only is that it doesn't always work. It may for some teens and adults but there are alot of people that it does not work for. We need education on taking control of our sexuality and our lives. Bristol was lucky and the consequence for her was a baby. For some the consequence of no education will be STD's or HIV. So I am not a fan of abstinence only education.

On the contrary, "Abstinence Only" always works. "Abstinence Usually" doesn't!

I meant the abstinence only education.

"Just say no" works about as well for sex as it did for drugs.

Parents can and should do everything in their power to equip their children with self-respect, a strong moral compass, and the ability to think for themselves.

But keeping kids and teens ignorant about birth control and STI's is irresponsible. Ignorance is never ever a good policy. Ultimately, some teenagers are going to have sex no matter what anybody says or does to convince them they shouldn't, and they need to know how to protect themselves.

You can say that, but why would you? I didn't think she sounded at all like a brat. What is she going to say? "Teach abstinence"? I'm sure she was taught abstinence, but she'd be a hypocrite if she said it worked.

She blamed her parents for nothing, took responsibility for her own actions, and is raising her baby. Why is she a brat?

She'd really be a hypocrite to say that it works, since she's not claiming immaculate conception.

Personally, I agree with the majority here. Abstinence should be part of a full sex-ed curriculum. It is the only 100% contraceptive and barrier for STDs that is available. But we know that teens are having sex, and they should be equipped with as much knowledge about it as possible.

if i have any kids im not going to preach abstinence, lets face it, if they want to have sex they are going to regardless of what you preach.

the difference is, if you have the sex talk with your daughter and tell her its ok and dont be afraid to ask me to take you to the gyno, or please go to planned parent hood and get on the pill so you dont get pregnant i think thats much better so she doesnt sneak around and then come home knocked up cause she was scared to talk to her parents about it. When i had my 1st serious BF my mom kinda new it was coming, so she had the talk with me and i said ok mom, you better take me. i think its much better to be open about it.

Now with a son i think its a little harder cause all you can preach is dont be a fool, wrap your tool lol

You can say what my mom said to me, "If you have a baby, you will take care of the baby entirely. I won't do it for you, so you'll have to sacrifice doing the things you like to do it." I think it's a parents obligation to teach his/her child to be responsible for his/her actions (as harsh as her words may appear).

As far as education goes... educate teens on STDs along with the part about how to protect themselves. Just for fun, I took a course at my university. STDs are probably the best reason to abstain; They have a wide range of nasty symptoms and are incredibly widespread.

Education is the key to helping youth (and adults) make intelligent decisions. (Anything that is forbidden is going to be just that much more appealing to most teens.)

I think abstinance should be recommended - strongly suggested - with love from the parents. All of the consequences of STDs and pregnancy should be discussed. The difference between love and desire should be talked about. After all of that is made clear, a good education about birth control is in order. Just MHO.

I don't think we should give up on things because they are difficult. There are still people in this world who practice abstinance.

Its not just that abstinence is difficult, I don't think teenagers, and many people in general, see the point of it.
I think casual sex is like sky-diving (at least until i think of a better analogy ). Some people enjoy sky-diving, they do it for fun.
It would be extremely stupid and dangerous to sky-dive without making sure you have a parachute, know how it works and that you trust your instructor.
No one says that sky-diving is too dangerous to be allowed, just that you have to be sensible about it.

Sure, not everyone sees the point. Some people do though. Of course you need a parachute if you are jumping. That's why I said . I AGREE that birth control should be taught.

Everybody is different. Everybody has their own hormone levels and different upbringings. To follow the abstinence-only path might work for those of strong will, impeccable moral upbringing, and strong family backgrounds. But for many others, it will /not/ work. Lots of teens want to have sex. Lots of teens (and adults too) DO have sex, DO use condoms and other forms of birth control, and in so doing, do not cause unwanted pregnancies, and do not contract STDs. Of course, those are the folks that know about birth control, how it works, how to use it, and how to be safe(r). This is why we need to educate our kids.

We can also argue till we're blue in the face about whether this education should be paid for with public money. For those against it, I say only this: think about how much public money is wasted on unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and what it takes away from society as a whole.

Whether people should have sex before marriage or not is, usually, an issue of religious morality. To impose that religiously based morality on folks of another (or no) religion is, I think, an unfair proposition.

Very nicely put
Rockcat: I didn't really mean to disagree with you, or say you didn't support BC. I just meant that when you said people give up on things because they are difficult, I think that they mostly give up because they don't see the point of abstaining, and the alternative is fun.

I don't know if this is still true, but I have read that the boys with the most self-respect have sex earlier than others; with girls the ones with the least self-respect are the first.

One of the STDs -- the human papilloma virus -- causes cervical cancer. That's a huge risk.

I thank my parents for giving me all the information about sex and drugs they could have given me as I was growing up... The main thing here is safety, and not morals. I did have sex as a teenager, and I am glad I did. Sex is a wonderful thing to be enjoyed responsibly, and safely. Without education on the matter, that is simply not possible. Pregnancy is the least of my concern... We live in the AIDS era, and unprotected sex can be lethal.
I see a lot of people who had very strict parents who spoke about abstinence and how horrible drugs are, only to end up with promiscuous and/or drogatic kids.
Teens will be around sex and drugs - they need to be taught what is responsible, how to be protected, and what the consequences might be. Anything else nowadays is simply irresponsible, if not dangerous.

With AIDS on the rise, there should be more education in schools and homes about not only pregnancy preventions, but also AIDS prevention. Teaching kids about condoms and making them freely available would help combat both problems.

So far as Bristol Palin is concerned. She was 17 years old. Didn't anyone teach her about the birds and the bees for goodness sake?!

It is not worthless to teach abstinence, some will listen. Now teaching abstinence exclusively, that is not realistic I don't think either. And it is dangerous to only teach one way and one way only, as the population that does plan on having or has had sex needs to be informed on how to protect themselves and others and know about their risks and that they need exams and need to have condoms, birth control, etc. Besides just physical health concerns, mental health is often involved in relationships that have a sexual relationship.

It is good to let people know that abstinence is an option, the safest option in today's world of broken families and rampant sexual diseases, some which are deadly and can be with person for the rest of their life. Abstinence until marriage can be realistic for some people and can work and be rewarding for those who choose that route.

Most people have a choice about their sex life, most make many choices about it often. They also have the choice to be informed.

I wish more people would take some time to be informed before becoming sexually active, to learn more about sex, sexual diseases, etc. The information is out there. And most teens have all the information at their fingertips with the Internet. Most young people don't think of the implications of their decisions, most think of themselves as invincible.

Although some will listen when abstinence is taught, I don't think it should be taught to everyone in a public school. Some people may not be of a religion that teaches abstinence and some people don't believe in abstinence until marriage even if it's not about religion. I don't know how this all of a sudden became a common moral for everyone in the US to follow in order to teach it in a school. I for one do not believe in abstinence until marriage, and why should a school interfere and teach my kids (if I had some) a moral that I do not believe in, that I do not want them to be taught? I just believe in having sex when one is ready to accept all consquences, not when one gets married....

I think there is a difference between abstinence and abstinence until marriage. I do not really believe that abstinence until marriage is necessary. However, I do think that there is value in teaching kids that sex is not the same as...say...holding hands with your boyfriend or girlfriend. It is much more than that...and there are many more risks involved. I think teens should be encouraged to at least wait until they are in a somewhat committed relationship, until they are personally ready, and until they have the ability to protect themselves. I would hope this is until the child was at least 16, but in some cases, it may be earlier.

Abstinence-only education is not realistic in today's society. Abstinence may be realistic for some people, but it is not a reality for many teenagers.

Here in Canada, we do education our kids about safe sex...in Grade 9, I believe. They also receive sex-ed in Grade 6 (I think), but this is "parts-only" education (they don't teach how those "parts" work together...or about how to protect those "parts"). I think Grade 9 is too late. I look at some of the Grade 8 students (13 years old) at schools I have taught in, and yes, I could completely see them having sex...before they get the education about being safe.

You don't want your kids to know they have a choice? ? I think that is a well rounded education, giving choices and explaining choices. Giving both sides and going in depth about the consequences both sides may or may not have. Granted abstinence is a minority opinion, that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be touched upon.
To many it is not a moral, a religious commandment, it is simply an option. 2 options, have sex. Don't have sex.