Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Bingo. And not just spreading but forcing. It's readily apparent to me that those who have sought and obtained this programme have been social activist members of the Religious Right.

Funny enough, IME, the most effective proven way of accomplishing their objectives is the opposite approach of what they are attempting. Common sense and common experience dictates that if you try to pressure people into doing things that they will rebel to do them in protest and defiance, and that if things are made into forbidden fruits that people will be tempted by them. These highly religious people wisely know that:



Amish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Amish teenager above was allowed to smoke that cigarette. The is part of their custom and rite of passage called 'rumschpringe'--or 'rumspringa' in short--meaning 'running wild.' Amish children are raised in the faith but when they turn 16, they are released from their obligations to live "English" (they are of German background), meaning the way of the modern world. They will remain in this status until they either choose to join the church or it becomes apparent that they will not choose to join it (most have joined by 21, so after that it is pretty much accepted that the person will not join).

The Amish see this as an important rite of passage and a vaccine against threats to their religion and society by the temptations of the outside world. They are free, and even encouraged, to literally 'get it all out of their system,' including but not limited to hard core partying, booze, cigarettes, cannabis, sex . . . whatever. But, meanwhile they do remind them that the door is always open to join the church if they liked what they had, so the two lifestyles compete by comparison.

The Amish do not believe in infant baptism and instead believe that joining the church in baptism must be an intelligent and wilful choice. But, once they join, members are expected to remain in the church and abide by its ways for the rest of their lives. If they leave, they will be shunned by the Amish community (this practice is called 'meidung'). The Amish do not see shunning as a hateful act, but an act of 'tough love' to constantly remind those who quit that they are breaking their oath to God and the community as well as a hard but necessary tool to ensure that indecisive, non-committal flip-flopping will not destroy the existence of the religion and community. If a member does not decide to join after experiencing rumspringa, they will not be shunned but simply be treated as 'English' for all intents and purposes. Thus, rumspringa also serves the purpose of 'weeding out' those who aren't 'Amish material,' so to speak.

Rumspringa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I highly recommend the movie "Devil's Playground," which is an excellent film documentary of a group of Indiana Amish teenagers during their rumspringa period.

NPR : Amish Teens Tested in Devil's Playground

There is now even a TV 'reality' show called 'Amish in the City.' It similarly follows the life of Amish youth in their rumspringa. I have never watched the show to make any comments on it.

Amish in the City TV Show - Amish in the City Television Show - TV.com

The rate for Amish youths who go through rumspringa that eventually get baptised into the Amish community is approximately 90 percent.

Originally Posted by timj219

There is nothing wrong with expecting children to abstain from sex and telling them so. And there is nothing wrong with teaching children the facts of sex, STDs, and contraception.

In modern societies we retard the entry into adulthood deliberately so that children will have a chance to develop some psychological and intellectual stability before entering into all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. We keep them in school by law until they're 16 in the US and most parents try to get them through college before becoming full time members of the workforce and becoming self sufficient. We don't let them vote until 18 or drink (in my state) until 21.
Biologically many children are capable of sex sometime in the early teens or even earlier. They are biologically capable of work and drug use and other aspects of adulthood too. But all these activities have cultural, religious, psychological and other aspects in addition to the biological and children are not always prepared to deal with these other aspects of adult behaviors.

I certainly see nothing wrong with a public school sex ed course which tells children the truth about all aspects of sexual behavior: Including the truth that only abstinence guarantees against pregnancy and STDs. But teaching them that they should be abstinent is my job.

Originally Posted by partofme

Many of these though lie about forms of birth control and say they are less effective then they really are in order to encourage abstinence. Rather than having less sex they tend to just use the birth control less.

Originally Posted by timj219

Any public school curriculum which is less than truthful on this subject is criminally negligent IMO. For any parent or private organization that kind of deception is immoral and not in the best interest of the children involved. I can think of no circumstance which would make it OK to lie to a normal teenager about this subject.

But I think abstinence for children is a perfectly legitimate expectation.

Originally Posted by partofme

I don't have a problem with parents guiding children in which ways they choose but I would rather schools stick to teaching facts rather than ethics other than to simply study them.

Originally Posted by Maddox

(and I fancy it quite alot, even though I can´t remember what it's like...),
QUOTE]

How old are you anyway? I'm seventy-eight, and I sure remember. (Similar to Paper dolls as opposed to the real thing.) HEH HE

Originally Posted by timj219

Exactly

Originally Posted by partofme

But you just said you have no problem with teaching kids these things which are based on morality rather than knowledge.

Originally Posted by timj219

I certainly see nothing wrong with a public school sex ed course which tells children the truth about all aspects of sexual behavior: Including the truth that only abstinence guarantees against pregnancy and STDs. But teaching them that they should be abstinent is my job.

Originally Posted by timj219

I think I said exactly the opposite
The fact that abstinence (and only abstinence) absolutely prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancy can legitimately be addressed in public school. Just like all the other facts about sex.

Originally Posted by partofme

How is it the opposite exactly?

Originally Posted by Diuretic

Good points Wildman, yes, "risk management" is the phrase I must have been looking for but couldn't quite find. And yes, you're right, it's about guidance into an independent early adulthood and giving them the best chance to make it the rest of the way without an overload of self-induced trauma.

Why am I now thinking about good parenting rather than the issue of teaching sexual abstinence? But I love how sometimes a thread can meander in the most creative and informative ways. I learn from that.

Originally Posted by timj219

You said I:
"have no problem with teaching kids these things which are based on morality rather than knowledge"
I said that I:
"certainly see nothing wrong with a public school sex ed course which tells children the truth about all aspects of sexual behavior: Including the truth that only abstinence guarantees against pregnancy and STDs. But teaching them that they should be abstinent is my job"

How can those not be opposite? I am FOR schools teaching FACTS ( like the efficacy of abstinence at preventing pregnancy and STDs) and AGAINST schools teaching MORALS (like whether they should be abstinent now that they have all the facts).