this is a reference to a comment by santorum in the republican debate

im just curious if anyone knows what it has been proven to do?  because it definitely is not preventing sex.

Maybe he's saying it will help increase Americas population?

i also liked the comment about how "the left" gets upset when they want to teach abstinence... except the problem is that they dont want to teach anything else lol

I wish I could say I'm abstinent, but in reality I'm just average looking and shy around girls.

well at least you beat anorexia. 

..and wft the left doesn't want to teach abstinence.  we want to teach that while also teaching other options..

wait, abstaining from sex doesnt prevent sex?

if you dont mind me asking, What does?

Only teaching people to abstain from sex doesn't get them to abstain from sex. It doesn't reduce rates of pregnancy and it doesn't reduce rates of STIs. The only reason abstinence only education exists is because certain religious groups want nobody at all to be taught about contraception because it goes against their personal beliefs.

(A source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460)

It's not that abstaining from sex doesn't mostly prevent sex (not factoring in rape, etc, of course), it's that teaching only abstinence has been shown to not only not prevent sex, but actually result in greater rates of pregnancy and STD transmission without having any noticeable impact on rates of actual abstinence.

In the end, the only thing that would "prevent" sex is castration, and I'm fairly sure that we can all agree that castration is not a reasonable approach to the problem.

In The West Wing, though, an approach that would be more effective is mentioned, which is referred to as "Abstinence Plus", and which one character nicknames "Everything But". Basically, teach not just abstinence, but things like masturbation, etc - basically, teach teens how to effectively manage their sexual urges. And teaching preventative stuff like condom use is also sensible, in the sense of "if you feel you absolutely have to have sex...".

There's nothing wrong with abstinence, but only as part of a broader approach. I believe it is appropriate to teach people not to be promiscuous for various reasons, that it is better to have sex with someone you're into rather than random people you pick up at bars (or however the hell people do it...), but the fact of the matter is you need to teach them how to have safe sex, because it is downright guaranteed that within marriage or without, within a relationship or without, people are going to have sex for purposes other than procreation, and if you don't want tons of unwanted pregnancies, if you do want less abortions or an easier burden on society from low-income individuals (where unwanted births tend the highest), you need to teach them about safe sex

The problem with the abstinence only approach is not only is it naive, but incredibly archaic, because it is designed with the biblical proscription against copulation for any purpose other than procreation (even if you're married to someone, you can't have sex unless you're trying to get them pregnant). Married couples getting into sexual situations cluelessly could be just as bad for things in the long run as horny, sexually uneducated teenagers just trying to figure out what goes where.

Abstinence-only should be considered unconstitutional, because it serves no practical purpose other than the fulfillment of a religious agenda, an agenda which even in the context of the religion is outdated. Because we're talking about old testament stuff here. The story of Onan, who was stricken down because he was having sex with the wife that he inherited from his dead older brother, but he didn't want to give her children because those children would technically belong to the older brother's estate, so he would pull out before ejaculating, and God smote him for that crime. Really the story relates more to matters of inheritance in old Jewish law than anything else (he didn't want his brother to "have" any heirs so that he would get more when the time came for estate division. There's also the proscription on "giving up your seed to Molech," but God alone (and the writers of the bible) know exactly what the hell that means.

I have yet to see any proof of this. It seems to me that it would make far more sense to stress the importance of safe sex, considering many kids are going to do it anyway. If a parent doesn't want their kid having sex, the parent should explain why (they think) abstinence is a good idea, but make darn sure that the kid at least knows how to be safe.

I don't really like anything that comes out of this guy's mouth. He and I disagree on so many things, that I really just want him to drop out of the race. He wants to force his views of how to live down everyone's throat, and that drives me crazy. I hope he doesn't become the Republican nominee.