Abstinence Only? Really?

I noticed several things in the reading for this week and in the debate yesterday. Since I have heard both I will reflect on both. The biggest thing I noticed was that each side of the argument was presenting statistics that clashed with one another. Only one of the statistics could be true. The abstinence-only side of the argument got most of their statistics from religion-affiliated organizations like Focus on the Family. The opposing side got their statistics from a variety of sources. I think this is really religion trying to push its way into our schools. Religious organizations have plenty of opportunities to preach their message of abstinence-only, and schools can then offer information about contraceptives. The religious organizations can tell children that it's not smart to have sex too early, and then since not all youth are religious the school can inform them of what they need to do to make good life choices. In my mind this model just makes so much sense. If the religious groups are worried about people having sex too early they can put that message out. Schools have a responsibility to inform students, regardless of their religious affiliation. That common denominator message is, in a nutshell: don't have sex until you are sure you are ready, and if/when you do here's how you can protect yourselves against unwanted consequences.

Earlier this semester I went to a hearing about requiring abstinence+ education in Nebraska's public schools. The only arguments against the bill were religious in nature. However, we live in a nation that has this fantastic freedom of religion. When we make laws that are designed to appease one specific religion it seems to me that we are defeating the whole purpose of that freedom. It's like America is a person with its hand outstretched for different people, but then behind its back there is a knife waiting to stab the different people for their differences.

It may be surprising to hear this from me after that tirade, but I actually support the idea of abstinence, but I don't think schools should be offering that message. It violates the division of church and state.

Questions:

1) Should sex ed be taught in schools at all or should that be handled by parents?

2) If sex ed is taught in schools should the state require that education to be abstinence+ rather than abstinence only?

SEX

Lets all ask ourselves a quick question. How much of what your parents and teachers told you did you listen to in those preteen ages? Personally, I though I knew everything there was to know. I don't even remember if I was taught abstinence or sex education in school. That shows how successful their message was. Frankly, sex education was boring. If one is trying to preach abstinence or sex education they need to make it exciting so students will listen. One student brought up in class today to bring in nursing students to teach whatever kind of sexual education the school feels necessary. This way, it's a young adult and not somebody they are already have their own stereotypes about.

I believe in a mix of sex education and abstinence. I don't think we should be telling our kid's it's okay to sex whenever they please, but I also don't believe in scaring them to the point where it's all lies. They need to know the truth ,plain and simple, the good and the bad. Obviously, buffer the information at younger ages but as children grow into their teens they need to know what sex is so they don't get "curious" and find out for themselves and possibly contract a STD or become pregnant.
 Q1: What characteristics do you feel a sexual education teacher should have?
Q2: Should sexual education be taught by parents or teachers? or both? or neither- just abstinence?

Let's Talk About Sex, Baby. Let's Talk About You and Me.

In the wise words of the esteemed female performance group TLC, let's talk about sex. In our modern media culture, teens are literally surrounded by sexual imagery. If we don't talk to them about sex, the media will.

Study after study has returned the same result: abstinence only sex education does not work. In the eight years that funding for abstinence only sex education was drastically increased by the Bush administration, the rates of teen pregnancy and and abortion simultaneously rose. This reverses a trend of continually decreasing rates of both teen pregnancy and abortions during the years of comprehensive sexual education provided by the Clinton administration. A 2002 report from the Progressive Partners in Health stated, "abstinence only programming runs the serious risk of leaving young people, especially those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated."

The idea that providing teens with a comprehensive sexual education will a) teach them how to have sex and b) indicate that teen sex is acceptable are both easily refutable. First and foremost, teens will learn how to have sex whether we address it in a school setting or not. The first humans did not have sex ed classes, and yet thousands of year later here we are, products of their procreation. Teaching teens how to have SAFE sex is a critical part of ensuring that their health is provided for, both emotionally and physically. Second, cultural norms about the acceptability of teen sex and premarital sex in general are not going to be reinforced in the classroom nearly as effectively as they would be in the home. For teens from families which deem premarital sex a serious issue, they won't need abstinence only sex ed to convince them that abstinence is the best choice. Their families will already reinforce that decision. However, for students who do not have that strong moral influence from the family, an abstinence only sexual education leaves them without the knowledge to defend themselves against the dangers that come along with engaging in sex. In fact, a study of one California abstinence only program found that students who went through it were more likely to become pregnant (or get a partner pregnant) or need an abortion.

Maher's arguments are flawed in a few places. To start, the one study she cites that shows comprehensive sex ed in a negative light is an old favorite of proponents of abstinence only sex education. The study isn't peer reviewed and isn't regarded as a solid research study by many in the field. Aside from shoddy evidence, her only argument against these programs is that they talk about condoms and don't mention abstinence as a option. Let's just add abstinence to the comprehensive curriculum and call it a day.

While I agree that sex has many physical and emotional consequences, the idea that we can only teach teens about the ideal of what they should do is ludicrous. She can throw any number of statistics about how much teens/society is harmed by pre-marital sex, but until she prove to me that abstinence only sex education actually reduces the numbers of teens having sex across the board (which not study has done thus far), then I am inclined to educate our teens about the choices they make. Ignoring the realities of teen sex in the classroom will not make them go away, it will simply make them taboo topics that teens feel they are completely alone in facing.

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammels, let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel

I definitly say that there needs to be a separation of home and school in this case. If parents want to inform their kids about abstinence, then by all means, they are free to do so. It is their place to help their child to develope his or her morals and see what is best. However I don't think this is a place where a public institution, such as a school, should be involved. The school's primary focus is to add and develop where the parenting left off. I don't think making condoms available undermines the parenting at all, it's just a different way to tell teens to stay safe.

In the end, however, let's let the blame fall where it should: the teens. It's not the parent's or school's fault for the rise of STDs or pregnancies. Teens should take responsibility for their own actions. You can't say they didn't know because they weren't educated; anyone has access to the tools they need to be safe and responsible. It's time they stand up and act like the adults they are.

Q1: Should schools teach a sex ed class at all?

Q2: If so, what should be taught an why?

Issue 18

I don't think that abstinence only education should be the only message teens get. My parents raised me to believe I should wait until marraige before having sex, however growing up that wasn't the only message I was getting. My parents taught me that abstinence was the right thing to do for many reasons, but they also informed me that if I choose not to wait I could face many consequences, which definitely scared me. I think that teens should be taught abstinence both in and out of school because engaging in sex is a risky behavior and the consequences are numorous however they are going to make up their own minds about sex and I think that they should be taught that if they don't maintain abstinence they may face consequences that they may not be ready for. There is a study supporting that abstinence only education actually increases teens likelihood of getting an std or pregnant which I totally can understand. I mean when a teen is told not to do something, they often do, and that's mostly because were curious, we hear people talking about it and wonder what the big deal is. So I beleive that if the information is out there, then the teens will have the choice which most likely will decrease that curiousity. Furhermore in reality teens are subject to a lot of messages thanks to the media and most of those messages are about sex. So I think it's just foolish not to educate teens about the messages they are constantly exposed to otherwise they are going to interpret them the way they want to which can be extremely damaging. So in my opinion give teens a choice, give them the facts and help them understand that their actions may have consequences, but I think the more they know about the matter the better decisions they can make for themselves. Q1: How can abstinence campaigns compete with pop culture to ensure the message is getting across? Q2: Why are teens engaging in risky behavior? Lack of facts, no active parental role?

Abstinence vs. Sex education

Personally I feel that kids need to be taught about sex education. With the society that we live in today, we can't be that neive to believe that kids are not having sex. There is a television show on MTV dedicated to teenage mothers and being 16 and Pregnant. That is why I feel that abstinence only programs do not work. By teaching kids abou abstinence only, it is going to only increase their curiosity about sex and then they are going to experiment and try it, and then boom, we have another teenage girl having a baby. But if sex education is taught in school, they will know that there is a possibility of STD's and they will also know different methods of contraception such as birth control, condoms etc. So my personal view is that we need to implement a sex education program in the schools and get rid of the abstinence only program. I am from a small town and teenage pregnance used to be quite unheard of, now, there are at least 3 girls in my brothers junior class that are pregnant. How does your school fare?

America Sucks.

Alright--check to make sure your parents aren't around, and watch this brilliant French AIDS charity ad, that would run pre-watershed on French TV. Note that this video, while not overtly pornographic, is certainly Not Safe For Work.

CLICK

There. Try running that ANYWHERE in America. Perhaps HBO might pick it up; otherwise, not a chance. There's this extreme stigma present in America that fundamentally clashes with its more open and liberal take on sexuality; television shows and movies constantly push boundaries, but never tend to push them too far so that advertisers and censors will take issue. There's a tenuous and, frankly, unfortunate line that it tightroped almost every day in this country between embracing sexuality to its fullest, and denying it entirely.

We can't do this any longer; it's time to fish or cut bait. It's time we either regress to Victorian-era denial of sexuality or move toward the European take on sexuality.

Frankly, I don't really care which. Just so long as this asynchronous dichotomy would quit it.

Question: Did the animated images displayed in the above video bother you at all? Would it bother you to realize these were not particularly disturbing images for French children? If so, why do you think it does bother you?

No sex?

Abstinence and education have been in partnership for a long time. Ever since I can remember, even in grade school, we were taught specific ways to act around the opposite sex. Girls and boys, men and women have a strong sexual attraction towards one another- its natural for the two to mix, mingle, and love. In jr. high I remember the health teacher preaching that we must restrain ourselves and not participate in sexual intercourse...ABSTINENCE! and then the teacher made us watch this horrendous film of a women birthing a child, as if they were saying if you have sex this is what happens no matter what! well it scared me, not going to lie, but the real truth is kids, and young adults are going to do whatever they want. This is just what happens when young people and hormones unite. This idea of no sex education in school could be linked to the idea of religion. Could schools silently be preaching an abstinence free lifestyle in regards to the church?

Rather talking about what kids shouldn't do, maybe they should actually educate them about sex, and what they should do if they are going to participate in sexual activities. Such as using protection, and when you shouldn't have sex in regards to menstrual cycles. This may sounds a bit outrageous, but at the same time it makes plenty of since to educate young adults about how to protect themselves and be smart way.

1. Do you think that religious views are being pushed in school class rooms?
2. Do you think sex education should be more realistic, in regards to how many young adults have sex ?

Issue 18 Abstinence and Edu

Whether or not the school only teaches abstinence until marriage or other messages about sexuality and contraception there needs to be messages be taught to kids. To me this issue of only having one message and thats abstinence is kind of wrong but also I see why they would just want to teach that one message. The reason why it is wrong the way they teach it is because the dont really go in depth with it and why we should wait. This is just my personal experience with sex education I had when they were teaching us. Most of the time if you tell kids what they shouldn't do they are going to end up experiencing it for themselves any way. The message should also be taught how to have safe sex as well. But implying this means it is okay to have sex with whoever you want with totally goes against my beliefs but thats another story in its own.

The real problem here is this education should not only be taught in the schools but at home with the parents. The parents should raise their kids with valuable information about this issue more than he school. I know i wont be a perfect parent but i will try my best to raise my kids to what the bible says i know most people are disgusted or don't care for what it is says but the bible has the absolute truth about every situation take a look for your self if u don't want to take my word for it. i will let my children choose the course they want to go but i will try ti instill truth in them also if not with the bible just with stats and things that are happening with people who abstain from sex or are practicing. the school i think just need to go more in depth with information and helping students understand.

1) Are schools now a days spending more time on this subject teaching it better then, when i was in school ?

Abstinence Only Edu.

Of course there will always be two sides to the argument, it's a no brainer. I don't know about everyone else but abstinence was not the only thing taught in my school. We can go out and say that we want schools to each children that sex before marriage is wrong and they they will be likely to get STD's, pregnant, etc... But are we really being realistic? It's not realistic to believe that if you tell children not to do it, that they will listen. I think it's more important for children to be taught abstinence in school as an option. They should also be taught how to practice safe sex along with the side effects. Of course for some abstinence will be the answer but it is more important to teach both sides.
Apart from this how can you teach kids abstinence is the only answer when the can go home and watch t.v. and see it 24/7. Many shows even go as far as to glorify sex. It's contradicting to tell a kid that sex is wrong but then they go home and watch a show like Gossip Girl where sex is seen all over the place and between multiple people. Today's society is a lot different from the past, expectations are different and many parents are a lot more open about sex with their kids. So why shouldn't sex education be more open as well? Telling a kid what not to do is just going to make them want to explore it even more. By teaching both sides of the argument and teaching kids about the dangers they will be able to make the decision themselves and will be more likely to be safer about it. In the end safety comes first when it comes to sex, so that's what should be emphasized in sex education.

DQ:
1) Did your school teach sex education as abstinence only? How do you think this made you view sex?
2) If your child (in the future or now) were to be taught that abstinence was the only answer would you be o.k. with that?

Abstinence Only Education

Abstinence only education is the curriculum that instructs young adults to wait until marriage to engage in sexual encounters. In the early 2000’s this type of curriculum gained many supporters and raised billions of dollars in funding for educational purposes. There were a few studies that showed this type of education was indeed working as fewer teens were engaging in sexual encounters and the average age of the first sexual encounter for students with this type of education was increasing.

Lately many studies have come out supporting the claim that this type of education does not in fact make any difference in the decline of stds and teen pregnancies but rather increased in these two areas because children were not properly informed of the consequences of their actions. These researchers suggest that students are taught a more comprehensive curriculum in which they are taught both the danger of unsafe sex and how to practice safe sex. Many believe that better education of what is really out there will help to combat the situation.

In all reality a hybrid of these two techniques is probably best. Children need to know what is really out there so they can face some of the dangers that will be staring them straight in the face as they get older. In an age where sex sells and big companies are marketing sex more and more children are being influenced sometimes even unconsciously being taught that they need to be having sex. With an increased knowledge on how to practice safer sex students will be able to decipher good practice from bad practice, and with a message of abstinence also being taught maybe more young adults will decide to wait to have sex either until their married or until they are really ready for sex.

With an abstinence only curriculum in every school nationwide would modern views of women being seen only for their sex appeal finally start to diminish?

Would teaching sex education at an even younger age, say 4th grade help to fix some of the growing problems in today’s society?

Abstinence and Education

My experience with education and abstinence may be very different than some. I went to an all girls catholic highschool and before that to a catholic middle school. Since in the catholic church they like to teach abstinence until marriage that is all I was taught in school. Basically what happened in highschool if a girl was pregnant they were not allowed to talk about their baby, bring pictures of any sort, and just act as if they were not even barring a child. It was as if my school was turning the other cheak and was trying to be blinded by the situation that people do participate in sex before marriage. This then to me resulted in more of my classmates and other students in my highschool to get pregnant. So, just teaching us abstinence was clearly not working because today about twelve of the girls from my class have children and a few are on their second child. I believe just because I went to a catholic school does not mean that our education system has to ignore the fact that this is happening in the world. I think if they would have taught us more about protection and maybe even had a course that was mandatory to take more girls would have made smarter choices and used some sort of protection. It is dangerous in the world today to be ignorant and blind to this situation because I believe it is only going to continue to get worse until something changes. Another thing though that people need to understand is that the parents of children need to educate their children too. As for myself, my mom is a nurse and has been for 30 years. She has seen as young as a 11 year old come in to deliver a baby. Since my mom is a nurse and has seen this going on for years she was able to educate my sister and I about what could happen to us. She was open about everything and told us that if we were engaging in these actions that steps needed to be taken in order to prevent a pregnancy from happening. She then also, told us about STDs and how this would affect our lives long term. She was very blunt and upfront with us which was smart because I feel that, that is the only way the point will get directly across. So my questions for you all are: 1) Did anyone else go to a catholic school and was only abstinence taught to you? What effects did this have on people that went to your school? Negative or Positive? 2) Should the school system recieve all the blame for not properly educating students about sex and stds? or should the parents be to blame also?

Abstinence & Education

Abstinence until marriage is something that will always be taught to students at a young age in schools. With the way our culture is today, sex and sexual images are everywhere from television and music videos to billboards and other forms of advertising. While students are being taught to not have sex until marriage in school they are finding out in the real world that it might not be as easy as they say to wait. In today's popular culture, one of the most watched shows on MTV is "Teen Mom", a show about the lives of teenage kids who engaged in sexual activity before marriage as 16 and 17 year old kids. MTV has portrayed sex in so many ways over the years through music videos, movies, and their everyday shows like Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant. Bridget Maher talked about in her side of the argument that each year 3 million teens or 25% of sexual active teens are infected with a STD. She went on to talk about how the teens engaging in this pre martial sex experience fear of STDs, regret, guilt, low self-respect, fear of commitment, and depression. When I was in high school, if a girl was to become pregnant just about everyone in the school would notice it and talk about it. While some people might not think its a huge deal it is affecting that girl in one way or another.

The reading talked a lot about how sex before marriage campaigns are everywhere and how there is so much money being poured into it.But in my opinion I really don't see a great deal of it, instead I see more things advertising sexual things or sexual images being posted. Every time you turn on the TV you are most likely going to see something related to sex as you flip through the channels. I think another big part of abstinence comes from where you live or what type of culture you live in. Coming form the midwest you really dont get the big picture on things, most often things are scaled down to a smaller image where as someone living in maybe California or New York might get a much bigger understanding of this whole thing.

With kids starting to partake in sexual activity at younger ages all the time I think it is important to continue the ads and campaigns in order for the younger generations to hear the messages. But with the way our pop culture is growing and where our media is taking us it will be hard to continue to preach abstinence until marriage. In my opinion if kids are not waiting until marriage they should at least wait until an age where they are more knowledgeable on the subject and they are mature enough and know how to handle it so STDs and unplanned pregnancy dont occur as often.

Questions:
1. Why has pop culture overtaken all the money and time invested in abstinence until marriage campaigns?
2. What will it take for kids to understand STDs and pregnancy at young ages are not worth it?

Abstinence-Only Education

Abstinence-only education (AOE) is not sufficient for today's teens. The majority of teens engage in sexual activity of some sort. For those students that do, schools must equip them with the knowledge and resources to practice safe sex. Furthermore, at some point in their life, likely soon after leaving high school, almost all people are going to participate in some type of sexual activity. If students are given a background on contraceptives, condoms, STD's and risks of sexual activity during middle school or high school, they will have valuable information for whenever they choose to engage in sexual activity, even if that is after high school or when they get married.

I also think abstinence is very much a personal decision that is largely decided upon before sex education of any sort. Religion and parenting play a big role in abstinence, and I don't feel like school sex education classes alter many students' decisions to remain abstinent or not. I think schools should teach comprehensive sexual education which includes abstinence but is not limited to abstinence. Schools should provide a learning environment, and not focus on trying to influence students' decisions. If students believe the facts support abstinence, then hopefully they will abstain from sex. However, for those who will choose to engage in sexual activity, they should be able to learn about safe practices. As mentioned before, I believe parents should be the ones to express their opinion and talk to teens about sex. However, not all students have family environments that provide effective conversation or messages about sex.

1) What type of sex education did you receive as a teen? What is your opinion about that education?

2) Do you think the people delivering the message could alter the effectiveness of an abstinence-only message? What if a relatable, young adult taught sex education classes, rather than a much older adult?

Zach Poss-4/14/11-Abstinence Only Ed

When originally assigned the “yes” position to this argument, I thought it was pretty cut and dry, pretty clear that abstinence only education (AOE) was an ineffective, futile program that the government wastes money on as opposed to the comprehensive or abstinence plus viewpoint. Of course, having looked into it, perspectives change somewhat.

Proponents of AOE tend to take a more logical viewpoint, largely pushed by religious and hegemonic ideals of heteronormativity and the nuclear family. They point to the fact that teenagers, specifically younger teenagers, are mostly not capable of dealing with the possible negative consequences associated with premarital sex and point to abstinence as the only 100% effective means of contraception and protection. I agree with both of these points. Where I think that Bridget Maher and most other proponents fail in their arguments is that they focus so much on proving effectiveness of these programs using numbers, mostly because that’s the same way that opponents argue against it. The problem with numbers is that they can be spun to support any viewpoint.

Supporters of comprehensive education (CE) tend to try to approach the evaluation of AOE from a realistic viewpoint. Why, if so very few people actually want to remain abstinent until marriage (most everyone doesn’t), do we continue to pump money into such a futile program. They try to push numbers too and point to evaluations of the AOE programs that quite frankly, aren’t there. There has been no concrete evidence supporting one way or another. Both sides point to the drop in teen pregnancies in the last two decades as a testament to their own curriculum.

Both sides of this argument fail to look at the bigger picture in defining the success or failure of a program. The goal of both is to protect kids from negative consequences that their maturity levels don’t quite grasp. Kids can’t look back with hindsight and regret what they haven’t done yet. Everyone knows that not all sex is bad, and that a girl doesn’t get pregnant every time, that you won’t always get an STD. Both programs are successful even if they put off sexual activity for a short period of time, giving kids a chance to mature and make better decisions, to be in a better position to handle any of those negative consequences I just listed, should they happen. The problem with the programs is that they are being taught by 40 to 60 year old nurses and teachers, by generations of people who don’t remember what it was like to be a kid. Kids need to know that abstinence is the best route to take, and they need to know what kinds of contraceptives are available, but they need to know how often those methods fail too, and they need to hear it from someone they respect.

Abstinence Only

Abstinence only programs are lacking in the education needed in contraception. Watching shows like Teen Mom where they are asked if they used contraception they almost always say no. They just didn't think it would happen to them. Or they thought that there's no way they would get pregnant after one time. These examples alone stress the importance of having a real sex education. During these sex Education classes it needs to be stressed the importance of contraception and how easy it really is to get pregnant. I mean In my High school, we had SO many pregnant girls. It was insane. We did have a sex ed. Program though so that doesn't really “prove that it works” or anything, but I still think it is important. I really just believe that they need to do a better job. Maybe even make the program longer so that they can explain how hard parenting really is and that all it takes is one time to have a baby.

I think that abstinence only programs have good intentions but they need to do more than just that. I personally think that High School age teens should not have sex. I think that they should remain abstinent until they are mature, and with a serious significant other. But these days, that's just not going to happen. I think that I would be most beneficial to incorporate abstinence into the sex education program but not exclude the contraception aspect. A combination of the two in my opinion would be the best.

Abstinence Only Education

The biggest problem I have with abstinence only education was hardly mentioned in our book: scare tactics. Abstinence only education, whether effective in preventing teen pregnancy or not (and I side with the no side of the debate, that it isn't), the scare tactics used in abstinence only education have long-lasting effects.

From my experience, abstinence only education focuses mainly on the dangers of sex. Not just premarital sex. All sex. Contraceptive failure rates, graphic pictures of STDs, stats about teenage pregnancy... And face it, when you get married, that fear doesn't magically disappear. Not everyone wants a kid right away when they are married. Even abstinent people who have only learned about abstinence will still probably need to learn how to use contraceptives when they're married, only they must then learn on their own. But by then, they have been conditioned to be fearful and ashamed of sex, that it can make having ever having sex seem scary and wrong.

Not only does it teach that premarital sex is scary and "wrong," but abstinence only teaches that sex outside of marriage is disgusting and perverse... Those are not psychologically safe associations to place on a perfectly normal (and, might I add, necessary) biological function. As I said before, being married won't make all those feelings disappear overnight. To teach abstinence only is to deny that sexual feelings happen, and that sex will eventually happen in an environment where contraception is still necessary. To say that sexual feelings can be easily smothered, should be repressed... And from what I remember of my psychology classes, repression is not only bad, but potentially dangerous and psychologically scarring.

Personally, I was taught a 50/50 program. 50% focused on effectiveness of abstinence, 50% focused on safe sex and contraception (that is, aside from my middle school class that wanted me to sign an abstinence and anti-drug pact, which I signed , even then consciously aware that I was only agreeing strictly to the no illegal drugs portion).

And I think 50/50 is the way it should be. Teaching abstinence as an option is very critical. But the fact of the matter is, even if 99% of teens didn't have sex, the 1% who did would still need access to safe sex information, and the other 99% would need the information for whenever they do start having sex. I am absolutely against any curriculum that intentionally hides or misrepresents important scientific or medical information.

I just love FRC's arguments. And by love, I mean I love to pick them apart. They're the only articles I've read where I literally cannot stop myself from writing rebuttals in the margins. They harp on the fact that STDs can be dangerous, but they don't want to teach about condoms that prevent most STDs... Sorry, but the mere existence of condoms invalidates most of that argument in a heartbeat. "The truth about sex" is "that it is meant to be saved for marriage"? Seriously? That's not a fact any more than the "fact" that the toaster is only meant to toast bread. Hate to break it to you, but a toaster can safely toast pastries, bagels, English muffins... And I promise, toasting a bagel in a toaster isn't any more perverse than safe sex outside of marriage. Oh, and the 9% jump in students that were scared into believing that teenage sex will "make it harder for them to get a good job or be successful in a career"? Someone really needs to tell those poor kids that no sane employer is going to ask about their virginity before deciding to hire them.