It should not be acceptable for a woman to be promiscuous

My opponent stated:"Sex is not just a physical thing as my opponent tries to dumb it down to be, it also has psychological and emotional effect on people (mainly women). You stated that you were pro sex-education and the main point of sex education is abstinence and sexual awareness so what is expected of the sexual education teacher to teach? Sex is just fine no matter what age? Only protected sex is okay? Abstinence is the best way of preventing pregnancy unless you feel differently? The main reason society looks down on or even rejects promiscuity is because many are taught abstinence from a young age and they are taught abstinence from a young age to help women from being thrown into a situation they never planned to be in. ""Again, a big point teachers make in sexual health classes is the fact abstinence is the best choice until marriage. If a young girl commits herself for whatever reason (religion, personal, familial) to avoiding sexual activity and stays true to her commitment then it is obvious why praise is necessary. "I believe there has been a misunderstanding regarding the terminology. The point of sex-education is not abstinence. The point of sex education is to reduce risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, and equip individuals to make informed decisions about their personal sexual activity. What my opponent is referring to is called abstinence-only sexual education, an obsolete approach that focuses solely on abstinence as a tool to fight unhealthy sex practices. What I am proposing is called comprehensive sex education, which also adds the options of contraceptives, safe sex and non vaginal sex practices. Of course, at first glance, abstinence seems like the better choice, for it is a 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. Nevertheless, it has been proven to be very inefficient as an approach to sex education: Abstinence-only sex education has been found to be ineffective in decreasing the HIV risk in the developed world. [1] Abstinence-only sex education has also been found to increase unplanned pregnancy. [2] The concept of no premarital sex is evidently flawed, for it completely neglects the issues for individuals to whom marriage is not valued or desired, not to mention those for whom it's not allowed (specifically LGBT). It distorts information, revealing only the failure rates of contraceptives and not their high success rates and benefits. [3] The whole approach is focused on a compulsory dogma of chastity, rather than an informed decision taking methodology, unsuitable with our free thinking society. Why should abstinence be regarded as the one and only way to prevent sex related problems? Why not tell teenagers that the average condom has a 98% success rate when used correctly, or that the contraceptive pill has a 99.7% success rate? [4] Why should they be discouraged from practicing non vaginal sexual activities such as anal sex, mutual masturbation or oral sex? If there are efficient ways to practice sex with relative safety, the social paradigm is pointless. The truth is that "slut shaming" is not a matter of public health as much as it is a matter of sexism and socio-religious principle. My opponent claims:"The concept of girls being cautious is, I feel, often misunderstood. This advice is not given to victim-blame but to prevent girls from being put in this situation. Example: If a car thief was on the loose you would not tell car owners to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked simply because it is not their fault that their car could be stolen and the car thief should know better. You tell girls to use caution not to communicate to men that it is okay to rape but to prevent a woman from falling victim. "My case is not against prevention. It all depends on how the advise is presented. Of course women should not get in strangers' cars or accept beverages handed to them by unknowns. We must accept the fact that sick individuals exist, and they should be handled as the threat they are. We must raise consciousness the same way we would advert a kid against a pedophile. What I find offensive is when females are told they shouldn't dress in a particular way, or that they should build up an image of chastity for themselves in order to reduce the risk of rape. This is almost like endorsing the animalistic instincts of some degenerates, treating them as poor souls tempted by desire instead of the degenerate criminals they are. As to my opponent's arguments, they all derive from pregnancy and STD's, let us go deeper: Undesired Pregnancy. I share my opponent's opinion on the disadvantages of this issue. However, I don't see how it's a valid reason to indulge in hatred and discrimination of promiscuous women. As it's already been discussed, there are ways to live an active safe life and avoid pregnancy. It is absurd to condemn someone over the mere possibility of pregnancy. Why should a girl who has successfully avoided pregnancy by the correct use of contraceptives be victim of bigotry in the hands of society? It is not fair. Similarly, there are women who accept the responsibility of their mistakes, and become caring and loving mothers. These brave women shouldn't fall under the judgemental eye of society either. A group can never, ever be judged based on the behavior of some of its individuals, this means all promiscuous females should not be judged on the behalf of their irresponsible peers. So, instead of judging promiscuity, society should put the pressure over irresponsibility. In other words, as long as the woman is not causing the social damages of giving birth to an unwanted child and neglecting him or her, she has no reason to be criticised. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. This is even less of a reason to endorse "slut shaming". Again, people who are promiscuous but have taken measures to remain clean have no reason to be frowned upon. Assuming people received the appropriate sex education my case is arguing for, there should be no doubts concerning the risks of sexual acts. If one party decides to engage in a sex act with another party, he or she does it in full understanding of the risk that implies getting infected. Contrarily, if a person unknowingly contracts a disease it is not a problem of promiscuity but of sexual ignorance. Finally, I will address the portion of the debate where my opponent argues promiscuity is a cause of rape, and should therefore be rejected. Let me reduce this un-cited argument with an example. It is known that middle and high class citizens are more likely to be targeted by kidnappers. Do we ask them to stop earning money? Do we judge them for having large amounts of money? No, it would be illogical, they make money because they obtain pleasure from it. The same applies to our issue: women should be careful, the same way affluent individuals take safety measures to prevent kidnapping, but they should not be told to give up an active sex life just to prevent rape. Moreover, this debate is not about promiscuity being right or wrong, or about the pros and cons of abstinence versus promiscuity. This debate is about women having a right to practice sex freely, without being discriminated. It needs to be understood that the mere fact of having frequent and casual sex has no immoral value on its own. It's an issue of the tolerance and acceptance (not necessarily approval) that these women deserve. Sources:[1] Underhill, K; Operario, D, Montgomery, P (2007 Oct 17). Operario, Don. ed. "Abstinence-only programs for HIVinfection prevention in high-income countries"[2] Kohler, Pamela; Lafferty, William (2008 Apr). "Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy". Journal of Adolescent Health[3] Effective Sex Education, Brigid McKeon, 2006[4] "Planned Parenthood IUD Birth Control" - Mirena IUD