Should Sex Ed be reformed?

[JadecloudAlchemist]

I was reading the paper today and a 16 yr old was asking a Sex columnist about how her boyfriend does not want to use a condom and she does not want to use the pill and what they can do.

The Sex columnist spoke about how people say abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy. The Sex columnist then listed other possible ways to be sexual intimate such as mutual masterbation ,using devices(toys) anal sex and oral sex and so on.

Do you think schools or parents in discussing Sex Ed should discuss these alternatives along with abstinence or do you think abstinence alone is enough?

 

[Twin Fist]

i would say that sex ed should be changed.

they should take the girls to the welfare office and show them the women with 5 kids from 5 men, who cant hold down jobs and SUFFER for being sexually STUPID about birth control

They should take the boys to talk to men who are forced to live in abject poverty because of crippling child support payments. all because they didnt want to wear a condom.

They should sit the little people down and tell them "you may think he i cute now, in 10 years you wont even want to admit that you went out with him"

make them do ride alongs with the police so they can see crack whores.

find a way to ake them see that real life isnt like friends, where you can sleep with anyone, a new one everywee and there are never consequences.

show them the numbers on herpes, and HPV

then remind them that NOT screwing is the only way to avoid all that.

simple really

 

[tellner]

Abstinence-only sex education is stupid. That's all there is to it. Encouraging kids to wait? Certainly. But the Cult of Virginity has lead to higher rates of STDs, higher rates of early pregnancy and higher divorce rates. It's based on the idiotic notion that telling children lies will make them wiser and that the girls - the rules are different for boys - can turn off their sexuality until it's time to sell it to the highest bidder.

Whoopi Goldberg said it best "You can't stop kids from ****ing. It feels good."

What you can do is give them good information so that they can make rational choices and encourage them to be responsible. And yes, that means that if they are aware enough to realize that they aren't going to be responsible about "Tab A, Slot B" intercourse they should consider alternatives.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Whoopi Goldberg said it best "You can't stop kids from ****ing. It feels good."

Some parents manage to stop their children from lying, swearing, stealing, behaving badly, smoking, taking drugs, and any number of other things that may well 'feel good' to some of them.

But when it comes to sex, parents cannot teach their children not to do it until they reach a certain age or maturity level?

That seems odd. Has anyone told Whoopi about this?

 

[Flea]

Heh ... I don't remember what it's called, but there's a novel by Anthony Burgess where the government responded to a severe overpopulation problem with a new PR campaign.

It's Sapiens to be Homo! :lol: Maybe that's the answer to teen pregnancy.

Seriously though, there are some great programs out there. I've long been impressed by a sex ed curriculum developed by the Unitarian Universalist denomination:

http://www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/ourwhole/

There are sections geared from kindergarten (basic anatomy and assertiveness skills if someone makes you feel uncomfortable) to senior citizens. I haven't been a churchgoer for a while, but I'd love to take the adult segment myself.

Abstinence education is a bad case of wishful thinking.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Abstinence education is a bad case of wishful thinking.

Should we teach children it is OK to cross the street without mommy or daddy, because they're going to do it anyway? Or may we continue to insist that they abstain from crossing the street by themselves?

Abstinence is not a dirty word, and it is entirely acceptable for a parent to absolutely deny a course of action to a child. DO NOT DO THIS. Plain, simple, easily understandable, and within a parent's purview.

We insist that our children not snitch cookies from the cookie jar, we expect them to obey us, but when it comes to sex, whoops, guess they're going to do whatever they want to do!

If it was a tattoo on their face instead of sex, you'd feel you have a right to say something, a right to stop your juvenile child from doing something very stupid that they'll regret later. But when it comes to sex? Nope, can't control them.

Sorry, not buying it.

 

[shesulsa]

Parents have been "controlling" their children's sex lives since there have been parents and children ... and it's working out great so far, right? WRONG!

You'd be surprised as hell at the "education" our kids are getting about sex and pregnancy prevention such as it is.

I'm a person who feels an educated, informed opinion carries more responsibility and blame than an uneducated one. Talk to your kids about ALL the icky, gooey, embarrassing stuff. They'll finger it out on their own anyway.

 

[arnisador]

Abstinence education has been conclusively shown not to work. Hence, presenting alternatives isn't a bad idea.

 

[Thesemindz]

I support abstinence. I practiced it prior to marriage. I have both spiritual and secular reasons for supporting abstinence. I think promiscuous sex is both physically dangerous and emotionally destructive.

All that being said, I don't understand the resistance to giving children a full education about sexuality. I don't think it should be done by the government, I think it is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children's education, but why are people so against any education beyond, "keep your knees together?"

I've always felt that people can make the best decision when they have a full grasp of the factors involved. If we simply want to scare our children into what we believe to be appropriate behavior, then there might be an argument for an incomplete education. But if we want our children to make informed, rational decisions in their lives, we have a responsibility to provide them with all the facts which might affect that decision.

I think many, though admittedly not all, of the "abstinence only" advocates are basing their position purely on their religion. They are ret-conning their arguments to fit their religious beliefs. That's their prerogative, but they should not be pushing that position on others. If you want your children to grow up to be rational adults who make informed decisions in their own best interest, you can't begin their education by using scare tactics and limited debate to force your own opinion on them.

Now, that being said, parents have at least some limited right to dictate to their children which behaviors are acceptable and which are proscribed. If you want to tell you kids, "no sex before marriage. Cause I said so!" Then by all means, feel free. But I would prefer to tell my kids that sex is a dangerous and wonderful activity which can be either a positive or negative part of their lives, and that it is their responsibility to make the decisions which will determine how it affects them. And I don't want the government or anyone else doing that for me without my permission.

So, I support extra-marital abstinence. And I support encouraging that. But I also support young people learning about methods of birth control, and STDs, and how sexual activity affects the brain, and how their parents view sexual activity from their own spiritual perspective, and how sexual activity can affect a relationship, and pregnancy, and how sexual promiscuity at a young age can affect their education, and their financial future. I also think that rape prevention and self defense should be a part of sexual education.

I think this all needs to be done in an age appropriate fashion of course. I wouldn't teach five year olds about anal sex. But I might teach them about stranger danger, and that no one has the right to touch the parts of their bodies under their clothes.

Because I want them to know all the issues involved. Not because I give up on them making the right decision, but because that way they are best equipped to make the right decision.


-Rob

 

[shesulsa]

Abstinence education has been conclusively shown not to work. Hence, presenting alternatives isn't a bad idea.

Logical. :spock:

 

[Flea]

I've always felt that people can make the best decision when they have a full grasp of the factors involved. If we simply want to scare our children into what we believe to be appropriate behavior, then there might be an argument for an incomplete education. But if we want our children to make informed, rational decisions in their lives, we have a responsibility to provide them with all the facts which might affect that decision.

Thesemindz, it sounds like you're in the same camp as the rest of us. I don't think anyone here is bashing abstinence, just abstinence-only education. And for the record, I feel that abstinence is a perfectly valid choice for anyone regardless of their stage in life. There are many excellent reasons to make that choice, all deeply personal and best left between the individual and their Creator. Like most other major decisions in life.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not in my camp. I would be a bit upset, as a parent, to discover that little Jimmy had been taught in a mandatory sex-ed class at school that if he can't keep his phallum bway-bway tucked away, it's OK to get some condoms and live it up.

It seems odd to me that as a parent, I could tell little Jimmy that God exists, Jesus saves, and etc - and the school won't tell Jimmy that daddy is a liar. But if I tell Jimmy that he is not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse, the school can override my teachings and tell little Jimmy that it's OK to get some condoms and get bizzy.

I am not a parent. Probably a good thing. Because this would bother me lots. Sexual education is not reading, not writing, not the arts, it is none of the things that are the mandate of a public school. If I were a parent, I would want to be the only authority speaking to my child on that subject.

I really don't see it as the purview of the Board of Education to determine what my child believes from the point of view of sexual education. I don't want public schools to teach religion, and I don't want them to teach sexual behavior and what is right, wrong, or permissible in society to children.

It usurps the role of the parent in a way I see as improper. Much like many of you would probably see it if we were talking about teaching a state religion in class against your will.

 

[Tez3]

Quite frankly only in America could you have this sort of sex education!
Firstly you are talking about two difference subjects here, the first is the biolologial process, how to deal with it and the various ways of using family planning etc. The second subject is morality.
In the Netherlands the first subject is taught by schools, the second by parents....they have the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the world plus the highest age that teenagers lose their virginity around 18.
The attitudes towards young people that seem to come across from America is that they are dangerous animals who are set to explode at any moment, can't be trusted for one minute and are actually disliked by many.
The attitude toward sex, we've discussed before on here,come across as prudish and Victorian. Sex is used to sell products, is seen on screens as a product in itself and the religious people scream constantly how dirty and dangerous it is.
It's not dirty, it's not dangerous in itself merely a normal function of human beings however lack of knowledge of this function is very dangerous.
If you talk to your children, if you explain everything to them as Shesulsa posts, if you treat it as you would every other subject, the children will respond. It's not absinence teaching, it's not teaching them to use alternatives, it's teaching them to think for themselves, to make decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Thats what you are aiming for isn't it...bringing up your children to be well rounded responsible independent adults?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not absinence teaching, it's not teaching them to use alternatives, it's teaching them to think for themselves, to make decisions and the consequences of those decisions.

But that gets back to the issue of 'morality' as you said (well said, by the way). If a parent sees 'abstinence' as 'moral' and wants that to be what their child learns, then what? That is wrong and not to be permitted because?

I hate to use emotional buzzwords in discussions like this, and I mean no harm, but can't think of a better way to say it - it is a purely liberal political viewpoint to believe that parents ought to be compelled (or schools) to teach children to 'think for themselves,' instead of teaching them not to engage in sexual activity. You grant the role of teaching morality to the parent, but then you strip it away from parents who would teach morals YOU don't approve of.

Thats what you are aiming for isn't it...bringing up your children to be well rounded responsible independent adults?

No, that's what liberals want parents to aim for. Parents may wish to raise children who respect their parents and obey them. That is seen by liberal as unacceptable, unreasonable, and freakish. It's sad.

But if parents are allowed to teach their children as they see fit, regarding sexual behavior (abstinence), that should take care of the 'responsible' part, and the schools, if they do their job and teach real education and not what tab A can fit into besides slot B, will take care of the 'well rounded' bit.

Liberals typically assume that everyone wants what they want - a child who is 'well rounded' and exposed to all concepts and ideas - including such things as the relative OKness of all sexual behaviors. But all parents do not want what liberals want. Some actually believe some forms of sexual behavior are wrong and not only don't want their children to be taught about them, but don't want their children to be told they're OK by the authority of the public school system.

I do not insist that public schools teach that homosexuality is wrong - I don't think that my beliefs trump those of parents who find it OK. But I am not granted the same consideration in return. Same for abstinence - I do not insist that schools teach abstinence, because I know it's a personal, family, moral issue and not fit for public school teaching. Again, I do not see the same consideration being granted in return.

What I see is a wholesale usurpation of the rights of parents by the state, which appears to be insistent upon teaching the 'right' and 'wrong' of sexual behavior. I was against it when the Bush Administration wanted 'abstinence' taught in schools, and I'm against the opposite. Neither belongs in the public school curriculum, IMHO.

 

[Tez3]

Yep, that'll be me the liberal enemy of all right thinkig people. I'm the one with two children a lad in his thirties and a girl who's 24 next month who have both managed not to procreate carelessly, yeah what would I know.
Why the hell do you want your children when they are in their thirties etc still obeying you?
Oh and by the way you missed the point totally of my post!!

Give your children as much knowledge as you can about everything not just sex, teach them the consequences of underage sexual activity, underage or excessive drinking etc and you will find they will see the point of not having sex underage or randomly all by themselves.

My point is that teaching them the mechanics if you like of sex is vital, then you teach them what to do with those mechanics, don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm saying they should be taught what sex is, how its done and what you can do to prevent pregnancies and STDS as well as subjects such as infertility an academic subject, cold hard facts if you like no opinions. Parents are free them to teach their children hopefully by example, their morality.
Read my posts right please before you decide what they mean.

 

[Tez3]

BTW the wish for children to grow up to be well rounded, independant and responsible ADULTS comes from my Orthodox Jewish background not any political wish to see them as some sort of hippie.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh and by the way you missed the point totally of my post!!

I'm sorry if you think so, but I believe I got it.

Give your children as much knowledge as you can about everything not just sex, teach them the consequences of underage sexual activity, underage or excessive drinking etc and you will find they will see the point of not having sex underage or randomly all by themselves.

But I don't want to do that. Your assumption is (I repeat) appears to be that everyone wants to do that. I don't. And apparently, that's not OK.

That was my quip about liberal beliefs. They begin with a premise - that they assume everyone wants to achieve. Like "We all want well-rounded children who know everything there is to know about sex, so here's how to go about that." The premise is flawed, we do NOT all want our children to learn everything there is to know about sex.

That's usually the jaw-dropper in verbal discussions of this sort - liberals just gape in horror that conservatives think their children ought not be taught about, say, buggery, at a tender age by a public school teacher. Since we don't agree with your premise, we naturally disagree with the proposed methods.

My point is that teaching them the mechanics if you like of sex is vital, then you teach them what to do with those mechanics, don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm saying they should be taught what sex is, how its done and what you can do to prevent pregnancies and STDS as well as subjects such as infertility an academic subject, cold hard facts if you like no opinions. Parents are free them to teach their children hopefully by example, their morality.

I quite agree with that statement, and I'm sorry I didn't say it better, but I thought I had.

In the USA, 'sex ed' often consists of both the former (biology) and the latter (behavior) as well as given free condoms, encouragement to get out there and get bizzy, and pep-talks about how it is OK to want to have sex with one of the same sex or what-have-you and in fact, they ought to do it. The 'behavior' part is the part that I believe usurps parent's rights.

Read my posts right please before you decide what they mean.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read your post, I believe I knew what it meant, and I responded to it. How do I read your post the "right" way? I'm intelligent, if you'll grant me that much, so if I read your post and believe you said something you don't believe you said, perhaps the fault is not with my reading?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

BTW the wish for children to grow up to be well rounded, independant and responsible ADULTS comes from my Orthodox Jewish background not any political wish to see them as some sort of hippie.

Some parents believe that children will become adults and that they will then begin to make the decisions that will make them 'well-rounded' (whatever that is), independent, and responsible members of society. But they also believe that these values are to be instilled by parents and not by society in the form of formal indoctrination into morals the state considers fair, just, and correct.

I have no problem with schools teaching about eggs, sperm, intercourse, and that's where babies come from. That's all biology. I object to them telling children that some sex acts my religion disapproves of are actually OK, or that they can have sex if they want to, no matter what parents tell them, and oh by the way, here's a bunch of free condoms. Well-rounded? Perhaps, if you mean the girls all end up with round heels.

 

[Xue Sheng]

But when it comes to sex, parents cannot teach their children not to do it until they reach a certain age or maturity level?

My only comment on this entire topic is about this.

A few years back the NYS Board of Regents decided that the earlier they taught sex ed the better and started teaching sex ed in 2nd or 3rd grade. After a whole lot of thought on how and what to teach they were ready and went out and gave it a try. In a demonstration on how to use a condom they used a banana to demo how to put it on.

The response that came back from some of the children was…”so what do you do with the banana after sex”. You see they had absolutly no concept what-so-ever what sex was.

Yup the regents were WRONG again….. And…. They figured out that was just a bit to young to start teaching sex Ed.

So apparently no one told the NYS Regents either

 

[Tez3]

I'm sorry if you think so, but I believe I got it.



But I don't want to do that. Your assumption is (I repeat) appears to be that everyone wants to do that. I don't. And apparently, that's not OK.

That was my quip about liberal beliefs. They begin with a premise - that they assume everyone wants to achieve. Like "We all want well-rounded children who know everything there is to know about sex, so here's how to go about that." The premise is flawed, we do NOT all want our children to learn everything there is to know about sex.

That's usually the jaw-dropper in verbal discussions of this sort - liberals just gape in horror that conservatives think their children ought not be taught about, say, buggery, at a tender age by a public school teacher. Since we don't agree with your premise, we naturally disagree with the proposed methods.



I quite agree with that statement, and I'm sorry I didn't say it better, but I thought I had.

In the USA, 'sex ed' often consists of both the former (biology) and the latter (behavior) as well as given free condoms, encouragement to get out there and get bizzy, and pep-talks about how it is OK to want to have sex with one of the same sex or what-have-you and in fact, they ought to do it. The 'behavior' part is the part that I believe usurps parent's rights.



I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read your post, I believe I knew what it meant, and I responded to it. How do I read your post the "right" way? I'm intelligent, if you'll grant me that much, so if I read your post and believe you said something you don't believe you said, perhaps the fault is not with my reading?

I can imagine people would be surprised if you tell them you don't want your children knowing about sex and your children were in their twenties for example.
I didn't say well rounded etc children I said adults and thats where you are missing the point and didn't read my post. I said this is the aim when bringing them up to be adults, to teach them how to make decisions and take responsiblity. You want them to be this way as adults.
I think you may be assuming I'm talking about young children, I'm not. In this country children can leave school at 16, they can be out working, living on their own and they can even join the army at this age so our aim has to be that these young adults have the life skills to be responsible citizens.