Should Sex Ed be reformed?

[JDenver]

BILL -

You use the nationmaster stats to disprove one stat, then ignore that it substantiates all the other ones. That's odd. I suppose all that does is prove what we already all know, stats are moving targets. However, every stat I've ever seen suggests that 70 million Americans have an STD.

I suppose it comes down to this;
- tell teens, raging with hormones and lack of good judgment, that they should just not have sex or they'll be violating their parents' wishes and committing immoral acts.

OR

- tell teens, raging with hormones and lack of good judgment, how sex works with all of the latent dangers, so that if they do it they don't get pregnant, sick, or die (HIV).

I guess we can either protect children or our perception of morality.

 

[Twin Fist]

so teach them not to take thier pants off n the first place?

seriously. Why do people just refuse to teach thier kids NOT to be out screwing around?

The US has;
Kids in the US have no idea what they're doing when they take their pants off and these stats prove it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You use the nationmaster stats to disprove one stat, then ignore that it substantiates all the other ones. That's odd.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the link to your stats. Where were they again?

I suppose all that does is prove what we already all know, stats are moving targets.

Yes, I suppose it is best for your argument if you abandon your stats now, since they've kind of gone bad on you. The general form is to exit with a snide remark about statistics in general - oops, I see you have that one down.

However, every stat I've ever seen suggests that 70 million Americans have an STD.

Which has what to do with your point? Remember, we were talking about sex ed? Which of these is a juvenile?

I suppose it comes down to this;
- tell teens, raging with hormones and lack of good judgment, that they should just not have sex or they'll be violating their parents' wishes and committing immoral acts.

OR

- tell teens, raging with hormones and lack of good judgment, how sex works with all of the latent dangers, so that if they do it they don't get pregnant, sick, or die (HIV).

How about a parent tells 'em both? I suppose that answer's not possible in your government-mandated either/or scenario?

I guess we can either protect children or our perception of morality.

I guess parents either get to decide how to raise their children, or you decide for them. I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but I'd rather leave parenting to parents.

 

[shesulsa]

If other sexual activities are presented here is a small list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_humping

Would these be considered safer effective alternatives to the already debunked absentience only idea? Would this lead to a more conscious choice involving pregnancy and STD's because it allows kids for a more hands on approach?

I think dry humping should be discussed as part of sex education, though I think contact with bodily fluids should be discouraged ... what, with ONE IN FOUR teen girls with some kind of STD or STI. There's an awful lot you can do with your pants on, after all.

Tez, thanks for your comments - we agree muchly!

And we can all sit around typing out our thoughts, but ... what are your kids doing right now?

 

[JDenver]

BILL -

What else to say? You post stats against mine, I am concilliatory that stats are elusive things, you throw it in my face.

It's too bad that I don't feel like continuing with any discussion like this. I will leave you to it.

 

[arnisador]

Why do people just refuse to teach thier kids NOT to be out screwing around?

Because the only people who think you can beat back thousands of years of evolution are the ones who don't believe in it in the first place?

 

[Tez3]

While I agree with the tone of your post in general, I would say that sex can be quite dangerous if it is practiced in an irresponsible manner. Teen sexual behavior can be a contributing factor to poverty, poor education, and criminal activity, both for men and women. It can lead to child abuse or neglect. It can lead to destructive relationships, spousal abuse, and broken homes. It can lead to many different diseases, some of which are life threatening.

I'm not saying sex is bad. I'm saying it needs to be taken seriously.


-Rob

This is why I said sex in itself is not dangerous, it's the stuff that us humans bring into it.

 

[Tez3]

Bill, when you say Europe has the most progressive sex education you do realise that Europe isn't one country? In fact most of Europe's countries have far less progressive sex education than America or the UK as they are Catholic countries where contraception and abortion is illegal. You will only find a couple of countries where sex education can be regarded as 'progressive' and they are the Protestant ones such as the Netherlands and the Scandanavian ones, you won't find progressive sex education in Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg, Poland,Belgium,Eire, Liechtenstein, Andorra and Switzerland.These countries do have sex education in schools but it is very conservative. In Poland there is no sex education in schools at all though this will change from September this year. In Germany sex education is by law a governmental duty. In the UK sex education in schools is not compulsory.
The former Soviet bloc countries where for many years abortion was the only 'contraception' have started sex education and are allowing other forms of contraception to be available to the effect that abortion numbers are dropping, bear in mind though countries like Romania are poor and schooling isn't to the standard of the rest of Europe. We also have Muslim countries like Turkey where sex education is given according to Muslim views.
Greece has an interesting idea, their medical students go out to schools to ddebate subjects with same sex groups, there's no taboo subject with them but it's up to the group to ask what they want to know, the purpose behind this though is to prevent STDs.

 

[shesulsa]

Why can't you give kids the facts - which, btw, include all the dangers and negative consequences, AND thus give them good reason beyond your word TO keep their pants on?

What is the sin to doing both?

 

[Bruno@MT]

Personally, I think the best thing to do is to give kids facts and information. The whole notion of not educating them seems foolish to me.
Like it or not, they will end up in a situation where their hormones are telling them to have sex (for boys this is 24/7) and that is where the information you provided can make a difference.

I am not saying you have to give them condoms if you don't want, but giving them clear information can't hurt. That way, they won't end up in the back seat of a car, armed with the 'knowledge' that you can't get pregnant first time...

Keeping kids ignorant is not a solution. That is just sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'lalalalalala' and hoping that nothing bad happens.
Kids will have sex, whether you like it or not. They only thing you can control is how much they know, and whether they have that information from a trusted source or not.

 

[Thesemindz]

Why can't you give kids the facts - which, btw, include all the dangers and negative consequences, AND thus give them good reason beyond your word TO keep their pants on?

What is the sin to doing both?

Not only that, but if you give them a command without any supporting reasoning, you teach your children that your position is unsupportable. You in fact give them reasons not to pay attention to your opinion, because if it could be supported by reason, it would be.

If you give them a suggestion, and back it with evidentiary support, you not only reinforce why they should pay attention to that suggestion, you reinforce the strength of all your positions at the same time. Clearly, a person who is able to look at the facts about one issue and reach a logical conclusion is likely to do so with regards to other issues as well.

Commanding through fiat and fear may be effective in the short term, but leading through reason and ration will be effective in the long term. Those kids will be making their decisions about sex when you aren't in the room. I would rather that they had the best possible education on which to base those decisions.

If the totality of their position on abstinence, or any other issue, is based on a fear of their parents, then all they have to do is convince themselves that their parents might not find out, or that it's worth the risk that they might. If their position is based on a wealth of knowledge and understanding, then they are more likely to come to the same rational, reasoned conclusion that you did.


-Rob

 

[Stac3y]

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.

Whoa, there, Bill! I consider myself to be not just a bleeding heart liberal, but beyond that--maybe a sucking chest wound liberal? Please don't generalize politically liberal parents this way.

My goal as a parent is to rear children who are able to function well in society and be safe and happy. My children (ages 8 and 10) are very obedient, excellent students, hard workers, and say "sir" and "ma'am" and "please" and "thank you." They are fully aware of the biological processes involved with sexuality, puberty, menstruation, STDs, and know what condoms are and why they are used. We discuss these things clinically, because they NEED the full information.

We also stress abstinence until adulthood, and that only adults can make the decisions necessary to form committed relationships in which sex is appropriate. Sex is for adults; not kids; not teenagers. We don't base this on some nebulous "morality" but on the facts: Sex before adulthood is a STUPID idea. The risks outweigh the rewards. And if we ever catch them fooling around, they will be in so much trouble that they might not survive it. Basically, we teach them that having sex if you are not prepared for the potential consequences (babies, most importantly) is just a horrible idea. Once you are a parent, nothing else is as important as parenting. Teenagers are not emotionally, fiscally, or intellectually prepared for child-rearing.

The problem with abstinence only education is that it doesn't address all the facts (also that it's been proven not to work.) Education in general is intended to provide kids with information they need to succeed later in life. Many parents are unwilling or unable to provide the full clinical information that kids need. I see addressing the biological and mechanical processes of sexuality (in a neutral fashion) and the dangers of them as part of science education. No morality need be applied to show kids that they should wait. Abstinence only education basically just says "don't do it;" it doesn't give adequate reasons why, and it doesn't prepare kids for adulthood by giving them the facts.

Wow, I sure wrote a lot when all I really wanted to say was that not all liberal parents are raising little monsters. So, to reiterate: abstinence only education doesn't work, and lots of liberals are strict disciplinarians, and lots of conservatives raise brats.

 

[Tez3]

Stac3y, a post from the heart straight to the point! Hurrah!
As it was me he was calling a liberal, a description I'm proud to carry btw, I should point out to Bill, I'm a Liberal in the British sense not American. We have a long proud history and count among our members Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, Asquith, Gladstone and of course Adam Smith and Thomas Paine. One belief is in srong civil liberties and private ownership.
Knowledge is power and arming our children with knowledge is one of the best things we can do for them.

 

[Flea]

This reminds me of a curious chapter in my childhood:

When I was 12 my family had a dinner party and mom passed around a pot of coffee with dessert. I asked for a cup out of curiosity, and my mother decided to be crafty with some reverse psychology and give me a cup. What 12yo is going to like coffee, right? This would save her the trouble of denying it to me later when I did want to drink it.

I loved that sip, her little miscalculation upset our domestic tranquillity for the next three years. It wasn't that coffee was that important to me, but her arguments against my coffee drinking were so transparent that it was a screaming match every time we ate out and she ordered a cup, every time we had guests and they got a cup. My problem was that her arguments were asinine:

*The caffeine is bad for you - we only keep decaf in the house, and what about all the tea we drink? What about all the chocolate we eat?

* It stains your teeth - but you drink it and your teeth look fine.

And so forth ... there's no prosecutor like an angry teenager, so I squeezed the truth out of her every time. Grandma didn't let her drink coffee until she was 18, so that was the rule for Flea too. Just because. It got to the point that my dad went out of his way to sneak me coffee because he got tired of defending her on that. Once I even stole my mother's credit card and went to a coffeeshop (it's really pretty funny when you consider the alternative. Some of my friends were into promiscuity and drugs - I filched an iced mocha!) If she had just given me a credible reason why she didn't want me drinking coffee, I would have respected it - or at least toned down my rebellion. But nobody sees through stupidity and hypocrisy like a teenager.

The sad thing was that I was an excellent student ultimately graduating high school with high honors. I was active in my church, lots of extracurriculars, and a squeaky-clean boyfriend. It hurt at the time that she took all those things for granted in favor of picking such a pointless battle, and it cost her a lot of my respect in the long term. Strangely, she offered no comment when I got hot and heavy with said boyfriend - maybe she was exhausted from The Coffee Wars.

Would somebody please pass the half and half?

 

[Tez3]

Sorry, this is a bit off track but I've often wondered why coffee in America is considered adults only? do you put something in it the rest of us don't have?

 

[Flea]

I'll have to refer you to my mother on that.

:whip1:

More to the point, what I don't understand is why everyone gets their unmentionables into such macrame over the sexual practices of other people. From gay mawwidge to stiletto heels to interracial dating, even with celibacy, nothing is immune to criticism. And yet nobody seems to examine their own lives? Are we all that oblivious to our own flaws and insecurities? And why is sexuality such a universal lightning rod for judging one's neighbor? I honestly don't get it.

Sigh ... guess I'll just have another cup of coffee. Tez, want to join me in a donut?

 

[Tez3]

I'll have to refer you to my mother on that.

:whip1:

More to the point, what I don't understand is why everyone gets their unmentionables into such macrame over the sexual practices of other people. From gay mawwidge to stiletto heels to interracial dating, even with celibacy, nothing is immune to criticism. And yet nobody seems to examine their own lives? Are we all that oblivious to our own flaws and insecurities? And why is sexuality such a universal lightning rod for judging one's neighbor? I honestly don't get it.

Sigh ... guess I'll just have another cup of coffee. Tez, want to join me in a donut?[/quote]


I'll have to wait till I get to work, nights again! But love coffee and donuts! first thing I do at work is put the filter machine on!

I think one of the things people get their knickers in a twist for is that the Christian religion has preached for so long that sex is dirty and should only be done for the making of babies ( lots of them so that the earth is populated with Christians), this started with the Roman Catholics who declared chasity for men was the ideal, women being considered hussies everyone of them! If they couldn't be chaste they had to be married and not to actually enjoy sex. this hangover has continued into the present day.
It's the 'forbidden' again, that and the feeling that someone might be getting something they aren't!
TBH a teenage prengancy isn't the best thing in the world but it's certainly not the worst. It's a mistake but one that is easily enough to cope with. I can think of many many horrible things that could happen that are far worse. There is horrendous suffering in this world and people are concerned with others sex lives? As we say here, go to the quartermasters store and draw yourself out a life!

 

[Stac3y]

This reminds me of a curious chapter in my childhood:

When I was 12 my family had a dinner party and mom passed around a pot of coffee with dessert. I asked for a cup out of curiosity, and my mother decided to be crafty with some reverse psychology and give me a cup. What 12yo is going to like coffee, right? This would save her the trouble of denying it to me later when I did want to drink it.

I loved that sip, her little miscalculation upset our domestic tranquillity for the next three years. It wasn't that coffee was that important to me, but her arguments against my coffee drinking were so transparent that it was a screaming match every time we ate out and she ordered a cup, every time we had guests and they got a cup. My problem was that her arguments were asinine:

*The caffeine is bad for you - we only keep decaf in the house, and what about all the tea we drink? What about all the chocolate we eat?

* It stains your teeth - but you drink it and your teeth look fine.

I tell my kids the truth:

1. Caffeine is bad for bodies that are still growing (worse than it is for adults); and

2. They are energetic enough; if they get any more so, I might get very, very cranky with them. :rpo:

 

[Tez3]

I tell my kids the truth:

1. Caffeine is bad for bodies that are still growing (worse than it is for adults); and

2. They are energetic enough; if they get any more so, I might get very, very cranky with them. :rpo:

Ah, I see, thank you!

 

[Stac3y]

Of course I would want a child of mine to be a good, intelligent, open-minded, thoughtful, wonderful and well-rounded person. However, I don't think that teaching them all aspects of sexuality, and particularly that various forms of sex are OK, is part of that.

I don't think that teaching children that it is OK to experiment with sex when I have told them NO is OK, either.
<Snip>

If we were having this discussion about driver's education, it would not seem so difficult. The school may teach driver's education, but they do not either condone nor encourage driving without a parent's permission. They don't slip the kid a driver's license and a rental car and suggest they take it out for a spin if that's what they really want to do, no matter what the parents want.

A parent may likewise allow or disallow their child from driving as they wish, and none dare gainsay their right or insist that their child will not grow up to be 'well-rounded' if they are not permitted to drive.

Yet let the parent ban sexual activity instead of driving a car, and suddenly that's just not OK for the parent to do. Suddenly it is all about society's right to insist that the child be given a 'well-rounded' education, to include sexual activity if they so desire, despite parent's objections or even laws against it.
quote]

[sorry, I messed up the quoting thingy; my text is below]

Bill, could you please tell me where you are getting the information that schools are teaching kids that experimenting with sex is okay (especially against their parents' permission)? Being a librarian, the spouse of a public school teacher, and a product of public education myself, I have NEVER, EVER heard of teachers encouraging kids to go out and have sex. NEVER. I have, however, seen kids being told by teachers NOT to have sex, but without being told what constitutes sex.

Public school sex ed is intended to give the facts, not to convey any moral/religious or pro-juvenile sex message. If you know of a teacher or school that is doing that, I suggest you report them to your local school board.