Should Sex Ed be reformed?

[LuckyKBoxer]

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.
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.

Funny you seem to want to blame Abstinence only sex education for those higher rates, I blame poor parenting, child neglect, and child abandonment for those things. I would be willing to bet massive amounts of money that if you look at the numbers alot deeped on child pregnancy, sexual activity, and STDs, that you will find the numbers are lean alot more towards those single parent families, or families that parents basically expect the state to raise their kids.

Don't get me wrong, all the information is great when trying to get someone to truely understand a thing...in this case the dangers of sexual activity... but the problem is alot deeper then simply handing out some condoms and morning after pills likes its pencils and paperclips.

Last I looked we call them children for a reason, and we have laws that forbid them to participate in certain activities, require parents to provide certain aspects to protect them, and treat them differently then adults in general. So education alone will not do the trick. It is a good start though.

 

[yorkshirelad]

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.


quote]
Bill, this is the same in the UK. It was before I took A-Levels in '93 anyway. I attended a whole term of MANDATORY sex ed in 5th Form (10th grade). Abstinence was mentioned, but the majority of the class consisted of demonstrations with condoms on cucumbers, it's ok to have sex, that mutual masturbation is freferable, and advise on STDs. Guess what there were so many pregnancies that the school had a nursery. Great job at prevention.

A few friends that I had gone to middle school with attended Cardinal Heanan High School in Leeds. They didn't teach sex ed at all and yet chilsd pregnancy was unheard of at the school. What gives?

 

[Carol]

I blame poor parenting, child neglect, and child abandonment for those things. I would be willing to bet massive amounts of money that if you look at the numbers alot deeped on child pregnancy, sexual activity, and STDs, that you will find the numbers are lean alot more towards those single parent families, or families that parents basically expect the state to raise their kids.

I agree with you. However, I also think this article from the New Yorker has a fair point in that there are teens from an evangelical background that are getting pregnant because they believe that condoms are something that the slutty kids use.

Red Sex, Blue Sex - Why do so many evangelical teenagers become pregnant?


Granted, the article asks why are "so many evangelical teenagers" getting pregnant. I don't know how much "so many" is. I also don't know how to compare the pregnancy rates for teens like Bristol Palin vs. pregnancy rates for teens from broken homes. But I do think this is one facet of a complex and multi-faceted issue that is not going to be easy to solve.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, this is the same in the UK. It was before I took A-Levels in '93 anyway. I attended a whole term of MANDATORY sex ed in 5th Form (10th grade). Abstinence was mentioned, but the majority of the class consisted of demonstrations with condoms on cucumbers, it's ok to have sex, that mutual masturbation is freferable, and advise on STDs. Guess what there were so many pregnancies that the school had a nursery. Great job at prevention.

A few friends that I had gone to middle school with attended Cardinal Heanan High School in Leeds. They didn't teach sex ed at all and yet chilsd pregnancy was unheard of at the school. What gives?

Well, I don't think it is always down to parents and abstinence teaching. I'm perfectly willing to admit that kids will have sex regardless of what their parents say, and to admit that young children contracting STDs and getting pregnant is a serious social issue. As had been said in this thread, kids of 'good' families turn up preggers, and kids of 'untaught at home' families manage to avoid the rough and stay on the green until marriage. I think in general, it's all over the place.

What I disagreed with initially was the insistence that 'abstinence doesn't work'. It is repeated like a mantra, but the only 'proof' I see are statistics that are highly suspect (and fairly easily-demolished) and no actual programs of pure abstinence whereby such claims might be put to the test.

My secondary disagreement was purely on libertarian terms. I have a problem with a 'nanny state' assumption that if a problem isn't being addressed by parents, and the problem is in fact real, then the government must step in, usurp rights, and take over for the good of us all.

We saw it after 9/11. Conservative and liberals alike in the USA were terrified, and demanded that the 'government do something'. Well, government did (no surprise there) and now we have onerous infringements on our liberties, with more coming quickly. All in the name of 'we suck, protect us!'

 

[Twin Fist]

bottom line, the public school system often fails at teaching people how to READ, I doubt thier ability to handle something as important as sex.

Not to mention, back when we led the word in education, we didnt have sex ed.

schools can only be good at so many things, leave sex ed to the parents I say.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I agree with you. However, I also think this article from the New Yorker has a fair point in that there are teens from an evangelical background that are getting pregnant because they believe that condoms are something that the slutty kids use.

Red Sex, Blue Sex - Why do so many evangelical teenagers become pregnant?


Granted, the article asks why are "so many evangelical teenagers" getting pregnant. I don't know how much "so many" is. I also don't know how to compare the pregnancy rates for teens like Bristol Palin vs. pregnancy rates for teens from broken homes. But I do think this is one facet of a complex and multi-faceted issue that is not going to be easy to solve.

Who said anything about religion? I didn't I know plenty of people that are hypocritical when it comes to their religion and how they actually live. I would be curious to see numbers on how many of those fit the scenario I laid out. I know plenty of people that cling to religion for one thing then throw it away for another. I simply said parents that actually teach their kids, raise their kids, guide their kids, etc.

 

[blindsage]

It is obvious that people do not see the political ramifications of state-mandated sexual education training. Let me try a couple comparisons.

First, let's say that yes, 'abstinence' as taught by parents absolutely does not work. And we perceive a societal problem - children coming up with STD's, some of them incurable, and pregnant as well. As a society, we decide 'something must be done' and parents seem to have abdicated.

So far, that's more-or-less the situation we're in, according to many.

But let's take a slightly different tack. Instead of trying to deal with the results of children being exposed to sexual pressure in every public venue, let's try to deal with the fact that they're exposed to these things. From billboards to magazine ads to television shows marketed at children but with adult sexual themes, let's ban them. No more of them. No using models who look like they haven't been through puberty yet, no more 'young adult' novels that are heavy on the bodice-ripping, no more magazine ads or stories talking about how to be sexually attractive or what 'position he desires'. Let's get rid of all of that.

Now, I know about the VCHIP, but I really have to reject that, because, as ya'll have pointed out, parents abdicate their role in raising their children, so they won't use it. And it only shuts out Dawson's Creek or whatever the latest teenage humpathon is.

It does appear that various right-wing religious groups have tried to ban such things in the past. And the result is a howl of indignation by people who see it as an infringement on their liberties, on their right to decide what their kids are exposed to for themselves. How dare the state intrude on their rights as parents!

Not a big fan of censorship, but I think there are limits so maybe some things should be banned, but how about working on children's self-esteem, or educating them on marketing methods and how images are used to sell things, as a life skill?

Hmmm.

OK, let's try something different. Ignore the sex ed thing for a moment, and let's turn our attention to another pressing societal danger amongst children. I am speaking of childhood obesity.

Now clearly, we are getting fatter as a nation (USA). We stuff our fat faces and we don't exercise, and our kids don't either. And that's a danger to our nation. From having to actually produce more food for lard-asses like myself to eat, we also have to deal with serious diseases at a much younger age than has ever been seen before.

So just like sex-ed - here we have a problem that parents have failed to address. And it has huge (pardon the pun) social ramifications.

So we should use the same logic as that which gave us state-mandated sexual education classes. We should usurp the parent's role in feeding their children, and we must feed the children breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We'll need some laws to keep parents from feeding them after they get home from school, of course, but I can see the benefit. The government knows what food is best for us - left to themselves, kids will eat Big Macs morning, noon, and night, and parents clearly won't stop them. So the government will mandate health care systems that include healthy food by law, and children in public schools will be required to partake of it.

This analogy would only work if you were talking about nutrition classes which are usually included in those same health classes that teach sex-ed. Your example of forcibly dictating what they ate at school and home would only correlate if schools were dictating the students sex lives and having them engage in sex, and demonstrating the 'right' way to do it. A little far fetched.

See how we solved that problem with the aid of the government? I'm liking this already.

Let's take another, related problem. Physical fitness. We have gym classes, sure, but we don't force children to obtain a certain level of physical fitness. We just make them go to class. So perhaps we ought to institute a mandatory physical fitness training program, and assign specially-trained educators to require children to run, do situps, pushups, climb obstacles and so on - by law. They cannot pass from one class to another unless they pass these physical tests as well as the usual book learning stuff. We'll monitor their fitness level, and if it falls off track, we'll book them for mandatory summer training as well, or before and after school. Never mind what parents want, they're clearly dropping the ball here.

When I was in school there were fitness goals, we didn't just play dodge ball or stand on a wall.

You know, how many kids are teased because their parents don't have money to buy them nice clothes, or refuse to do so?

This is why some schools have implemented uniforms.

Well, I think you can see where this can go.

People who discover societal issues, real or imagined (sexual activity amongst children is real, fat kids is a real problem, out-of-shape kids are real problems) and therefore think the government should take control are, as we call them in the USA, liberals. They tend towards the socialist label because that is what socialism is - government fixing problems for people who are presumed not to be able to.

This is not socialism, but that is besides the point. Your point is cheapened by bad examples, and weak logic. You educate children on sex because it benefits them. You educate them on nutrition because it benefits them. You engage them in physical activity because it benefits them. In school, you don't teach them which kind of sex is right or wrong. You don't teach them that all consumption of sugar is evil. You don't teach them that those who have glandular disorders are bad. You give them knowledge and engender capacity.

State-mandated sexual education in public schools seems reasonable on the surface. There is a real problem, and yes, it is clear that not enough parents are doing anything about it. As a conservative, I shy away from the automatic answer that if parents can't or won't fix the problem, the government must.

So, what do you offer as an alternative when parents are failing their children. I'm not saying the government is necessarily the answer, but what alternatives are you presenting?

 

[Flea]

[yt]mTMlZSKEu-Y[/yt]

 

[Stac3y]

[yt]mTMlZSKEu-Y[/yt]

I really wish I could thank you twice, Flea.

 

[yorkshirelad]

It amazes me that most of you people are so willing to hand responsibilities for your kids to the state. I am with Bill on this 100%. Parental rights are being infringed upon more and more. It seems that schools can teach evolutionary THEORY to students all day long, but mention intelligent design once and the liberal scream foul, to hell with what parents decide. Then schools teach sex ed without a care for what parents believe is morally correct for their child. Bill has never once said that teaching sex ed is wrong. What he did say is that certain facets of sex ed should be taught at home, at the discression on parents. Where is the foul?

Now there is legislation to make unfettered abortion legal for minors, WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. Of course Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are fine with this. What this all amounts to is that parents rights are gradually being stripped away.

If sex ed is being taught the way it is. As a gun owner I think that children should be taught firearms classes at school. At one time or another in their lives they will be exposed to firearms, so maybe we should by pass what parents think and teach firearms classes. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama will be on with that one.

By the way, abstinance is a good place to start with sex ed. Take drug use for example. Should we teach kids that they should not use drugs (abstinance)? Or should we teach them that if they do decide (and it's their choice) they should use a clean needle? Should we teach them the safest way to inject it as to not do vascular damage? Should we teach them to prepare their own heroin, as to not get suspect dope that maybe cut with house hold cleaners? Or should we teach them that it is safer to "chase the dragon" than to inject? I would prefer to tell them not to do it at all. Then there is No chance of getting addicted. NO chance of a wasted life. No chance of spending vast amounts of money on rehab. But that's just me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not a big fan of censorship, but I think there are limits so maybe some things should be banned, but how about working on children's self-esteem, or educating them on marketing methods and how images are used to sell things, as a life skill?

Sounds like a great idea. Seriously.

This analogy would only work if you were talking about nutrition classes which are usually included in those same health classes that teach sex-ed. Your example of forcibly dictating what they ate at school and home would only correlate if schools were dictating the students sex lives and having them engage in sex, and demonstrating the 'right' way to do it. A little far fetched.

I don't think it is so far-fetched. Some state-mandated sex education already include demonstrations on 'how to do it' with a condom and a banana, and soft-core films are shown in places like the UK, including live footage of a teenage girl giving birth.

Then they hand out condoms and in some state, girls can ask for contraceptives while still under the legal age for consensual sex, and the law says the school cannot even notify the girl's parents.

I'm not sure how much more explicit it needs to be that according to the school, sex is A-OK, get bizzy, here's some condoms, have fun.

When I was in school there were fitness goals, we didn't just play dodge ball or stand on a wall.

Could you get flunked for failed to climb the rope? That's what I'm talking about.

This is why some schools have implemented uniforms.

Not very many, but yes, some have. I think eliminating gang signs and so is also a goal.

This is not socialism, but that is besides the point. Your point is cheapened by bad examples, and weak logic. You educate children on sex because it benefits them. You educate them on nutrition because it benefits them. You engage them in physical activity because it benefits them.

Well, there we disagree. I have not found any constitutional basis for forcibly overriding a parent's right to raise their child as they see fit because "it benefits" the child to do so. If it was so, we'd be not so far from "1984," with children taken from their parents because it benefits them. "It takes a village to raise a child" and so on. Yeah, that's pretty much socialism.

In school, you don't teach them which kind of sex is right or wrong.

But that's a problem for me. I don't want children taught in public schools that homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality. That is for parents to decide. And the school just goes ahead and does it.

You don't teach them that all consumption of sugar is evil. You don't teach them that those who have glandular disorders are bad. You give them knowledge and engender capacity.

Even if their parents don't want them exposed to that and believe it is not the school's business.

So, what do you offer as an alternative when parents are failing their children. I'm not saying the government is necessarily the answer, but what alternatives are you presenting?

That's a false argument. I have no answer - no alternative - but I'm not arguing in the alternative. I'm arguing the point of liberty. There need be no alternative presented when liberties are being suppressed.

 

[Flea]

I really wish I could thank you twice, Flea.

You are most welcome, shug.

So ... is this really how it's taught over there? :wink2:

 

[arnisador]

I am with Bill on this 100%. Parental rights are being infringed upon more and more. It seems that schools can teach evolutionary THEORY to students all day long, but mention intelligent design once and the liberal scream foul, to hell with what parents decide.

Those are scientists' screams you're hearing, and while parents can decide what they want to tell their children, they can't decide what is and isn't science.

Then schools teach sex ed without a care for what parents believe is morally correct for their child.

In principle, sex ed. is the facts from a public health point of view. The facts are outside the realm of morals.

As a gun owner I think that children should be taught firearms classes at school.

Not a bad idea. But if sex ed. causes sex, what would firearm training cause?

By the way, abstinance is a good place to start with sex ed.

But that's a particular moral point of view. Not everyone is trying to control their kids' sexuality to that extent. A 17 y.o. who isn't curious about his/her own sexuality is far from typical.

I would prefer to tell them not to do it at all. Then there is No chance of getting addicted. NO chance of a wasted life. No chance of spending vast amounts of money on rehab.

Oh yeah, the highly successful "Just Say No" strategy that ended the scourge of youthful drug abuse here in the 80s. Thank heavens that's over.

 

[Big Don]

OT:
I continue to read the title as Should FEDEX be reformed. I don't know why, but, that amuses the crap out of me.

 

[Carol]

Oh yeah, the highly successful "Just Say No" strategy that ended the scourge of youthful drug abuse here in the 80s. Thank heavens that's over.

Is it?

Local teens learn to "Say It Straight" with the United Way

Imagine feeling pressured to do something that you don’t want to do, but not having the skills to stand up for yourself and say “no.” Many young people today make unhealthy decisions based on peer pressure, which often leads to such things as juvenile arrests, teen pregnancy, alcohol and other drug use.

 

[Carol]

OT:
I continue to read the title as Should FEDEX be reformed. I don't know why, but, that amuses the crap out of me.

LMAO!

Well, ya know...when it absolutely positively has to be there overnight

 

[tellner]

Here's another thought...

I believe that lying is almost always a bad thing. That includes lying to children. Partly it's a matter of core values which are based on emotion and therefore not subject to logical argument. It's also with an eye towards their future development. If they learn that it's okay for you to lie to them they will believe with some justice that it's alright to lie to others. "It's alright for me to lie to you because I'm bigger and older. It's wrong for you to lie to me," is not a good basis for ethical behaviour in later life.

It also undermines everything else you teach them. When they figure out that you lied they won't believe your good advice later on. If they know that you don't lie to them even - maybe especially - about the little things they're more likely to believe you when you lay the important stuff on them.

That was one of the worst things about the last Administration's Sex Ed policy. Teachers were forced to lie to students. They were forbidden to talk about success rates for contraception or to discuss the simple facts of the pros and cons of AIDS prevention. Districts could and did lose funding for having the temerity to tell the truth. That runs counter to the very notion of education.

Tell them the truth. Teach them to make responsible decisions. If that's unacceptable then please go back to the Taliban or Pyongyang where you belong. The next generation is too valuable to be ruined by delusional liars.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Those are scientists' screams you're hearing, and while parents can decide what they want to tell their children, they can't decide what is and isn't science.

Theories should remain theories. Tell the kids all about evolution, but at least mention just once that some people believe that the deity created the world. After all theories are just that THEORIES.

By the way, I don't want control of sexuality, especialy by a government with an agenda.

I'm very well aware of the "just say no" campaign. It was begun in England by the Grange Hill tv show and exported to the US. By your reasoning we should just tell the kids to take drugs then should we......You are amusing.

 

[Cryozombie]

Not a big fan of censorship, but I think there are limits so maybe some things should be banned, but how about working on children's self-esteem, or educating them on marketing methods and how images are used to sell things, as a life skill?

Amen Brother... I'm with you 100% on this.

This analogy would only work if you were talking about nutrition classes which are usually included in those same health classes that teach sex-ed. Your example of forcibly dictating what they ate at school and home would only correlate if schools were dictating the students sex lives and having them engage in sex, and demonstrating the 'right' way to do it. A little far fetched.

When I was in School... I always hoped for "Sex Ed Lab" and had my Eye on Becky... but alas It never came to pass. *sigh*


Ya know, FWIW, I dunno how its done all over the place anymore... but as far as the parents having a say... In my day we had to bring a permission slip home and have it signed by our parents, if they didn't we didn't get the class. It was taught to us in a fairly clinical manner, and we didnt get abstinance speeches OR Condoms for free. Methods of birth control were discussed, Mainly Condoms, Spermacide and Diaphrams, but these were not demo'ed or encouraged rather, simply explained. I don't see anything wrong with that type of education, especially given todays climate... and I think anything else should be left to the parents. (Although, thinking about it... mine NEVER discussed any of that stuff with me. Hmm. Where the hell did I learn?)

 

[Bruno@MT]

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.

My 4 year old kid drinks coffee in the weekend. I drank coffee when I was a kid, as did most everyone else in our family.
Why wouldn't kids be allowed to drink coffee?