Abstinence-only Sex Ed

Well, by drawing a correlation between a concentration of Catholics and a reduction in the use of birth control, it looked to me like you did.

That's why I actually stated in plain English in my very first post on it that I was not blaming anyone. Why is this so hard to comprehend? It's simply a statement of fact that Catholics advocate not using birth control. Therefore, if we have more Catholics here than the Western European countries, that could explain why sex ed involving BC has more of the desired effect there than here. That's all I'm saying.

I mean, the honest fight for civil rights has led to guilty people going free on technicalities, but I'm not blaming Martin Luther King, Jr. for every free murderer.

Another thought on Bush's family values... since that's where this thread really began - on Bush's choice to fund only abstinence-only sex-ed. If a president campaigns largely on "family values" and Christian values, and takes stances such as "abstinence only sex-ed" which is clearly a religious and not a scientific stance, then shouldn't his family life be up for examination? As I said to Bubba, if Clinton passed laws against adultery, I'd have his head on a platter, and so would most Americans.

So, in that vein, are Bush's daughters both virgins, or do they practice birth control? If it's the latter, why should America's non-Bush youth be prevented from learning about what Bush's daughters know? And did W. never use birth control before he was married? Was he a virgin all that time, abstaining? Doubtful, given the lifestyle he's admitted to during his "youthful indiscretions" which lasted until he was 37.

So, then, onto the first defense against this argument... If W wants to save students from the sort of sex and drug abuse mistakes he made, mustn't we examine why he apparently couldn't save his own daughters from it? While we don't know for sure that his daughters are sexually active, we DO know they both drink, have reportedly gotten quite bombed in public, and possess ILLEGAL fake ID's to facilitate doing so.

Just FYI, I have no interest in taking his family's privacy apart. This is just a point I'm making: he's opened the door for this sort of thing by doing his best to deny REAL sexual education to our youth, and by instituting punishments for drug use that don't even fit the crime.

 

Maybe it's a combination of these factors that gives Australia such a low rate of teen pregnancy. Maybe it is something else entirely.

What, like no trailer parks?

I'm in the same boat as you, Kit'. My friends and I aren't "saving ourselves", and I lost my virginity nearly 10 years ago. I've not had one STD nor "pregnancy scare", and around 10 partners. Thing is, is that I could still claim the "no STD/pregnancy" thing if I'd abstained, but where's the fun in that? It's a personal choice, what I do with my body and so long as it does not harm another living being then what business is it of the Church or Government or Moral Right? None is the correct answer so they can take a vacation outta my life and go play fear tactics elsewhere. To each their own, anyone?

E_S

 

I have to admit that I've had one pregnancy scare - but that turned out to be glandular fever

I've also been mistaken for a teen mum when I was out shopping with three of my younger siblings.

I don't think Australians have such a big drive to save themselves for marriage and I do think that and the fact that abstinence isn't stressed but protective measures are makes a large difference.

Kithera

 

When Sweden was asked why they have such better rates on all this stuff than we do, they suggested it's the double messages we send our kids that is the problem - on the one hand, screw everyone you meet, and on the other hand, sex is evil. No wonder kids have no perspective. We have no critical thinking about this - we just tell our kids what to think. After a few dozen generations, you'd think someone would notice this doesn't work, but noooooo...

 

I was pushing a stroller when I was 13 years old and was called various and sundry names by a woman. She garnered the attention of the surrounding people (we were in a crowded public place) and used me as an example of how American family values were going down the drain.

All because I was pushing a stroller containing one of my nieces. Nice, huh?

 

I'm sorry that happened to you.

I've always thought I wouldn't want to care for a baby in a public place because I'd be afraid people would assume I was a teenage mother. Now I see people really do think that way.

I think it's a sad culture though, when one is automatically assumed to be a mother when they are seen taking care of a baby in public.

 

That woman was retarded, DustChick - 99.9% of the teens pushing strollers in L.A. are rich people's nannies, not mothers. I guess it's because you weren't obviously of a different race from the baby that she assumed the baby was yours.

But even if it HAD been your baby... what a brilliant way to change the world! Ridicule a child at the top of your lungs in a mall. So much handier than voting or getting involved in kids' lives. /sarcasm

 

My sister is 13 years older than me, and she moved away from home when I was 4 years old. I would cry when she would board the Greyhound to her new place, and she says she would get the worst looks from people who apparently assumed she was leaving her "daughter" behind with her "grandparents."

Perhaps it's events like these that make me in full support of practical sex education in schools. If the "morally superior" think all the kids are having sex, they must be right. Might as well be prepared.

 

I've been babysitting since I was 11 and I've gotten some weird looks and a lot of weird questions. People assume too much

 

My younger siblings are ten to thirteen years younger then I am. When I was up shopping with three of them in Bundaberg (the teen pregnancy capital of Queensland). A lady asked me how I coped with three children (like it was apparently a normal occurance). I freaked out and told her that they were my younger brothers and sister and I was ten when the eldest of them were born.

My older sister Paula got dirty looks when my other little sister was born and she was carrying the new born child. People automatically assumed it was hers.

It annoys me greatly when people assume stuff like that - particually when they do it in a negative way.

Kithera

 

Ugh. I see this happens a lot. I don't see why people need to jump to conclusions. The teenager with the baby could just as easily be a sister, cousin, aunt, mother's helper, or babysitter. I do a lot of babysitting, but all of it's been at the parents' homes, but I'm sure if I went out in public with any of the younger ones, I'd be assumed to be their mother.

 

Anybody seen the South Park episode called "Proper Condom Use?" A series of misunderstandings occur because parents refuse to talk frankly about sex to their kids, and instead say "get that d*** school on the phone, they should be teaching you this!"

The school has been teaching sex ed in 6th grade, but the parents don't want to have to explain ANYTHING to their 4th graders, so they demand the school teach it at the 4th grade level.

The teachers who teach it are morons, and they give the kids all the wrong ideas, so the kids get the idea that anytime a boy isn't wearing a condom, he can get a disease from a girl, or give her one. So the fourth grade boys go to the pharmacy and buy condoms, which they wear all day long (using rubber bands) to protect themselves from disease.

The parents hear about this and decide all the 4th graders are having sex, so sex ed must be moved back even sooner - kindergarten. The kindergarten teacher is a pervert, so he starts by teaching the kids all about various sexual positions.

It's some time before the kids find out diseases can only be passed during intercourse and they don't need to wear condoms 24/7.

It's funny, of course, but it's exactly the sort of stupid misunderstanding that happens when people won't just talk frankly to their own kids. And a lovely example of how scary it can be when you turn such an intense subject over to whatever passes for a teacher at your kids' school.

 

Up we go.

 

Oh. Dear God.

What the hell is their problem?

 

Ender_Sai:

Thing is, is that I could still claim the "no STD/pregnancy" thing if I'd abstained, but where's the fun in that? It's a personal choice, what I do with my body and so long as it does not harm another living being then what business is it of the Church or Government or Moral Right? None is the correct answer so they can take a vacation outta my life and go play fear tactics elsewhere. To each their own, anyone?

Amen.

TreeCave:

Ideally, sex ed should be taught at home by the parents. We've got enough to do at school without having to worry about teaching sex ed as well. If it's going to be taught, it should be done as part of health class.

However--a couple of things. One, all parents are not going to discuss this with their kids, either because they're too shy or because they're still dumb enough to believe that if no one mentions sex to a child, the child won't think about sex. Secondly, not all of us teachers are perverted morons. I do think that whoever teaches sex education should be trained to do so, and it should be left to the health teachers. However, if I were assigned to do it, I feel like I'd be able to.

Another thing that SouthPark episode reminds me of though--when I was in high school and AIDS had just made its appearance, we had to watch videos on it, and the videos tried to convince us that we could get AIDS from French-kissing or from drinking after someone. We weren't convinced--we just made fun of them.

"The girl said, [very bad acting voice here]'No French kissing!' The guy said, 'Get out of my car!'"

 

However--a couple of things. One, all parents are not going to discuss this with their kids, either because they're too shy or because they're still dumb enough to believe that if no one mentions sex to a child, the child won't think about sex.

Yes, but there are a lot of other shortcomings in parents. And while it's laudable if schools want to try to fix some of it, it's really not the school's responsibility. After all, no matter how the school teaches something, it can't please everyone. So parents who turn things over to schools abdicate all rights to complain, IMHO. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in reality.

Secondly, not all of us teachers are perverted morons.

Whoa, I never meant to imply that. I just meant parents have no right to complain if their kids get a bad sex education if the parents couldn't be bothered in the first place. And yet, I have a feeling you'll agree parents don't let their own lack of responsibility stop them from blaming you guys for everything.

BTW, my health teacher made a lot of references to "public hair". I'm all in favor of sex ed teachers being trained first.

However, if I were assigned to do it, I feel like I'd be able to.

Well, *I* think you would too. But you just know some parent of a pregnant girl would blame you for not teaching it right. I just don't think teachers should have to be in that position.

 

Let me throw in a niftly little tidbit of info here.

I'm from Sweden.

I got Sex-ed in preschool.

Got that? PRESCHOOL. We were 5 years old. Sex Ed.

Sure, it was kinda basic with simple "diagrams" and such, but still.

Ah, the 70's


/Z

 

You know, I wouldn't mind if that were more common. Most kids are already asking basic questions like where babies come from when they're that age, and I think anything they're mature enough to ask they're also mature enough to hear a simple answer to.

It's possible that part of the reason many teenagers start having sex so young is our culture treats sex as a taboo, and anything forbidden is that much more exciting.

 

I believe a balance can be achieved, however, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their kids about sexuality and responsibility involved.

I think a holistic approach is best, with adequate emphasis placed upon all aspects of sexuality.

Indoctrination of children in the realm of sexuality occurs at a far too young age these days. Kids can't simply be kids any longer without sexual pressures that should be reserved for responsible adults. It's quite the shame, but evident everywhere. Teenage girls dressing like complete sluts, and boys acting like total disrespectful pigs.

 

I actually think, in retrospect, it was good. And I must add, this is not common. I mentioned it the other day to the preschool teacher of MY children and she never heard of this before. Like I say, it was the 70's

But teaching the "basic mechanics" of sex at that age aint't too bad. Coz you aint sitting there, hormones raging, images of female anatomy circling your head... you are just sitting there and getting a lession in body mechanics, much like you learn the digestive system, lungs, etc.

Of course, the classic child reaction is "Ewww, gross! And I have two brothers so mom and dad must have done it THREE TIMES!!!!"

/Z

 

I was taught basic mechanics of sex-ed before primary school. Being the daughter of a vet, it was not like they could avoid being asked questions about it - I was animals mating an awful lot.

From my experiance it's the kids who are introduced to the idea that sex is a normal natural thing at an early age who seem to have the least problems with it. I'm talking about parents sitting down and talking openly about it, rather then giving it peculiar names and blushing madly - or worse not letting kids ask questions at all.

Again, just my experiance.

Kithera

 

I was animals mating an awful lot.

You sick girl!

Question: How is abstinence a form of sexual education?!? ?

E_S

 

Continuing from the Condom thread:

Education in safer sex or tolerance to safer sex(as you implied) does not matter. It was not an appropriate place or time to hand out condoms. Handing out other freebee's such as toothpast during homeroom would of also seen as being inappropriate.

As said before, there is a time and place for everything, and homeroom and in the halls is not the appropritate place to hand out freebee health items.


I don't see why.


However, maybe health class or health fair would be. The kid had the right idea, but went about it wrong.
Randomly handing out condoms in the hall brings up a host of problems.
1.Some parent's want to teach safer sex to their kids rather than the government doing it in schools, and the students has the right to choose to not to participate in such activities.

Now, here we have a problem. I am assuming that we both agree that sexual ed is as important as teaching other subjects, right? But think with me: if some weird parents don't want their kids to learn mathematics, they have the right to ban math in said school? Don't think so. I think they'll move their kids to a school where there is no math lessons or it meets their requirements. To ban math (or any other relevant matter) from a school (or schools) just because some parents disagree with its teaching is obviously an overkill.

 

DM: I actually agree with you to a certain extent (although I'm probably one of the ones you would accuse of dressing like a slut ). However, the peer pressure, etc. has always been there--it just wasn't out in the open like it is now.

As far as preschool sex ed, here's my story. I have a brother seven years my junior. I first learned where babies come from when my mother was carrying him and I asked the classic question, "How did the baby get inside you, Mommy?" She bought me a book called Before You Were a Baby and was very honest with me about exactly where babies come from. My parents are Christians, and they taught me that they feel it is best to wait for marriage because "you can only give it away once" and also that abstinence is the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy and STDs. However, they also taught me about other methods of birth control (mainly they taught me that the only two things that really work are the Pill and condoms and foam) just in case I chose to ignore their advice. They were realistic--they knew I was a rebellious child anyway and they knew I had hormones--so they didn't just assume I would wait until I was married. I have been sexually active for...hmmm...nearly half my life? And have never had trouble with an unwanted pregnancy or an STD.

This is in contrast to a cousin of my husband's, who was never taught anything about sex based on her parents' idea that "if taught about it, she might think about it". She went to college, got a boyfriend for the first time at age 20, and got pregnant the first time she had sex. It wasn't wrong for her parents to teach her that abstinence is the best way--however, it was wrong for them to bury their heads in the sand and assume that her hormones would never take over.

TreeCave: You're right, the parents would blame us if their children got pregnant--they do anyway, in spite of North Carolina's "abstinence-only sex education" policy which makes it a fireable offense if I mention the word "condom" in front of a student. I just think that SouthPark episode, along with a lot of Beevis and Butthead episodes, makes us teachers look more stupid than we actually are.

And I have no desire to teach sex ed. I would do it if it were the only way the children got any education on that subject, however.

 

I believe a balance can be achieved, however, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their kids about sexuality and responsibility involved.

Yes, that would be ideal. And maybe if Phillip Morris is making commercials encouraging people to discuss smoking with their kids, a public service campaign encouraging people to talk to their kids about sex would be good. Also, it would be great if that commercial offered a 1800 advice line for parents who think they don't know how to talk about it.

Indoctrination of children in the realm of sexuality occurs at a far too young age these days. Kids can't simply be kids any longer without sexual pressures that should be reserved for responsible adults.

To an extent, that's just capitalism, and you have to accept the presence of those influences. Sex sells, even on things that don't relate to sex. But fortunately, you don't have to teach kids about every single wrong message they're getting: you only have to teach them to be healthily skeptical about everything they're told. I learned that lesson early on from my mom, so when Colgate promised me that using their toothpaste would result in getting kissed by gorgeous guys, I laughed heartily while my brainwashed friends all went out to buy Colgate.

The tradeoff to teaching kids to think for themselves, however, is that they will challenge you the parent to back up your assertions. They may conclude you're wrong, too - and they will probably even be right about that on occasion. But if you think that's not going to happen if you leave them brainwashed, you're fooling yourself. If you love your kids, really, you'd rather them rebel against you because they've THOUGHT it through and come to a different, possibly wrong, conclusion, instead of rebelling against you because a Calvin Klein commercial said so.

I just think that SouthPark episode, along with a lot of Beevis and Butthead episodes, makes us teachers look more stupid than we actually are.

Well, I can see how you would feel that way. South Park tends to make anyone look more stupid than they are, though. *I* certainly didn't take it that way.

I had some very good teachers, but the majority of mine were rather underqualified. Still, I realized it's a tough and thankless job, and it's the systems' fault we don't have more quality teachers.