main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Official Abstinece-Only Sex Ed Discussion V3.0 (Now discussing the rationale)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by AnakinsGirl, Nov 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    Midgets:
    So why does the school have to actually hand out the condoms?

    Think of it this way: if fire extinguishers were as inexpensive to produce and hand out as condoms, wouldn't it be a nice gesture for schools to hand them out after fire safety seminars? Giving students fire extinguishers would not be like saying, "OK kids, go start a fire now". It would be like saying "Now that we've taught you why and how these things are used, here's one to have for yourself just in case- though we hope you'll never actually have to use it."


    J-Rod:
    If it is a moral issue, it requires being taught with morals.

    Who determines what makes an issue a moral one? For some, eating is a moral issue. Does that mean teachers must approach the subject of nutrition with a moral component? Or can they simply tell their students the facts (food x has y effect on the body) and leave the morality to the student's parents or (GASP) the students themselves?

    That's the whole debate of this issue. Even if home isn't the place to teach it (and it is), school is not the place for teaching sex. Nor is a group setting. Nor by a stranger.

    Why? The 'facts of life' are just that: Facts. And there are certain facts a person should be introduced to as part of their education in becoming a regular member of society. Like how humans (and other animals for that matter) reproduce. And as sex is something they are likely to encounter in their lives outside school, they should be educated as to the dangers involved (ala fire safety lectures).
     
  2. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    "So then the teachers were wrong to tell me not to tease the fat kid? C'mon, of course they teach morals."

    When you tease the fat kid, you run the risk of him coming back to school with his assault rifle...[face_whistling]

    In all seriousness, it's wrong to tease the fat kid in school because it hampers the learning enviroment for the person being teased at the very least. In other words, your teasing someone hinders their ability to do their job.
     
  3. Midgetsforbreakfast

    Midgetsforbreakfast Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002



    Okay. How about this: if we are going to teach kids about gun safety, should we give them all a Beretta and kevlar vests to take home just to make certain they can protect themselves with the weapon if need be, and be protected against someone else using one on them? In this instance, the condom is both the gun and the kevlar vest you use in sex to protect yourself against the actons of others(people that contract STDs).

    Is giving kids guns responsible? In some ways, yes--if they truly and fully understand, and appreciate, the consequences(intended or not) using a gun carries with it. But wouldn't we be sending a dangerous message by simply giving the teenagers guns in the first place? IMO, yes. By just giving it to them we are, in a round-about way, encouraging them to actually use it.

    And then, as others have said, there are the inherant moral implications with having, and using, a gun. Would any of us want to have gun safety classes taught in our schools without the morals of gun handling and use ALSO being explained to the students? If we are going to be handing out both guns and kevlar vest as a part of a gun education program, shouldn't we also cover the aspects of responisbility using a gun carries with it? Each and every gun safety education system I know of teachers how to handle/use a weapon, as well as the moral implications of doing so. Is it enough just to give the facts in school, then hope that the parents fill in the rest(if they even feel there are morals in gun handling which, I'm sure, the vast majority believe there are) about having and using guns?

    I know it seems like an extreme example, and it is. But the point is just as valid in my mind.

    If we have a fire safety class, do we also teach the students why it is bad to set fires, or why it is good to put them out when you see one, as well? In that fire safety class do we also teach them the moral implications of setting a fire, and putting one out when you see one? Wouldn't that be a more complete, a more comprehensive education on fire safety?

    If we are going to be teaching kids about sex, why not also give an education on the social/moral implications of having sex?

    Teach them about the responsibility that comes with sex.

    Teach them about the emotional confusion often associated with it.

    Encourage them to--just in case--wait until they are older and more mature to have it. Tell them the benefits doing so can have on their lives.

    Tell them about the difficulties of having a child before they are emotionally and economically ready for one, and the negative effects it can have on ones life if they do.

    Give them the stats on teen-pregnancy and its impact on that person's later economic standing.

    Give them the stats on single parent households and the financial burdens placed on such a household.

    Tell them that while condoms can prevent the transmission of STDs, they aren't %100 effective, and that greatly limiting the number of sex partners they have throughout their life can diminish the transmission of STDs exponentially.

    Teach them that sex is not only something you do to feel good, but can also be something special you share with someone you respect and care for as an individual when you are old enough and mature enough to handle the responsibility that can come with it.

    Cover both sides of the issue. Not only abstenance. Not only the biological facts. Both.

    From my observations sex-ed i
     
  4. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    In this instance, the condom is both the gun and the kevlar vest you use in sex to protect yourself against the actons of others(people that contract STDs).

    No, the condom is simply the vest. The sexual organs are the gun.

    Sending a gun home after a gun-safety lecture is like sending matches and a lighter home after a fire-safety lecture.

    If we have a fire safety class, do we also teach the students why it is bad to set fires, or why it is good to put them out when you see one, as well? In that fire safety class do we also teach them the moral implications of setting a fire, and putting one out when you see one? Wouldn't that be a more complete, a more comprehensive education on fire safety?

    How much more comprehensive a reason than "fires are dangerous and can hurt/kill people if not properly controlled" do you want?

    Each and every gun safety education system I know of teachers how to handle/use a weapon, as well as the moral implications of doing so.

    Please expand on the moral implications discussed. All I see as necessary is explanation of how to avoid breaking the law or hurting one's self.


    Midgetsforbreakfast,

    What you seem to be arguing is that, without some 'moral' component to education, people will have no reason to behave responsibly. Your implication seems to be that since people without moral guidance about sex are promiscuous, people without moral guidance about guns and fire will have no reason to keep them from going around shooting and burning things with reckless abandon.
    The main difference, of course, is that we have LAWS against shooting people and lighting houses on fire. You don't need to tell people that these things are morally wrong; you simply need to tell them that it they do those things they'll be punished. That's the point of having the laws.
    If you want to support a law that outlaws sex before marriage, go ahead. But don't try making the public school system preach your morality in a class that should be about the facts.
     
  5. DARTH-SHREDDER

    DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 6, 2005
    J-Rod, that is one of many articles. Don't believe me? Try this. You're not going to get around it. There are plenty of studies to show the sex-ed is effective. Not to mention the fact that you haven't provided any proof that they aren't effective. And yes, you are in a position to provide that, if your argument for getting rid of sex-ed is that it's not effective.

    If it is a moral issue, it requires being taught with morals. How can you not see that?

    No. It's like if I said "Hurricane Katrina hurt Bush's poll ratings." I'm not saying I'm glad that they're down, or that I wish they were up, I am merely making a statement. It's a fact. Nothing more. How can you not see that?

    That's the whole debate of this issue. Even if home isn't the place to teach it (and it is), school is not the place for teaching sex. Nor is a group setting. Nor by a stranger.

    You didn't answer the question. I told you that a lot of kids won't get that information at home, and there's nothing you can do to change that. All you're saying is "school isn't the right place to teach it" but what you're really saying is "who cares if those kids grow up without that information, I just don't like the idea of them learning it at school." Or do you have suggestion of where they can learn it if the don't get it from their parents? No, you don't, you'll just say that "school is not the place for teaching sex".

    Plus the fact that even parents who do talk to their kids about sex cannot do as good of a job as an instructor who is specifically trained to do what he does. I'm sure you don't know the exact statistics for the accuracy of a comdom or anything like that...leave it to the professionals, who know what they're doing.

    I've explained this a million times. IT IS IMMORAL TO GIVE CHILDREN CONDOMS WITHOUT ADULT ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!!!!! The very act of giving kids condoms without adult accountability is immoral.

    No, see nobody is forcing your daughter to take a condom. They are there for people who want them.

    And it seems like this is your only example. Say a school didn't hand out condoms, just provided informatoin. Now tell me that they're teaching morals with an example.

    So then the teachers were wrong to tell me not to tease the fat kid? C'mon, of course they teach morals.

    I thought you claim that the school doesn't teach morals? :confused:
     
  6. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    "I thought you claim that the school doesn't teach morals?"

    He's attempting to refute my post that it's not the school's job to teach morals. I responded by pointing out that it's not a moral issue, it's an educational issue. It just so happens that in the example given, what's moral is also what's conducive to a good learning environment.
     
  7. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    J-Rod, that is one of many articles. Don't believe me? Try this. You're not going to get around it. There are plenty of studies to show the sex-ed is effective.

    Well then try another one, as this one too didn't link any studies or give any numbers.

    No. It's like if I said "Hurricane Katrina hurt Bush's poll ratings." I'm not saying I'm glad that they're down, or that I wish they were up, I am merely making a statement. It's a fact. Nothing more. How can you not see that?

    Stating facts is different that informing about behaviors. They, most often, involve morals in their usage and sex is certainly no exception.

    You didn't answer the question. I told you that a lot of kids won't get that information at home, and there's nothing you can do to change that. All you're saying is "school isn't the right place to teach it" but what you're really saying is "who cares if those kids grow up without that information, I just don't like the idea of them learning it at school." Or do you have suggestion of where they can learn it if the don't get it from their parents? No, you don't, you'll just say that "school is not the place for teaching sex".

    I have listed alternatives. You just weren't listening. There are, among others, family clergy, the family doctor, trusted friends and Planned Parenthood.

    Plus the fact that even parents who do talk to their kids about sex cannot do as good of a job as an instructor who is specifically trained to do what he does.

    I have listed various reasons why parents do a better job.

    I'm sure you don't know the exact statistics for the accuracy of a comdom or anything like that...leave it to the professionals, who know what they're doing.

    Are exact statistics really necessary when instructing condom benefits and use? Besides, look up Planned Parenthood's condom stats and the Surgeon General's stats and the CDC's stats. Though close, the last time I checked they each had different numbers.

    No, see nobody is forcing your daughter to take a condom. They are there for people who want them.

    Yet many schools would give her access to them against the morals of many parents. That's not the school's job.

    And it seems like this is your only example. Say a school didn't hand out condoms, just provided informatoin. Now tell me that they're teaching morals with an example.

    That's the thing. They need to teach morals when they teach sex.

    I thought you claim that the school doesn't teach morals?

    Oh nononono. The school absolutely has the job of teaching social responsibility. That, like sex, can't be done without teaching morals.
     
  8. chibiangi

    chibiangi Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    J-rod is one of those over-protective parents that doesn't realize that his over-protectiveness will drive his daughter to appear in several "Girls Gone Wild" videos featuring Snoop Dogg.
     
  9. Midgetsforbreakfast

    Midgetsforbreakfast Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002
    We could go back and forth on this, which I'd rather not do, but I would like to clarify:

    You are implying that one cannot protect with a gun. You can. If someone comes at you, or a loved one, with the intention to hurt you, or your loved one, you can protect yourself, or your loved one, from harm with the use of the gun. You protect yourself from the actions of others with that gun.


    So, from my perspective, the use of both the gun and the kevlar vest is quite applicable in protection when compared to a condom.

    :)




    Can you protect yourself against the aggressions or the threat of harm by others by setting a fire? Perhaps, but I don't think so.


    Why is it wrong to hurt or kill people by setting that fire?

    Why would there be consequences for setting that fire even if it didn't hurt or kill others?

    Even with fire-safety the education is more comprehensive than just "Don't set fires, cause they could hurt/kill others." The specific moral aspects of why killing/hurting others by way of arson might not always be explicitely taught in the fire-safety class, but they are learned through other aspects of living in a civilized society and are, therefore, implied in the class.




    Sure. In gun safety classes I've attended you are repeatidly reminded of the potential the weapon has to not only harm yourself, but others, as well. You are taught to treat the weapon and its power with the utmost respect. You are taught what to do if you are ever in a situation where you are forced to use your weapon on another, and again reminded of what doing so would mean for the other person, as well as for you.

    There is a whole lot more to gun safety classes than just "this is how you don't break the law with your gun" and "this is how you avoid hurting yourself." A lot of moral issues are covered.




    How can someone know, or understand, what responsibility is if they don't have some component of moral education?

    How can someone teach about responsibility without advocating some component of morality?



    Not all people without moral guidance are promiscuous. But without moral guidance, people are more likely to be. If they do not understand the inherant consequences (not just physically, but economically, emotionally, socia
     
  10. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    But there's a moral component behind nearly ever single law any civilized society has on their books.
    ...
    I never said I wanted a law outlawing sex before marriage. Please don't put words in my mouth or jump to such conclusions.


    Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant was more in line with what you say in part one. I was trying to say that laws are the place to establish a sort of public morality. If it's not on the lawbooks, though, it shouldn't be considered part of the government-supported morality. So if you wanted the government to endorse the notion that sex before marriage is bad, the place to do that would be in supporting a law against premarital sex, not a classroom lecture.


    What I am suggesting is that we present FACTS to the kids to support these assertions.

    Present stats showing the affects getting pregnant as a teen has on the mother economically.

    Make those stats "real" by having guest speakers that come into the class and tell their stories--i.e. teen mothers, people with HIV and AIDS or other STDs, etc.,

    Present stats concerning the emotional effects having sex can have on teens before they are ready for it.

    Present the stats showing how your chances of contracting a STD DECREASE by limiting the number of sex partners you have(with a condom, of course).

    Teach them about the kinds of responsibility that will be forced upon them if they get pregnant and have a child, and that having sex can cause pregnancy ("DUH!", I know, but presenting them together like that can make a difference--can create a direct cause and effect image in their mind).

    Teach them these kinds of things right along with the purely physical aspects of sex. If you do, they will make a more informed choice when they chose to have sex.

    What could be wrong with that, I ask?


    OK, here's where I think we're getting confused. What you suggest above is what I would consider plain and simple information. I don't see any inherent moral component to the facts you want to present.
    When you mention a moral component to the class, I imagine you want a teacher to say things like "it's wrong to have sex before marriage" or "it's wrong to be promiscuous." Saying "promiscuity is statistically more dangerous in terms of STDs" is something I consider to be a factual statement, not a moral one.
     
  11. Midgetsforbreakfast

    Midgetsforbreakfast Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002

    That's okay. And I apologize for any possible misunderstanding on my part. :) [:D] [face_worried] [face_whistling]

    ;) [face_laugh]




    But, you see, to me those facts are moral components!

    To me, morality is warning against the possible(imagined, real or otherwise) dangers your actions can have on yourself, and/or others.

    Not all morality is supported by facts. Not by a long shot. But in this case, to me, warning teens about the possible dangers and consequences and responsibilities of sex is a moral lesson supported by facts.

    Do you see where I'm coming from? :)
     
  12. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    As far as the gun-vest-condom thing (because I can't helps it:p):
    The point of a safety lecture is to teach you the workings of, and how to protect yourself from, whatever you're discussing.

    Fire-safety: how fire works, how to keep fire from causing injury.
    Sex-ed: how sex works, how to keep sex from causing injury.
    Gun-safety: how guns work, how to keep guns from causing injury.

    I see your point about using one gun to protect yourself from another, but the main point of gun-safety lectures is to protect you from your own gun, isn't it? Safety from someone else's gun sounds more like a gun-combat class to me.
     
  13. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    The first thing gun safty class teaches you is to respect the gun.
     
  14. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Yes, because a penis or a vagina is as dangerous as a gun. Surely you've heard of those killed by flying ejaculae.
     
  15. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Yes, because a penis or a vagina is as dangerous as a gun. Surely you've heard of those killed by flying ejaculae.

    Noone's ever died from sex, I guess. Looks like Mass. has one Hell of a sex-ed class.[face_plain]
     
  16. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Noone's ever died from sex, I guess. Looks like Mass. has one Hell of a sex-ed class.

    To which case are you referring?
     
  17. Midgetsforbreakfast

    Midgetsforbreakfast Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002

    A girl I knew back in college was tragically killed by one of those. So, yes. I've heard of them.


    LOL!!!





    They do teach you how to work the weapon, how to prevent harm to yourself, but they also give you guidance and safety on how, and when, to use the weapon, as well--even when dealing with using it on someone else.

    Just to let you know. :)
     
  18. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    I dunno, pick one. Freddy Murcury, Rock Hudson or any other sexually transmitted AIDS case.

    EDIT: Not to mention cervix cancer caused by early contact with genital warts.
     
  19. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    And you...blame all of this on sex-ed? Well, when Freddie Mercury contracted AIDS it was still called the "gay plague" so I doubt very highly they'd teach that in sex-ed during the 80's. Ditto to Rock Hudson, so your point is not only ridiculous it's irrelevant. If you want to blame any thing for that blame the US government for that little flub, "Oh, you mean a highly contagious auto-immune disease is killing gay people? Well, let's wait for more to die. Maybe it's a cleansing. Halleleujah! Praise Jay-zus."

    As for cervical cancer and HPV, yeah, common knowledge among the learned. Also taught in sex-ed class. Which--surprise, surprise--you want the government to do away with. Congratulations, very few people discredit their own talking points in the same thread, but you just did it fantastically.
     
  20. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    What in the Hell are you talking about? I told you that sex was deadly and needed to be respected just as you learn to respect a gun.

    You said that it wasn't. You were wrong.
     
  21. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Your other point was showing how those cases are dangerous. However, you pointed to cases which were from the 80's when very little was known about AIDS. And without sex-ed you wouldn't know quite as much about AIDS as you do now. :eek: Parents teaching about AIDS would be a riot.

    "Next we're gonna learn about AIDS. It's dangerous, okay? Which is why abstinence should always be used before marriage."

    "Why's it dangerous?"

    "It just is."

    "What does AIDS do?"

    "It attacks your immune system."

    "How does it do that?"

    "It just does, okay?"


    Basically teaching sex-ed in class gives a more in-depth view.

    Sex can kill, but your point made no sense as far as sex goes. What? Are you really saying sex is as dangerous as a gun? [face_laugh] Not if you practice safe sex. I can think of numerous things to spin from that thought. But I'm tired and your point makes about as much sense as a Mexican doing the polka on cinco de mayo.

     
  22. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Are you really saying sex is as dangerous as a gun? Not if you practice safe sex.

    You need to talk to mom and dad. Your school didn't seem to do a very good job.

    See, a condom lowers the risk percentage. But it doesn't remove the potential for speading disease. Even with a condom you are still at risk.

    I'm sorry that you didn't know this.

     
  23. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    You need to talk to mom and dad. Your school didn't seem to do a very good job.


    Erhm, yeah, you keep thinking that. I've learned all about this several times.


    See, a condom lowers the risk percentage. But it doesn't remove the potential for speading disease. Even with a condom you are still at risk.

    I'm sorry that you didn't know this.


    Nice one. I did know that about HPV as two people I know have it. But thank you for thinking I didn't know that. Remember what happens when you assume. I realize condoms do not protect against HPV and some other diseases, but the general premise is the same. Besides, HPV (you are aware what this is, right?) has rare flare ups in most cases. With your extensive life and old behaviors before now you probably had about as much chance of contracting it as I do. The thing is most of the population that has it doesn't even know that they do. Do you know why this is, J-Rod? Because flare-ups happen so infrequently that no-one notices.

    Still, condoms are a lot better than nothing at all. And more realistic than saying, "wait till marriage." There's also the percentages of condoms working. If used right they work 75% of the time as birth control and disease prevention IIRC. The better you use it the more the risk is reduced.

    Also realistic than waiting till marriage. Those that took that stupid 'pledge' had a greater risk of STD's and participating in anal and oral sex as they didn't view it as 'sex'. Hmm...abstinence worked great, no?
     
  24. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Firstly, absinence programs don't work. I never said that they did.

    Secondly, you're not making yourself clear. To me, your post of "Are you really saying sex is as dangerous as a gun? Not if you practice safe sex." implied that sex with a condom was safe.

    But I guess you know that it isn't. While it is "safer" it isn't safe.
     
  25. FatBurt

    FatBurt Sex Scarecrow Vanquisher star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 21, 2003

    I hear hairs being split here.



    The idea behind sex Ed is to give people the facts about sex.

    While there may be a moral components about Promiscuity etc... we really need to be explaining to children about sex and the risks involved

    That is what many kids will get from their parents because some parents are ill equiped to pass on the needed information.

    Family Clergy? What if the family isn't religious? and why is the Clergy so much different from teachers especially when you mention Kiddie Fiddling by teachers but then the Clergy have no history at all of Kiddie Fiddling.

    Family Doctor? I agree this would be a good idea but when in all honesty is a doctor going to have the time to sit down and do the Brids and Bees talk? and if your on about talking with the doctor before preganancy your back to your blinkered view of no sex till you are after a child.

    Trusted Friends? Er..... How are they better equiped than teachers to give this sort of information. Tell you what how about you get to know the teacher that delivers this information and learn to trust them.

    Planned Parenthood? I refer you to the doctor issues above.



    Sorry but the view that schools should not give this information is blinkered and naive at best.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.