Abstinence only sex-ed

The point Vaderize isn't that education helps, it's that learning helps. The two are quite different.

Teaching is never enough by itself if the students aren't learning. The problem of course is proving some sort of correlation between a sex ed program and a decrease in pregnancies and STDs in teenagers.

Where are those studies? Frankly I don't give a crap if 90% of high schoolers think storcks bring babies if Teen pregnancy rates go into free fall.

I want results damn it!

 

As a physician, I could not strongly disagree with this statement more. Education is a key cornerstone in the fight against all disease, not just sexually-trasmitted ones.

You are correct, as I misspoke. Education alone does not stop disease. You also have to be disciplinned enough to act on that education.

STD's are a public health concern, I acknowledge and agree with that. But, just like obeasity, it is caused by personnal choice.

It is not the government's place to protect me from me. It is the government's place to protect me from someone else imposing on me. Like you guys wanting to teach my children about sex 'cause you don't like that I won't let them engage in that behavior. (Not directed at V'03)

 

J-Rod: You never mentioned 2 two most common reason for condom failure...but we can play birth control trivia all day, but it won't change the fact that a high school setting is not the proper place to discuss sex ed. The home is. Period.

You keep saying this, yet you continually neglect my question: "Why?" Especially when some families do not discuss it in the home?

I'm not afraid of birth control. In fact she had been on the pill since she was 13 cause PMS was HELL! It did a good job of evening her hormones. But it was taught and given in our context.

This leads one to believe you either altered information or omitted it altogether. This contradicts your previous statement that your kids know everything. To borrow from Obi Wan, it seems they know everything... from a certain point of view. I wonder what context you coulds provide that would be different from Sex ed.

It is not the government's place to protect me from me. It is the government's place to protect me from someone else imposing on me. Like you guys wanting to teach my children about sex 'cause you don't like that I won't let them engage in that behavior.

Why do you suppose schools say it is good to have Driver's Ed? Because it is a long-established fact that the more knowledgeable people are, the more safe and responsible they are likely to be. Does that mean that students who take and complete Driver's Ed don't have accidents? Nope. It means they have the knowledge--which is all the school can control. What the student does with that knowledge is beyond the capacity of the school.

Why do you suppose schools say Sex Ed is good? Because it is a long-established fact that the more knowledgeable people are, the more safe and responsible they are likely to be. Does that mean that students who take and complete Sex Ed don't have sex, get pregnant, or contract STDs? Nope. It means they have the knowledge--which is all the school can control. What the student does with that knowledge is beyond the capacity of the school.

Both of these programs are provided specifically to promote public health and safety. Why would you seek to make the public less healthy and less sdafe by denying them proper health education?

 

What happens when a parent is a Holocaust denier and doesn't want his child to learn about the Holocaust? Does he get to cancel history class for everyone else?

 

I said...I'm not afraid of birth control. In fact she had been on the pill since she was 13 cause PMS was HELL! It did a good job of evening her hormones. But it was taught and given in our context.

Chev replied...This leads one to believe you either altered information or omitted it altogether. This contradicts your previous statement that your kids know everything. To borrow from Obi Wan, it seems they know everything... from a certain point of view. I wonder what context you coulds provide that would be different from Sex ed.

How does that contradict anything I had said before?

What was taught was that the pill, though used for medicinal purposes in her case, was not permission to fool around.

Six months earlier she had her first period and that was when her mom, myself and her had our talk. She knew prior the taking the pill of it's medicinal value and the cut in cancer rates of women taking the pill. (Though that is in dispute, we believe the studies that show a reduction)

Then you compair sex ed to drivers ed. ????

A teen can hit me on the road as I'm minding my owm business. They need to be taught the laws.

But there is no moral component to driving. You either do it right or break the law.

A teen can't give me an STD unless I also make a bad choice.

 

"Abstinence works only as long as it is practiced. So how do you guarantee that it is always practiced? You don't, because you can't."
If it's not practiced then it's not abstinence, is it.

 

The problem is that many people believe that teen sex can only lead to problems because teens are "not ready for it". This is not necessarily the case. It really depends on the kid here, and you can't simply make those generalizations. I, for example, was in a relationship when having sex for the first time, and believe me, me any my boyfriend talked a lot about it before we actually did it, about protection, for example. We trusted each other, which is IMO a mandatory thing, but we also knew that without the pill and a condom = no way we'd do it. He was two years older than I was (I was sixteen then), and I explicitly remember that he asked me again and again if I really felt ready for it, as he didn't just want to talk me into it.
We were sure that we loved each other, and were both sure that we wanted it. Additionally, we protected ourselves as best as we could. Still sounds irresponsible and immoral to you?? Fine. Have it your way.

I was also lucky that I could trust my parents enough to talk to them about sex. Sure, I knew that at first, it was a strange thing to see their daughter enter the "adult world", so to say. But they told me to do what I felt was right, as they said I was old enough to make a mature decision. That's what I call real trust; not controlling your teen until he or she can't stand it any more. In my case, I knew it was my decision, and mine alone. Had my parents demanded that I did not do it just because they said so, I would have done it anyway, but with a bad conscience and the feeling to somehow betray them. It would have given me the feeling that they don't trust me, or just want to impose a standard on me that is not mine. So what I want to say is: Teens have to make their own decisions and experiences, even if they aren't always right, but only from mistakes you can learn.

And another thing about deciding maturely: How can you make an informed decision if you don't have all the facts, or only those your parents want you to have? If you're limited in your choices, you're more in danger to make mistakes (meaning not to protect yourself correctly because you think you don't need it as it's ineffective, anyway).
Could it be that you're just afraid that your children decide to do what you don't want them to do?? Believe me, most teens have a rebellious streak, and the more you control them, the more they do what you don't want them to just on principle. So you'd better prepare them for it - with knowledge.

 

What was taught was that the pill, though used for medicinal purposes in her case, was not permission to fool around.

As the only child in my family, I learned that birth control was often used as a means to regulate the woman's menstral cycle in--get this---Sex Ed!

Do sex Ed teachers give students "permission" to have sex? Do they even hint that they have the right to do so? Again, how is your context different than school education? Do they suggest that birth control is implied permission to have sex? Nope.

She knew prior the taking the pill of it's medicinal value and the cut in cancer rates of women taking the pill. (Though that is in dispute, we believe the studies that show a reduction)

Depends on the medication and the duration of usage, according to my wife's doctors. We won't mention that medicines like "Depo" (Depo-Provera), aka the birth control "shot", can send a women's cycle into premature menapause, and can even cause a deficiency bone mineral density (from the drug company's own press release). But we're not discussing pharmaceuticals at the moment.

A teen can hit me on the road as I'm minding my owm business. They need to be taught the laws.

Driver's Ed teaches one not just the laws, but how to properly and safely use a vehicle when one does finally drive.

Sex Ed teaches one not just the laws (rape, statutory rape, etc, as well as the laws of nature--ie, what's happening with one's body during puberty and beyond), but how to properly and safely use
protection when one does finally have sex (and that very well might not be until college or marriage... either way, by that time they are adults).

But there is no moral component to driving.

But there is a universal moral component in how people drive, this component is called public health and safety.

There is also no moral component in Sex Education. But there is a universal moral component (beyond that which you describe) in the act of having sex. This component is called public health and safety.

A few things to ponder:

1. Why do you suppose the human body goes through puberty and sexual activity so early in life (aka teen years)?


2. Does the notion that sex is immoral prevent teens from having sex?


3. How many parents give their children a one-sentence talk about sex that equates to: "Don't do it 'til you're married"?


4. Of those teens who do have sex, how many have unprotected sex?


5. Is it in the best interests of society to deny these active students the knowledge that can save them from desease or early parenthood?

I'll ask again, since you dodged it: Why are you against a voluntary curriculum that will promote health and safety, whose number one idiom--by the way--is: "The only way to be 100% safe is to be 100% abstinent."?

 

STD's are indeed a public health concern and it IS the government's responsibility to protect its people from communicable diseases such as these. And while it is true obesity is also a public health concern, it is not contagious. This is why the government has to intervene when it comes to significant infectious diseases such as STD's. People can argue that the government shouldn't interfere with what you teach your children, morally, with regards to sex ed. But then what happens when it is YOUR child propagating the threat of the disease, or the disease itself? Preventive health care is THE KEY to good public health. Education is the largest component of preventive health. Therefore, the most efficient way for the government to ensure the preventive measures of STD education (which includes abstinence as the only foolproof method for prevention, by the way) are taken is to provide for them in its schools. My opinion, at least. My job is infectious disease control/prevention so perhaps I'm biased!!

 

One of the predominate opinions I have noticed from the NO-Sex-Ed side of this debate has been "School is not the appropriate place to be discussing sex."

This just does not make any sense. Has anyone else here been in a middle or high school within the last decade? You cannot walk down the hall in between classes without overhearing a sex related conversation at least once a day. And I say this out of my own experience from going to a small high school in a heavily christian rural area of Missouri.

My point is, sex gets talked about on a daily basis in school. Stopping it would be next to impossible, so why not involve a mature adult in the discussion?

 

Again, how is your context different than school education?

My context is,"When you are married, or are paying your own way, here is how to avoid disease and pregancy."

School context is,"When you are ready, here is how to avoid disease and pregnacy."

Can you see a difference?

Do they suggest that birth control is implied permission to have sex?

Yes. Unless you make it clear.

Sex Ed teaches one not just the laws (rape, statutory rape, etc, as well as the laws of nature--ie, what's happening with one's body during puberty and beyond), but how to properly and safely use
protection

Thank you for discribing one of the jobs of parents.

There is also no moral component in Sex Education.

This is where you fail.

I'll ask again, since you dodged it: Why are you against a voluntary curriculum that will promote health and safety, whose number one idiom--by the way--is: "The only way to be 100% safe is to be 100% abstinent."?

Because it is not the job of the school. It is done better by the parents without interferance by the school.

If some parents are leaving that job to the school, it is the parents that need the teaching.

 

Just something about your argument, J-Rod:

So if it's the parents' job (which I agree with, teens should be able to talk about this with their parents), and you say that if you hammer your morals into them long enough, they'll live them; what's the harm in sex ed then? Shouldn't they believe you more in this case than some teacher?? (if that's always a good thing is another question).

 

farraday:

Frankly I don't give a crap if 90% of high schoolers think storcks bring babies if Teen pregnancy rates go into free fall.

This is where I break with you. If there's a reduction in STD transmission and teen pregnancy rates, that's wonderful, and I do think that sex ed classes will probably help with this class. But I think the purpose of schools -- their only purpose -- is to teach children. And I think sex ed should be about much more than risks, how to be safe, etc.; with sexual development, sexuality is a fairly prominent issue in the lives of many teens, and I think it's a wonderful time to educate on all the elements of human sexuality. Many adolescents will certainly be responsive to the opportunity for honest and open education and discussion, and what they learn may help them navigate, know the reasons they feel what they do, and make their own informed decisions and hammer out their own moral feelings. This kind of knowledge and information is, in my mind, equally or more valuable than the public health benefits.

joeryanasto:

My point is, sex gets talked about on a daily basis in school. Stopping it would be next to impossible, so why not involve a mature adult in the discussion?[/i]

Right on! High schoolers discuss sex all the time. Not only would involving an adult and making the discussion more mature help dispell misconceptions and refine thinking, but I really think it could help get students used to talking maturely about sex and reduce the giggle factor, making their approaches a lot more mature.

J-Rod:

It is not the government's place to protect me from me. It is the government's place to protect me from someone else imposing on me. Like you guys wanting to teach my children about sex 'cause you don't like that I won't let them engage in that behavior. (Not directed at V'03)

You know I completely agree with you that the government shouldn't be protecting people from themselves. But they wouldn't be having you sit through sex ed, only your children. Even if it were mandatory, it's not even arguably an imposition on you, only your children.

It would be easy to argue that you are attempting to impose upon other students by attempting to prevent the school system from offering a particular class just because you object to it.

At any rate, it's not because I disagree with your rules/disciplinary approach (though I do, because I believe these are choices every human has the right to make for himself) that I think sex ed has a place in schools; it's because I believe it's a very relevant topic for kids of this age, and something they ought to have the opportunity to learn about in an open, unbiased environment. So long as approached from a position of neutrality (and age-appropriateness, though that's not a factor here), I don't believe there is any topic that ought to be taboo, especially in the public school system. There is nothing about which children should not be able to learn, and as the public school system is an omnipresent venue for education and discussion, it seems to me an appropriate outlet. Particularly since sex is a topic that most children won't otherwise get to discuss and learn about from a position of neutrality.

My context is,"When you are married, or are paying your own way, here is how to avoid disease and pregancy."

School context is,"When you are ready, here is how to avoid disease and pregnacy."

Can you see a difference?

Why should the school be saying "When you are ready"? Let's just make the school's statement a plain old "Here is how to avoid disease and pregnancy," and let you fill in with your own "When you are married," as you choose. Why ought the school to say anything about readiness? Isn't that up to the studentn, whetther to wait until he is ready?

I also think it could be valuable to learn about and discuss different reasons, moral and otherwise, that people

 

My context is,"When you are married, or are paying your own way, here is how to avoid disease and pregancy."

School context is,"When you are ready, here is how to avoid disease and pregnacy."

Yes, the difference between the two is that you are saying all families (by eliminating sex ed in school) must combine the two function you are prescribing, that being:

Function 1) Teach teens about STDs, protection, birth control, and sexual biology/science
Function 2) Teach teens personal family values, when to have sex, when not to have sex, morality, etc.

I strongly believe Function 2 lies within the responsibility of the parent(s) and familiy. Function 1 in the real world of American society is often incomplete or incorrect when offered by the parent(s) and family. Yet, it is within function 1 that prevention and protection is taught for those who find themselves engaging in sexual behavior.

It is with opaque rose glasses that one assumes taking Sex Ed out of school will prevent teen sex. Not only will teen sex continue (how many teens have sex before they have a chance to attend Sex Ed?), but it will continue without the knowledge provided by the curriculum.

For those parents who refuse to allow their children to attend (like yourself), the classes are voluntary and require their signature; therefor, their students would not be required to attend.

Once again I ask you, whyt would you deny these other students (especially those who are potentially active) the knowledge that can help protect the public health and prevent teen pregnancy?

Yes. Unless you make it clear.

How?? By telling them that birth control is an option? But if you, J-Rod, tell your daughter what birth control truly is, and what exactly it does to her body, how is that any different than what is taught in Sex Ed? Unless you do not tell her it is for preventing pregnancy.

Because it is not the job of the school.

But WHY is it not the job of the school? They teach everything else pertaining to health. Why not this? Why not teach it to kids who will never get the information from any other source but their friends (who most likely have the wrong answers)?


This is where you fail.

Do you equate sex education to sex? I do not, thus I havenot failed. Sex Education as presented in public schools has no moral component. That is what I said, verbatum. They do not teach you to go out and have sex. In fact, they specifically teach that the BEST fool-proof way to stay healthy and worry-free (read as "pregnant") is to abstain from sexual activity.

Where is the morality or immorality in that curriculum?

It is done better by the parents without interferance by the school.

Perhaps, if one of the parents is an OBGyn or medical practitioner. Otherwise, countless parents either don't take the time or are too embarassed or admit that they just don't know all the facts. You are willing to punish these children by denying their access to potentially life-saving knowledge provided by professional instructors?

If some parents are leaving that job to the school, it is the parents that need the teaching.

This does not address the problem. It only shifts blame when things go bad. The point to Sex Ed is to help prevent things from going bad in the first place.

 

J-Rod, I just don't get your view here.

I do get that you think it's a good idea for kids to be taught the sex-ed stuff at home. Hey, I do too. I can EVEN appreciate you not wanting the school to teach it to your kids. I can dig it, because it seems clear you feel you are better equipped to give them the birds and the bees lesson.

It's all good.

Where your argument completely breaks down for me is in the fact that you don't think sex ed should be taught in schools AT ALL.

How can you ignore everything Vader has said? Even with your inner city example, how many MORE kids might be infected or get pregnant if there was just ZERO education going on?

Farraday, I don't see how your education vs. learning argument works in here at all. Yeah, I get the initial point, but how the heck are the kids going to ever LEARN anything if they aren't TAUGHT? You can be taught something and not learn it, I get that, but don't you need to at least be taught before you can ever attempt to learn?

J-Rod, again, I just don't get it. Aren't you worried about the spread of disease? Do you really believe sex-ed does HARM to society? Again, I can get on board with you telling the school you don't want your kid in sex ed, that you will take responsibility for doing so.

But the state shouldn't just ASSUME all parents keep their kids under 24-7 surveilance like you, they shouldn't just ASSUME that all parents take as active an interest in their education as you do.

For the sake of society, to assume such things makes an ass out of u and me!

 

Farraday, I don't see how your education vs. learning argument works in here at all. Yeah, I get the initial point, but how the heck are the kids going to ever LEARN anything if they aren't TAUGHT? You can be taught something and not learn it, I get that, but don't you need to at least be taught before you can ever attempt to learn?

OH I don't know we managed to have millions og generations before we ever had mandatory sex ed, I think we learn to screw all on our own.

MY point is one no one on your side appears to want to address seriously, does this work? Does sex ed work? I mean you're more then willing to say abstienence doesn't work and is doomed but where is your counter evidence showing sex education is effective?

I think the point about driver's ed was a particualrly telling one considering that 40% of teen deaths are caused by car crashes. Obviously this is to be considered a sign that Driver's Ed works.

Give me numbers people. Stop trying to convince me of the moral rightness of abstinence or the moral imperitive of sex ed.

But I think the purpose of schools -- their only purpose -- is to teach children.

Public education is an extension of public policy, it is and always has been. Our goal here is to reduce teen pregnancies and STD infection rates, not teach people how to have sex, they're good enough at figuring that out themselves.

 

farraday-

The problem is, the government has been using the "stork method" with abstinence-only, and it doesn't work. If it did, I would grudgingly admit that they may be onto something here.

J-Rod-


It is not the government's place to protect me from me. It is the government's place to protect me from someone else imposing on me. Like you guys wanting to teach my children about sex 'cause you don't like that I won't let them engage in that behavior. (Not directed at V'03)

I couldn't agree with you more on the first part of that statement.

I don't want the government to "protect me from me". They can't make a better decision for me than I can make for myself-not on what I watch on television or listen to on the radio, not on where, when, and with whom to engage in sexual relations, when I decide to use birth control, when a woman decides to bear a child, what religion I decide to (or not to) practice, and whether or not to take my tax dollars and fund a religious charity with it (to name a few examples).

I love your statement; what I don't love is that our current government doesn't apply that principle equally while it claims to.

Peace,

V-03

 

The problem is, the government has been using the "stork method" with abstinence-only, and it doesn't work. If it did, I would grudgingly admit that they may be onto something here.

That isn't true.

As I recall when I went through sex ed a vast array of contraceptive methods were included.

You have years of that did we have and what were the results? Are you atleast willing to give an abstienence only program the chance to refine it's methods or do you just abandon it because you're ideologically invested in the fact it can't work?

 

And again-where does it end? If J-Rod can cancel sex-ed for everyone else because HE doesn't approve of his kids learning about sex in school (because they don't teach his values), what happens when the Holocaust deniers trie to get lessons on the Holocaust thrown out of history courses?

 

Slippery slope?

You mean like "where does the culture of death end? If abortions, what's next? The mentally retarded?"

Just wondering.

 

The slippery slope is not an invalid approach to a discussion, but since you're not comfortable with it here, let's try to get at the heart of the issue more directly: What's the difference between a parent not comfortable with his child being taught about sex in school a potentially worrisome way attempting to prevent those courses from being taught and a Holocaust denier's trying to prevent History courses teaching about the Holocaust from being taught? Why should it be possible to get sex ed classes prevented on grounds of ideology or personal disagreement, and not, say, History classes?

-Paul

 

Because the holocaust did occur, on the other hand birth control is a social matter.

It's like saying whats the difference between teaching math and teaching creationism. If you're going to teach people to add you should teach them god created the univese in a week.


Can we have an accurate comparison here or are we just going to see who can demonize the other side better

"You're like holocaust deniers!"
"You're trying to corrupt our youth!"

Oh please.

 

Because the holocaust did occur, on the other hand birth control is a social matter.

The Holocaust did happen. Birth control does exist.

Since you don't think History is a good comparrison, we could make a fair comparrison to Math. Numbers do exist. Reproductive organs do exist. Numbers are multiplied like this. People are multiplied like this. (While that's half-joking, I do think the procedural comparrison is not invalid.)

I was required to take a Home Ec class, which taught me how to cook (among other things). How's that different from teaching me how to use birth control?

I had to take a Health class, in which I learned both about the workings of the body and how to keep it healthy. How's that different from teaching the workings of sex and how to make them safer and more likely to produce the desired results?

I've stated repeatedly that I don't think Sex Ed should be confined to birth control; I want to teach about ideologies, the history of sexuality, psychology, etc. And I've also stated that I don't think any behaviors, including having sex and using birth control, should be encouraged; in fact, the school shouldn't be passing anny judgment. I'd have it simply impart information, which is factual. Like Math or History.

The bottom line is that if the counterargument were "There are other, more valuable uses for classroom time," I'd be rececptive to that. I'd argue that other things need to go first, but that's something I could go with; in other words, I'm not dead set on teaching Sex Ed.

The problem is that here the chief counterargument has been "School is not a place sex should be talked about." And I have to strongly oppose this. I don't believe any topics should be taboo, period, and I particularly believe that no topics should be taboo, ever, in the public education system. And so I will fight vehemently against the idea that the concern or objection of some people to the subject matter is a valid reason for removing it from discussion and education in the school system.

-Paul

 

I was required to take a Home Ec class, which taught me how to cook (among other things). How's that different from teaching me how to use birth control?

I think perhaps you're mistaking this arguement. Correct me if I'm wrong but we're arguing id abstineence only sex ed should be tought. This isn't arguing we should pretend sex doesn't exist the arguement is over if abstinence sex ed is effective.

And ocne again culturally there is a difference between condoms and croutons. if you want to otherwise feel free to find a different culture.

I had to take a Health class, in which I learned both about the workings of the body and how to keep it healthy. How's that different from teaching the workings of sex and how to make them safer and more likely to produce the desired results?

Once again you have yet to prove a single type of sex ed produces the desired result for the society. Does it decrease teen pregnancy and STD rates amoung teenagers? Do abstinence programs increase teen pregnancy and STD rates? Without evidence either way we're only arguing morals.

I've stated repeatedly that I don't think Sex Ed should be confined to birth control; I want to teach about ideologies, the history of sexuality, psychology, etc. And I've also stated that I don't think any behaviors, including having sex and using birth control, should be encouraged; in fact, the school shouldn't be passing anny judgment. I'd have it simply impart information, which is factual. Like Math or History.

Heh you've been out of school a loooooong time if you think history is simply imparting factual information.


Yes, because we all know history is completely undebatable. I had history class for years and it couldn't cover most of history. Sex ed was one quarter a year instead of gym class, which tells you about how seriously it's taken.



The problem is that here the chief counterargument has been "School is not a place sex should be talked about." And I have to strongly oppose this. I don't believe any topics should be taboo, period, and I particularly believe that no topics should be taboo, ever, in the public education system. And so I will fight vehemently against the idea that the concern or objection of some people to the subject matter is a valid reason for removing it from discussion and education in the school system.

Except the arguement is how to teach it. If you don't think that's valid then you're completely off your rocker. Sex ed in elementary school was as i recall 1 hour a year watching a video. In middle school it may have been a full week, again video and then questions written annoymously. In high school it was 1 semester for the first two years, replacing gym and had to cover all of health not just sex ed. A few weeks at most.

Obviously there isn't time to do you're indepth coverage of everything, so we do have to talk about what to teach, no matter how much you'd like to argue otherwise.

 

I believe school is the right place to learn kids the basic about pregnancies, birth-control and the male and female sexual organs. But on the other hand i dont think it is the job of a school to tell the kids when they are ready for sex and things like that. Those are induvidual decisions that have to be made by everyone by themselves. Many christian people wont have sex before the marriage while some kids already have sex at 13 or so, what do you teach those 2 completly opposite groups? go for the average? 17 or something? NO, you cant teach the kids those things in school. it's the job of their parents to lose their prudeness and take with their kids about these things. The schools job should be to clear the kids up about these matters so they know what it's all about and what might happen if they do it wrong.

The school should be all about teaching the facts and learning the kids the things they need in their adult-life, including their sex-life i think. Most parents dont know nothing about sexual deceases or preconseption, so those things have to be taught at schools. Especially since most parents are reluctant to talk about these things and the kids have to learn this from the streets otherwise (and we all know how many "urban legends" are out there..)

But it isnt the job for the school (aka the goverment, cause they will decide what the schools have to do) to tell the kids when they are ready for sex and what they should do.