Abstinence only sex-ed

Parents cannot be relied on to give adequate education as far as sex is concerned as many, many parents aren't comfortable with discussing sex with their kids.

I simply don't believe this is the case.

 

We'll just have to disagree on that then.

I happen to think that not all parents are free minded enough to teach sex education to their children. We don't want a return to the "don't do it or you'll go blind" scenario of sex ed. At least in a school you get fair and accurate education.

 

At least in a school you get fair and accurate education.

Again we'll have to disagree.

Sex education is niether fair nor accurate when it is taught without the moral context.

 

How so?

How is teaching about how sex works, why sex exists, what the pros and cons are and about contraception in a clinical manner not accurate or fair?

It should be left for the parents to decide if they tell their kids to abstain until after marriage or not to engage in homosexuality or whatever, but the mechanics of it is definitely a job for the school.

 

How is teaching about how sex works, why sex exists, what the pros and cons are and about contraception in a clinical manner not be accurate or fair?

I posted that answer a few pages back when I compared it to teaching gun safty. The moral componate is the glue that hold it all together and gives the incentive for the required disapline to follow the safty "rules".

 

Parent's can't even be relied on to teach morality so how are we going to rely on them to teach morality AND sex education?

At least schools will give the facts. What the student does with those facts is entirely up to them. However, if armed with the facts, don't you think there'd be more probability that they'd consider the pros and cons of sex before engaging?

 

Parent's can't even be relied on to teach morality so how are we going to rely on them to teach morality AND sex education?

Again, this is where you are wrong.

 

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make you right.

 

Sorry to bring back a 20-day-old point, but I just couldn't ignore it.

An individual said that they worked in an inner-city facility, and that there is a tremendous AIDS problem there.

The response was "How many of those inner-city kids had sex ed? Most, I'd bet. Why do they have AIDS then?"

The glaringly obvious fact, that was ignored by both sides, is that there is a direct correlation between people in inner-city environments who have serious STDs and people who have dropped out of school. The "Most, I'd bet" part is a fatally flawed portion of the overall argument, and demonstrates weak knowledge of "all them liberal cities."

All that it really show is that if they had received sex ed, they'd be far more likely to be healthy, and consequently less people would be suffering. Thanks for proving the point of the pro-sex ed'ers.

 

More importantly, this shows that socio-economic factors play a large part; it certainly does not prove that sexual-education is valueless per se.

In many of those schools, being sexually active at a young age is a status symbol, and condoms simply aren't viewed as "cool". In order to cut down on the unintended pregnancy and STD rate, you'll have to convince those kids that both

a) protection is cool

and

b) so is abstinence.

When it comes to the inner-city, I would notgo for abstinence-only. You'll get ignored.

Peace,

V-03

J-Rod-

The problem with leaving it up to parents to teach morality is that different parents may have different views on just what is "moral". Consequently, you will end up with a "patchwork" of teachings on sex ed, which poses a major public health problem.

 

The problem with leaving it up to parents to teach morality is that different parents may have different views on just what is "moral".

Isn't that the reason to leave up to the parents? After all, I don't want my kid using Darth Paul's morals. Simularly, Paul wouldn't want his kids subjected to my morals.

I think you made my point for me.

 

But it's not morals they would be teaching. They are teaching biology basically and also contraception methods - including abstinence. The parents then decide what morals to bestow upon their kids.

For an insight into limited sex ed and it's effect, check out the thread in the JCC about women's anatomy. The amount of guys that don't know basic anatomy is scary.

 

But it's not morals they would be teaching. They are teaching biology basically and also contraception methods - including abstinence. The parents then decide what morals to bestow upon their kids.

This brings me back to my point that you cannot teach sex without teaching the morals at the same time.

 

Wait, stereotypical teenage nerds with no practical knowledge of the female body?

Shocking!

No but seriously how exactly does the difference between the urethra and the vagina effect sex ed as it related to prophilactics? I assure you that knowledge or lack thereof in no way inhibits or promotes teenage sex, anymore then not knowing how a microwave works keeps you from making popcorn.

It is also of course the question of neccesity. For the average male is this information that is really all that important? I would submit that even after ti being taught it's not something that you really need to consider on a daily, weekly, monthly or even yearly basis. On the other hand I am quite aware of the design usefulness and appearance of my own genetalia which is of both a daily usefulness and familiarity.

I suppose we could argue over the ignorance of most people as to the name of the 14th president, but is it really material as to what they need to learn?

 

Right now I'm hearing the news on the radio. They are talking about a lawsuit the EEOC has launched against a McDonald's franchize owner in AZ and NM who let his managers sexually harrass the teenagers working for them.

This has been going on since 2001. One of the vicims said,"We didn't say anything because we thought that's how it is in the workplace."

Now, I know here in AZ we have sex ed. So how is it that this girl didn't know that that was inappropriate?

HA! 'Cause Sex ed doesn't work!

How many parents just leave it up to the school 'cause the school is gonna do it? Alot I think.

So, howsabout giving that responsibility back to the parents? Your way does not work!

Morals must be taught with sex and it must be taught by a person the kid will listen to. A teacher is not that person.

 

They are talking about a lawsuit the EEOC has launched against a McDonald's franchize owner in AZ and NM who let his managers sexually harrass the teenagers working for them.

So, because of that one case, all sex education everywhere is a failure? Not every American household is like the Cleaver family. Not every parent is approachable about things like this.

How many parents just leave it up to the school 'cause the school is gonna do it? Alot I think.

If parents are that callous and lazy, they're not likely to teach their kids about sex at all.

So, howsabout giving that responsibility back to the parents?

That responsibility has never been taken from the parents. Whether sex ed is taught in schools or not, nothing can stop you, as a parent, from teaching your kids about it.

 

That responsibility has never been taken from the parents. Whether sex ed is taught in schools or not, nothing can stop you, as a parent, from teaching your kids about it.

No, but now I have to overcome the teacher's teaching of sex to tell the kid the truth. And as a kid, he'll believe whoever tells him what he wants to hear.

BTW: I never thought a guy who wants limited government would want the school to do the parenting.

Why the switch on this topic? Otherwise you are the most consistant player on the board.

 

No, but now I have to overcome the teacher's teaching of sex to tell the kid the truth.

What do you mean? The sex ed course should not include moral teachings. I feel it should consist of the facts only. Students should be provided with factual information, not political rhetoric.

BTW: I never thought a guy who wants limited government would want the school to do the parenting.

I don't--I support the separation of school and state. The point I was trying to get across was that the government should not be telling the schools what can and cannot be in their curriculum. The rules of the free market should dictate what is taught in schools.

Why the switch on this topic?

What do you mean by "switched"? When I refer to "schools," I'm not talking about the public school system.

 

Well, maybe you'll respond to this, noone else has.

I don't believe you can effectively teach sex without putting it in a moral context.

Whatever your belief is about sex, it involves morals.

Just like gun safety. Morals, or eddicate, is part of the curriculum.

 

I don't believe you can effectively teach sex without putting it in a moral context.

Whatever your belief is about sex, it involves morals.

Just like gun safety. Morals, or eddicate, is part of the curriculum.

Tell me what you mean by the moral context though? What would a teacher be teaching a child about sex that you think would be so morally incorrect?

 

I don't believe you can effectively teach sex without putting it in a moral context.

Well, like Loopster, I would also like to know what you mean by "moral context," and in what way(s) you feel sex education as it exists today is "immoral."

Whatever your belief is about sex, it involves morals.

Perhaps, but teachers shouldn't be teaching their beliefs about sex. They should be presenting the facts, nothing more.

Just like gun safety. Morals, or eddicate, is part of the curriculum.

I'm not sure about this comparison, but I'll wait for you to respond to the above before elaborating any further.

 

Actually, I think the gun comparrison may be apt. For example, in a class on guns, one might teach, "Don't shoot at someone unless you are prepared to kill him," as one might teach in sex ed "Don't have unprotected sex unless you're prepared for pregnancy or an STD." One might teach about ways to reduce the chance of killing someone you shoot at, as one might teach ways to reduce pregnancy and STD risk with protection, while emphasizing in both cases that the only way to be sure is not to do it. And the course might teach about when it is legal to shoot at someone, and the consequences for doign so when it is not legal, as it might teach about when sex is legal and the consequences when it is not. A course might involve discussion of times when it would be particularly advantageous or disadvantageous to employ a firearm or to have sex. All of which is factual. Why should there be any more of a "moral" component than that, in either case?

I'll see if there's anything else I should respond to later; at the moment, I'm finishing up a paper.

-Paul

 

paul said..."Don't have unprotected sex unless you're prepared for pregnancy or an STD."

To which I would respond,"All protection has a failure rate. Don't have any sex outside of marrige unless you are prepared to raise a child with that person or are prepared for a potentially fatal disease."

Look, the real pisser is AIDS and abortion could be eliminated in our lifetime if we would just modify our behavior.