posted
Eduardo, you just have to click on the smilies.
Jay, I would think that the 2nd amendment is a conservative position and the 1st is a liberal one. I don't think the story you linked says that kids are being indoctrinated by liberals as much as it says that liberals are doing a bad job of indoctrinating them.
Perhaps the liberal education isn't as liberal as some people would lead you to believe. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abstinence does not work. Just telling a kid not to have sex by using a bunch of threats and bad science is ineffective. Why can't they give a good mixture of, don't have sex, but if you end up in that situations here's what you need to do. Honest education, that's what is needed. Not this whole just don't do it then show dozens of half nekkid people parading around on television looking as tempting as hot cookies and cold milk.
And, damn, do I ever hate Seven Heaven *has nothing to do with the topic*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a teacher, I must say: abstinence programs won't work. Honest education is the only way. And I agree with the first article. I guess it's more about politicds than about the kids.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
posted
Wait a second 13 YEARS OLD?!?!?!?!?! i was not even THINKING about sex when I was 13. What the hell is going on? Are the hormones in the milk making everyone develop waaaaaaaaay too early?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jay, I would think that the 2nd amendment is a conservative position and the 1st is a liberal one.
You may be right about the 2nd; your analysis of the 1st ignores about half of 1st amendment litigation. This is speaking of conservative and liberal as they are commonly percieved in issue alignment, not any rigorous definition of the terms.
Free exercise of religion has been invoked for goals perceived as "liberal" (the pledge being optional) and "conservative" (equal access to school facilities). Free speech has been invoked equally by both sides (black armbands in schools, fundign for religious magazines). Ditto for the other first amendment rights, with the possible exception of the establishment clause. But, if you pair establishment w/ free exercise, balance is restored.
posted
It's scary. After I started teaching in the favelas, I saw much of it. 17 yo girls with 4 children... A 12 yo boy with 1 son (the mother was 15)...
Don't think you had a sheltered life because you didn't think about sex when you were 13. Neither did I.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say I think it's silly for them to spend federal money on abstinence education. What is so expensive about asking teachers to read what is printed on a condom box? "Abstinence is the only way to guarantee protection."
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What got to me was that the article said that increased self-esteem would convince teens that early sex would be shaming to them (I am totally paraphrasing, but that's how I digested it). Um...I never had a problem with self-esteem...and even though I wasn't *13* when I had sex, I was a teen. Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there no middle ground of any kind? I approve of sex education, I really do, but abstinence needs to be mentioned for the sole reason that it's the absolute very best preventative measure against STDs and pregnancy available. Abstinence only education doesn't even begin to cover all the bases, but it shouldn't be totally ignored.
There needs to be some level of probable consequences brought into the discussion, but since there are bound to be exceptions to the supposed standard, they may as well learn the second-best methods to protect themselves. They need to learn that condoms sometimes break and pills don't always work.
The 13-year olds thing squicks me out to no end.
edit:
quote: What got to me was that the article said that increased self-esteem would convince teens that early sex would be shaming to them (I am totally paraphrasing, but that's how I digested it).
I think it might have more to do with self-esteem issues leading teens to submit to sexual activities without thinking that that's not the only way to get approval. But that's just me.
posted
The main thing is these programs are only focusing on that condoms break and pills sometimes don't work -- when what's much more important is that, used properly, condoms work a huge percentage of the time and pills work almost all the time.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
Just going from the quote, I think the conclusion of the article -- that abstinence-only education does not work -- is hardly a given.
Did they control for the fact that people are more likely to have sex as they age?
I'm not at all shocked by the 23% statistic; from what I recall, 50% of all girls had lost their virginity by 16, and 70% of all boys. But, see, that's what I find interesting: if that's still true, then an absolute increase of just 7% over the course of a year is small potatoes, and may even imply that abstinence-only education does work to reduce the incidence of teen sex (if not to encourage safer sex, which is another issue altogether.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.
"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study
The contention seems to be that the kids who'd received abstinance-only education fared no differently than those who had other types of sex education. That is, having had abstinance-only sex ed did not have statistically significant effect on reported sexual behavior.
I, too, wonder about the "redefinition issue," though.
posted
EDIT: Rant below, haven't read much of the above.
quote:Abstinence does not work.
This is just so FUNNY on so many levels. . .
But I'll be serious. Abstinence is the only method of birth control proven time and time again to be 100% effective.
Shocker.
Shouldn't it receive more than just a cursory mention in schools? Hey, I'm all for teaching ninth graders how to use various birth control devices, but don't downplay the efficacy of abstinence. It is the singlemost powerful contraceptive on the market-- it's cheap, it's easily duplicated, it even builds character. ( )
Sounds like a parent's and an educator's dream drug. So why do so many people disparage it? Ohhh-- because the religious right has snatched it up as another drum to beat and the irreligious left must (perforce) stand against them, NO MATTER THE COST!!
The reaction of (liberal?)people against abstinence education is much like the reaction of (some) Creationists to teaching evolution in public schools. Without thought, study, or sense, really. Why hamstring our children by downplaying what really is the most effective method of birth control? We don't teach phrenology in schools in place of psychology; we teach the New Math; our educational system should teach the truest, most effective methodologies and that goes for ANY subject.
Except sex education. The class that most teenagers need FAR more than Algebra, Chemistry, or Literature, some of us feel compelled to put out the second-string methodology, and to apologize for the effective one. Bass ackwards, folks.
[ February 01, 2005, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with abstinence being taught, and in fact support it. I suspect you'll find most "liberals" agree. Abstinence only education I have a major problem with, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I think a lot of the reaction comes from that when certain people talk about "adding abstinence education" (often to school districts where abstinence is mentioned quite strongly), "liberals" often interpret it as code for abstinence-only education. Which it often is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree-- the sex ed class I went through in 10th grade was a joke.
(Abstinence was not metioned as an effective means of contraception in my class, by the way)
Ultimately, I think that abstinence should be encouraged by social programs in schools, but it's going to take more than one class to make the effects seen. A culture of responsibility and respect for one's (potential) sexual partner does not crop up suddenly. (By respect, I mean the following: 'We're going to have sex. We realize that this might produce a pregnancy. We're emotionally ready for the consequences.)
Of course, I don't know that a fifteen year old exists who is emotionally ready to take care of a child. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, in my experience in one of the more liberal school districts in the state of Oregon, Abstinence was given plenty of mention. It was at the top of the chart of birth control methods and had the only 100% next to it.
I don't think anybody is against mentioning that abstinence is the most effective method, etc. However, I think that abstinence-only education is nearly worthless.
In my eigth grade health class, we did a project where we had to predict the expenses of a couple of high school-age students who decided to have sex, got pregnant, and decided to keep the child. That exercise did a lot to show me that, even with good luck finding decent entry-level jobs, it would be virtually impossible to achieve many goals in life. A few years later, when we had our next dose of sex ed, that's what I was thinking about.
I think that in most places, kids know what causes pregnancy. I don't think that the possibility of pregnancy (or even that nasty STD slideshow) really scares them very much. Abstinence-only education will NOT work, and in many cases, comprehensive sex-ed won't work well enough. But I tihnk that we've got to use every weapon in our arsenal to prevent unplanned pregnancy, because that's the sort of "it won't happen to me" disaster that can really ruin lives (and causes many to want abortions). If conservatives are serious about reducing unplanned pregnancy among teenagers, they will soon be forced to abandon abstinence-only education.
You've got to make kids want to be completely responsible about their behavior, which is a hard battle to fight, but it's the only way to combat unplanned teen pregnancy and STD transfer.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately, I think that abstinence should be encouraged by social programs in schools, but it's going to take more than one class to make the effects seen. A culture of responsibility and respect for one's (potential) sexual partner does not crop up suddenly. (By respect, I mean the following: 'We're going to have sex. We realize that this might produce a pregnancy. We're emotionally ready for the consequences.)
I agree. Almost exactly what our goal should be. Although, this isn't going to happen by telling kids repeatedly, "You're not ready for sex, you're not responsible enough..." Even if most school sex-ed classes amount to little more than a joke and a waste of money, it's important for people to know that information. I think the structure of even the current comprehensive sex-ed curriculums needs revision to express the responsibility both partners need to have for their relationship if it turns sexual. And I don't think schools should judge on the morality of the teens' relationships. Ultimately, they're the ones who have to decide if they're responsible enough to handle sex, and there's no moral way to stop them. Schools and other adult resources need to be there to point kids in the right directions no matter what decisions they make. That means support, letting kids know what the options are, and allowing them the freedom to make their own choices, and believing that they ARE responsible enough to make them.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth I took sex ed (or health class or whatever we're calling it) in a very, very, very liberal town and abstinence was mentioned in the following way: "Abstinence is the most effective, and only proven way of steering clear of pregnancy and STDs, but I'm not a fool and I know almost none of you will choose that route." And then never mentioned again. Personally I think it would've been better not to mention it at all.
posted
I can't speak for Hobbes, but I know a good number of my graduating class were virgins when they walked. Practically all of my group of friends were virgins (I can only think of three people who were not, actually). I do think they were in the minority. Comparing it with my cousin's high school in Ventura, CA, mine had far fewer pregnancies, but you'd hear about an abortion every once in a while.
As a broad generalization, I would say most of the people who had been in a relationship for 5 months or more were sexually active.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I was one of only three virgins I knew when I graduated high school. And two of us were only 15. By 18, we too had lost our virginity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well my class was about 450, I didn't know each and everyone but I would estimate (based only on what people claimed obviously as I didn't spend a lot of my time looking people's bedrooms) that 80% or higher had had sex before they graduated.
posted
How exactly do these studys measure this? I mean -- I know if they had just asked me these questions when I was a teen - I would probably lie -- just for kicks. (not saying the stats aren't true - I'm just wondering how big of a sample they study, and all the specifics of how they are gaining their conclusion.)
Actually, I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter what curriculum on this you teach them in school - the peer pressure is a bigger factor..
posted
"Actually, I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter what curriculum on this you teach them in school - the peer pressure is a bigger factor."
That is the claim made by people who support actual sex-ed: that since peer pressure is a bigger factor, abstinence-only education does not reduce the incidence of teen sex enough to make a real difference -- whereas teaching kids "typical" sex-ed information is useful regardless of whether they choose to have sex or not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally have no problem with them teaching contraceptive information in sex-ed classes in schools (it is up to me as a parent to teach them moral values and the importance of abstinence). I do wish they would balance that with information on abstinence as well, but present all information.
However, I'll admit that I really don't necessarily want them to be presented with "alternative lifestyles" in a sex-ed class. Just the scientific facts, and not going off on all the other directions that discussion can take you.
As the parent of three teens -- all of which are still virgins at this point -- I count myself very lucky and realize we are in the minority. I, myself, was no longer a virgin at the age that my middle child is now.
Sometimes too much information proves to be better than not enough information (as was in my case).
quote: I do wish they would balance that with information on abstinence as well, but present all information.
In my experince, and in the sex-ed classes of many people I have talked to, students felt there was a balance. I think everybody understood that abstinence was the safest option. One thing I think they could go into more detail on is emotional consequences of sex. I don't know if anybody really teaches anything about that. At least my teacher for the most recent couple rounds of sex-ed didn't talk about a lot of the emotional issues that go along with sex. I mean issues like peer-pressure to have sex and the sort of "conquest" attitude some people take toward sex.
quote:However, I'll admit that I really don't necessarily want them to be presented with "alternative lifestyles" in a sex-ed class. Just the scientific facts, and not going off on all the other directions that discussion can take you.
However, recognize that some people might choose "alternative lifestyles" that present them with more risk for spreading disease, and they need to be informed of that risk. I think a school can do this without promoting that lifestyle.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had sex before getting to sex ed in high school. I don’t know that a class would have made any difference, but maybe these classes need to start a little younger overall.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt many Abstinence-only education programs actually convince people to not have sex because the people who are going to abstain from sex through high school are generally either people who would abstain anyways, or people who might/would have sex if given the opportunity, but don't have a chance.
At best, you might swing a couple people from the list of maybes.
Ladyday, what grade was your first sex ed class? I think my school district had a brief "learn about your body" lesson in 5th grade, followed by sex ed in 7th, 8th, 10th, and (11th or 12th).
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think due to changing schools so much I missed the “your body” stuff they teach you in middle school…10th grade I think was my sex ed class. Maybe second semester 9th, I honestly don’t remember.
I only say that it might be better to go a little earlier on the “real” sex ed stuff because I personally found it easier to make choices before the issue ever came up. What was it Gimli said, when the fellowship was discussing some sort of vow to stay together before they set out? Something about words making you brave.
At any rate, I can’t say for sure if it would work.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We had "Skills For Adolescents" in 7th grade. Anyone who came into the district in 8th grade had to take it anyway to go on to HS. It was about 1/3 sex ed, 1/3 emotional skills, and 1/3 understanding marketing and peer pressure, and why drugs and cigarettes are bad for you. It was pretty comprehensive, and the sex ed part went into detail on why abstinence is best all around. However, we also got clear, accurate information about birth control, as well as information on pregnancy and abortion, and we had to watch a video about different kinds of abortion and a birthing video (where the woman was not given any pain control, which I recognize now as a scare tactic ). I don't know if it was effective, but I'd say it was pretty balanced and fair. The next time we had sex ed was just a unit in Health, which is required in 9th grade. That unit was mostly to answer questions that had come up and reinforce what we learned in 7th grade. I have always thought that the 7th grade class was a good idea all around.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rational reasons to avoid promiscuity — pregnancy, disease, emotional harm — have zero impact on kids who have never had sex. They look around at each other and none of their friends look diseased. They think they have the self-control or the luck not to get anyone pregnant. They don't have the experience to think beyond their immediate desires. Scare tactics in the classroom don't work at all.
I'm all about abstinence being taught, consequences being taught, and birth control being taught. I can't see anything but good coming from teaching kids as much information as possible.
But moral advocacy — in either direction — is out of place at school. I don't want to hear "look at all this scary stuff! Don't have sex or you'll die!" and I also don't want to hear "You're all going to have sex before you leave high school, so at least wear a condom. Please? For me?"
Just teach the information. Assume the kids will use it when they're older, or assume they'll use it that night when they go home, whatever makes you happier. Just don't tell them what they're going to do. You're a teacher, not a fortune teller or a priest.
Influencing kids to make better moral choices cannot happen effectively in a classroom. That's not what they're there for. If we want to make changes to the way children make choices, the changes need to happen in our homes and in our culture.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a virgin when I graduated because ma Saxon had threatened me with any number of painful operations if I ever got anyone pregnant. So, my guess would be that 'kids' these days are having sex not so much because of peer pressure but because their parents these days aren't really doing their job. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my eigth grade health class, we did a project where we had to predict the expenses of a couple of high school-age students who decided to have sex, got pregnant, and decided to keep the child. That exercise did a lot to show me that, even with good luck finding decent entry-level jobs, it would be virtually impossible to achieve many goals in life. A few years later, when we had our next dose of sex ed, that's what I was thinking about.
Now that's awesome. Kudos to that eighth grade teacher.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or basically what Geoff said, except I would leave off the 'culture' part, which is meaningless for a lot of people in our glorious modern society.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just skimming, I can't help but wonder if it isn't only the content of the sex ed program, but the way in which it is presented.
Why are we waiting until 15 to teach it? Are we taking the kids seriously as thinking individuals or just trying to stuff a bunch of slogans in their head?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just teach the information. Assume the kids will use it when they're older, or assume they'll use it that night when they go home, whatever makes you happier. Just don't tell them what they're going to do. You're a teacher, not a fortune teller or a priest.
Agreed - despite my conservative Christian ways, I've always advocated teaching kids the facts about their bodies - because unfortunately, too many parents do a shockingly poor job of it.
So teach a heath class that covers anatomy and physiology of the reproductive system, talk about what causes pregnancy, what can prevent it, stress abstinence as the only sure way to prevent problems, but stop there. Don't advocate "alternate lifestyles" don't teach children how to have sex (by which I mean don't dwell on technique) give them some outside resources for more information and include both places that advocate abstinence only and places that give out more information about birth control. But stop there - because like Geoff says, you aren't there to be their priest or their pimp, you're there to inform.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you conservatives want a liberal sex ed curriculum taught? (Being gay is fine, etc.)
Do you liberals want a conservative sex ed curriculum taught? (If you have sex outside of marriage, you'll blow up, etc.)
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sex Ed should be taught in school because there is a legitimate government interest in ensuring kids know the facts of reproduction and how to prevent pregnancy and STDs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't advocate "alternate lifestyles" don't teach children how to have sex (by which I mean don't dwell on technique)
Belle, could you cite examples of primary or secondary-school sex-ed programs that do either of these two things?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
