They'll be teaching abstinence and eventual heterosexual marriage as the only option. What really angers me is this:
quote:No Wake County Public School System employee shall provide information to any student about where to obtain contraceptives and/or abortion referral services.
This is the problem with the push to teach Abstinence in schools. It's not that Abstinence is the problem, it's that people insist on completely cutting off all safe sex education. It's ridiculous.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I think this comes from the constant push towards Political Correctness and Scientific teachings dealing with Evolution. They both are double edged swords, the back edge being that you can't escape the fact that without heterosexual relationships the human race cannot sustain itself.
It might also come from the fact that abstenance is the healthiest solution for people in the target age group. STDs can still be spread without swapping fluids.
I see your point with only teaching one side of the story and I agree with you. It doesn't matter what you do, you'll always have people doing the nasty behind the theater. It should be taught both ways.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I've never understood why abstinence-only education qualifies as a course. I mean, really, isn't it a thirty-second speech? How can a semester be spent not telling kids how to protect themselves from having children or from spreading STDs?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote: think this comes from the constant push towards Political Correctness and Scientific teachings dealing with Evolution. They both are double edged swords, the back edge being that you can't escape the fact that without heterosexual relationships the human race cannot sustain itself.
Heh. Scott, do you really think that the US is in danger of becoming underpopulated? Let alone by a mass surge toward homosexual relationships because persecution against them isn't encouraged?
I mean this in the least offensive way possible, but is your sexuality so flexible that you would be homosexual today if you weren't surrounded by anti-homosexual propaganda growing up? Because, honestly, that's the only way your argument can hold any basis at all in reality, and even then it's only a subjective and pretty freaking unique opinion on the dangers of homosexuality.
Well, not unique. You'd be amazed how many anti-homosexual arguments encompass the if-kids-aren't-raised-against-homosexuality-they're-raised-for-it rhetoric.
quote:It might also come from the fact that abstenance is the healthiest solution for people in the target age group. STDs can still be spread without swapping fluids.
It's also healthiest for teenagers to never drive -- consider how large the accident ratio is for young males, especially. But they're going to drive; would you really support a driver's ed program that doesn't teach kids how to drive?
Though I'm glad to hear you support sex ed that teaches kids how to prevent pregnancy, despite the imminent danger of a mass emptying of the United States.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I've never understood why abstinence-only education qualifies as a course. I mean, really, isn't it a thirty-second speech? How can a semester be spent not telling kids how to protect themselves from having children or from spreading STDs?
Isn't sex ed just a segment of health class? It was for me, anyway. How do you spend an entire semester talking about sex, even if you don't limit it to abstinence only?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
[Edited out for my friend.]
[ January 15, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Papa Moose ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For some reason I think the constant message of "SEX! (psst, don't have it)" will result in more tension and confusion and, well, sex. No idea what would give me that idea.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I agree that statistically speaking, the population least likely to get STD's is a single-partner-for-life monogamous relationship. Heterosexual or homosexual.
edit: actually, i suppose the population least likely to get STD's are those who stay abstinent and away from IV drug use, blood transfusion, surgery, etc.
[ January 15, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I suppose the question is, will not teaching them this stuff prevent them from having sex outside marriage?
If so, it may be worth it, but doesn't that seem awfully doubtful?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Lalo, I think you're misstating yourself. Abstinence education is teaching kids the BEST way to avoid children and STD's. It's just not telling them ALL the ways Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Tresopax: afterall, don't students in high school respect and trust their health education teachers more than their boyfriend/girlfriend/self? Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Facetiousness aside, avoiding teaching kids about birth control, etc, doesn't make them less likely to have premature, ill-advised sex. Raising them in healthy, morally-upright two-parent homes where they actually witness a happy, stable marriage and experience a blissful childhood that they want to pass on to their own progeny by making mature choices as teenagers is what will do it. But how can you legislate THAT?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
[Edited out]
Seriously, now, does any school spend an entire semester talking about sex? What do they do, go over the entire Kama Sutra?
[ January 15, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Am I the only person that had a sex ed class? They teach you about the human reproductive system, contraceptives, why they work, etc.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
My thought on this is that education is for life. We don’t expect teenagers to use everything they learn in school right away – why is sex ed any different? Most of them will be having sex at some point in their future. Hopefully many of them will eventually be having it with a spouse. But there aren’t any sex ed classes for about-to-be-married adults (well, there are, but they’re by no means universal.) The kids need to learn about things like birth control, even if they’re abstinent, so that when the time comes that they need the info they’ll have it.
There’s another point, that I’m almost hesitant to bring up, because it seems so outrageous. I know a woman, a few years younger than me, who got pregnant at 15. When her mom questioned her, “Didn’t we tell you not to have sex?” It came out that she didn’t actually know she was “having sex.” Her boyfriend was older, and called it by another name, and in movies and such she’d always heard it referred to by euphemisms. It seems ridiculous, I know, but she’d never made the connection between “making love” and “having sex.” So we at least need to teach young people enough that they know what it is we’re telling them not to do.
Tying into that, in many cases when young girls get pregnant, the father is several years older. These girls need to have good information, so that their possibly manipulative older boyfriends aren’t their sole source of knowledge about sexual matters. They need to know a lie or a line when they hear it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: . . . spend an entire semester talking about sex? What do they do, go over the entire Kama Sutra?
*signs up for class*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wouldn't know in your case, Jon Boy, but there are a lot of people out there who have really bad sex lives because they just aren't aware of anything better.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Lalo, I didn't intend to raise the homosexual issue. But, if I was intending not to I guess I should have not said the heterosexual word huh? Sorry, I don't want to derail.
Also, your point with driving. Consider this, most states are now thinking about taking that away from minors all together (i.e. pushing the driving age to 18) for the very reason you state. Plus we've already discussed the Sex License issue once before with some in the gutter results.
*points towards odouls*
[ January 15, 2004, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I wouldn't know in your case, Jon Boy . . .
Exactly.
[ January 15, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, I think you're misstating yourself. Abstinence education is teaching kids the BEST way to avoid children and STD's. It's just not telling them ALL the ways
Excellent point, Geoff. In fact, let's apply this to driver's ed courses. We can just teach kids not to drive. It's the BEST way to avoid accidents and drunk driving, after all, if people just don't drive. We're just not telling them ALL the ways to avoid accidents -- why would they need to know SMOG or why to never mix alcohol and driving at all if we're already teaching them the BEST way to avoid accidents?
quote:Facetiousness aside, avoiding teaching kids about birth control, etc, doesn't make them less likely to have premature, ill-advised sex. Raising them in healthy, morally-upright two-parent homes where they actually witness a happy, stable marriage and experience a blissful childhood that they want to pass on to their own progeny by making mature choices as teenagers is what will do it. But how can you legislate THAT?
We can't. Thus, we fall back to the next best option -- giving kids the knowledge they need to avoid having children that won't be raised in healthy, morally-upright two-parent homes where they can actually witness a happy, stable marriage and experience a blisfful childhood that they want to pass on to their own progeny by making the mature choices as teenagers their parents never did.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just to make it clear, I wasn't attempting to imply anything. It was a disclaimer, because I really can't know, that I felt was useful because of previous twists of the conversation.
But there are a lot of people out there who do have that problem.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Sorry, fugu. I know you weren't trying to imply anything, but Papa Moose's joke rubbed me the wrong way.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think that if I were a student at an abstinence-only school, I'd hand out contraception pamphlets with candy during lunch to all the high schoolers. I wonder how quickly I'd get in trouble.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
You doing OK, dude?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Listen, guys.
1. My parents divorced when I was 12, and their relationship before that wasn't healthy in any real way, except that they had a healthy sex life. I think my mother wouldn't have put up with my dad's controling nature if that part of their relationship hadn't been really good.
2. My older sister got married while still in college and had a baby.
3. I was reasonably pretty, and like my mother before me, a bit of a sensual creature.
So why DIDN'T I get into all sorts of trouble? Education and self-interest, simply put. My sister gave me her Human Sexuality Textbook when I was 16 or so. Very soon I knew the results of every Masters and Johnson study published before 1987. I knew all the nasty stuff that could go wrong with having sex, and I knew that, being a virgin, it would hurt. And I honestly didn't want to let somebody hurt me unless I was completely sure of him. Sure he loved me, sure he wanted to please me, and sure that he could please me.
So I remained abstinent for purely selfish reasons. I was raised in a religious atmosphere, but I also knew sex should be fun.
Still, I'm not sure that a school program could have done for me what my own self-directed study did.
I AM saying that I did 'the right thing' for reasons other than having a happy, stable family life and the proper religious upbringing. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Me? Yeah, I guess I'm okay. I'm stressed about money, the weather is making me depressed, and the "Jon Boy isn't funny anymore" comments are really getting on my nerves. All in all, I'm just a little grouchy. But otherwise, I'm going great.
[ January 15, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Hey Jon, it's January, I feel ya'.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're on the no-ehugs-please list, aren't you, JB? Well, consider good vibes sent your way. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No, that was Pat. Or maybe it was me. Or maybe it was both of us. You know how hard it is to keep us straight. Anyway, I don't think I'm anti e-hug.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I had an entire semester of sex ed, and there was stuff we didn't get around to covering. I took it as a junior even though it was a senior level course. I really think it should have been a sophomore level course.
Sure, if all you say is STD's are bad, mmmkay? then you can't fill a whole semester, but we looked at some of the more prevelant and serious ones and discussed them in the context of treatment, prevention, symptoms, incubation times...we could have spent the entire semester on AIDS alone. We talked about a ton of contraceptive methods, statistics for teen pregnancy and pre-marital sex in general, rape, consent, family planning, a whole ton of stuff.
I thought it was an absolutely excellent course. Some people really didn't like a lot of the more graphic images we were shown, but having them in the context of an actual education on sex was amazingly different than having them in the shock tactic 1 day coverage of sex that some of my friends in other schools got.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know Pat started the list, but I was fairly certain you posted yourself to it. And I have NO trouble telling you and Pat apart -- well, except when you two try to confuse us.
(((((Jon Boy)))))
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Oh, I probably did put myself on the list. I think it's one of those things I've wavered on. Sometimes I really appreciate them, and other times they've seemed sort of annoying and meaningless.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(((Jon Boy)))
In that platonic way, of course.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
(((Brinestone)))
And platonic feelings sent Jon's way.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Another problem with abstinence education is that you can still get diseases from the things that aren't intercourse. And if they don't go into great detail about what Abstinence entails, people will say they're abstinent when it just that they're not having intercourse. It's misleading.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A friend in college worked at a clinic in one of the poorer parts of town. A patient was having her third child before turning 20 when my friend asked her why she was having unprotected sex when she knew the results.
The pregnant girl responded, "What does sex have to do with havin kids?"
Education is mandatory. Sure, its best if mom and dad have a nice long talk. But some don't. And the children of the parents who don't are likely to be the ones you, your friends, or your children are dating.
This pronouncement, "Don't tell the kids about contraceptives and abortion." is purely punative. "You are having sex? Shame on you. We will make sure you suffer appropriately for it."
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
That's fairly jaw-dropping, Dan. Not sure if my story can measure up--but I had a friend, who at 25, with as much education as could be stuffed into her brain and a super-feminist mother, who did not realize that sex could get you pregnant at pretty much any time. She thought you had to 'try' for a year or so--what exactly 'trying' might entail other than plain ol' sex wasn't clear.
She had just gotten married, and had been active for at least 3 years before that. I don't know how she managed not to get pregnant.
Never underestimate what can get made up in the absence of hard information. I really do not understand why "Abstinence-only" programs get pushed, when a program such as celia described would be so much more productive and IMO likely ot cut down on disease and pregnancy.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I guess I was kinda lucky with my schooling in this regard. I can't say we had a structured class, but rather a few times a year, starting in 5th grade, we'd spend a half day going over all the various issues with sex.
It certainly kept me a virgin for a long time... At the same time, I've found that I've never had as much of a hangup about it.
Did anyone else start sex ed this early? It was actually an interesting social commentary, considering I started learning sex ed around the time the AIDS epidemic blew up (~1987).
The social commentary was that the boy's video on puberty was irreverent, funny, and still a learning experience, whereas the girls video was very straightforward, dry, and while educational, if you weren't a knowledge freak like I was (am), you'd be bored 10 minutes in. Weird how our expectations for the genders are, huh?
Anyway, I know that throughout middle school (and then continued through my private high school), we had frequent presentations, videos and the like, about sex. There were still some holes in my info, but I knew how to use a condom, if necessary, I knew the basics on birth control, including the basic chemistry, how STDs are transmitted (to contradict an earlier poster, STDs are ALWAYS passed through fluids, it just may not be semen or vaginal fluids... Blood or saliva can be effective transmission mediums, hence oral SEX is not safe!), how a baby is born. I do wish they explained abortion and adoption better, though.
I'm glad I had this education. It was my only way. The only thing my parents did was get a puberty/basic biology book when I was 12, with a note saying to come to them if I had questions. Of course, how could I feel comfortable when they obviously didn't? They were well meaning, but embarassed, coming from an era where parents didn't do that sort of thing.
I think abstinence should be stressed as the absolute best way, but we also should give kids a full toolbox. And even if you don't explicitly educate students on abortion and family planning, they will find out, and it's best they get the straight dope from trusted adults, than friends or siblings, should they ask.
-Bok
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I wish I'd had a more comprehensive sex ed course because frankly, i don't know what things are. For example- the base system, I've had a couple friends explain it to me, but I'm still fairly clueless. Also there are lots of things that just don't occur to you when you're not in a relationship, but then you're in a relationship and you basically have to depend on your boyfriend that you're not going farther than you want to (for moral purposes) because you don't know.
Or to summarize, I'm really confused and a comprehensive sex ed course could potentially have made me less so.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
i've seen some pretty long debates on what the "bases" actually are, and, to be quite honest, i've concluded that the "base system" is dependent on the local definition. making it rather useless in an educational context.
if you want to know what base you're at to brag to your friends, i have no desire to even help. if you want to discuss a specific act, you should use it's name so as to avoid confusion with the variations in "base systems".
uh, how about if i just have a long talk with your boyfriend about that? Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I would rather know specific names of things, just so I have a gneereal idea of what's going on. I definately have NO desire to brag to my friends. And it's quite fine thanks, no need for you to talk to my boyfriend. Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
i've got about 20 minutes if you happen to be on aim right now.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
<- Extreme math nerd.
When you spoke of the base system, I was wondering for what purpose one would use something other than decimal when dealing with sexual activity. Then, of course, I was gonna make a stupid "period" joke. Then I realized what blacwolve was talking about, and I've never been clear on the base system, either.
--Pop
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Oh come on, Celia, help the poor girl out.
While I haven't heard anyone refer to the bases in years, I'm fairly sure first base is kissing, second base is hand-based sex, third base is oral sex, and home is, well, a home run.
Though, heh, I'd love to meet anyone past the age of fourteen that still judges their sex life by those standards.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The generic bases when I heard them (30 years ago or so) were:
1st: Kissing, hands above clothes. 2nd: Contact above the waist. 3rd: Contact below the waist. Home: Intercourse.
This is, of course, wildly inadequate to chart all the ancilliary sex acts with any sort of relevance to each, and it completely ignores the infield-fly rule.
(Edited to reflect time period, lalo's is similar with different standards, which points out rather neatly hwo the arguments get started )
[ January 15, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Papa, we are talking the dues and don'ts of human multiplication.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I've learned that, at least at first, if you do multiply, the woman has to carry the one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are dues?! Dang, another thing I need to start saving money for.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Papa!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
True Lalo. The more sophistecated of us use the much more flexible Chess definitions.
Why just last night I got Knight to Black Rooks Three.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I dont mind them teaching abstanance, but I do minf them noit teaching realisim, sex happens, get over it, they need to get their heads out of their patooties andget a grip. Tell them how to be safe, tell them where to get a friggin condom.
Rhaegar
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm doubting anal sex is on the curriculum Rhegar. Even if it is heterosexual within a marital relationship. AJ
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Oh you dirty little person....
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
we talked about it, aj. it was a thourough class.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No I meant in the NC curriculum. It was those persons who set the rules up (I assumed) to whom Rheagar was referring about their patooties...
AJ
I mean theoretically according to those regulations both oral and anal sex could be disucussed as long as it in the context of an already married couple and emphasized that abstinence was reccommended before marriage. Actually birth control could be discussed in that context too. Giant loophole, clearly the guidelines weren't written intelligently.
AJ
[ January 15, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I mean their thinking heads, not their... special ones.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
That doesn't sound like a particularly enjoyable form of anal sex for anyone involved.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Aren't they synonomous? Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I wouldnt know, I don't find the nickname, Poodong, very attractive, so I hope I never know.
Rhaegar
[ January 15, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:True Lalo. The more sophistecated of us use the much more flexible Chess definitions.
Why just last night I got Knight to Black Rooks Three.
Man, Dan's behind the times. I use a series of charts. Third base, for example, is a strike on D-5. If the tactical hit is done by a veteran, there are very real possibilities of sinking her battleship.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Personally I don't think schools should have a "sex-ed" class. I think as part of high school science curricula they should have a semester in human anatomy and cover the reproductive system.
Girls do need to know how one gets pregnant. They need to know about how their bodies work and unfortunately, not every parent gives them the information. They should know the dangers of teen sex, namely the possibility of pregnancy, the failure rate of contraceptives, and the risks of STDs.
But it is not the school's place to teach morality. It's my job to instill morals and values and to teach her why we think sex should be reserved for the marriage bed. I especially don't want the school giving her the idea that sex is okay so long as she uses a condom. And I don't want the school giving her any or telling her where to get them.
Teach the kids how their bodies work, so they are armed with that info. Emphasize the dangers of unprotected sex and the problems that can arise out of sex before marriage because those are facts. Give them the stats on teen pregnancy and the spread and dangers of STDs. Give facts, not the opinions of any religious group or political action group.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Girls do need to know how one gets pregnant. They need to know about how their bodies work and unfortunately, not every parent gives them the information. They should know the dangers of teen sex, namely the possibility of pregnancy, the failure rate of contraceptives, and the risks of STDs.
Shouldn't boys learn this stuff as well? And what about the operation of contraceptive medcines and devices? That seems to fall under "facts."
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:And I don't want the school giving her any or telling her where to get them.
But that's the problem. If the school isn't allowed to say, "they sell condoms at 7-11, wal-mart, the local drug store, and in mall bathrooms" then how is your child _ever_ going to find out? It doesn't sound like you'll tell your child. So the kid might find out from a friend, or might see them for sale by accident.
Which might be okay, if your kid never has sex. Ever. Or always intends to become pregnant when sexually active.
But you're letting your kid slip through the cracks if he/she does have sex. In high school. Or in college. Or in marriage, when he/she doesn't want children.
It's one thing to offer condoms at the school either by pay or free. High schools come into a lot of trouble in that ground. Colleges do it all the time (most of them). But kids don't just start having sex in college, plenty start in high school (and a few earlier). I'd rather not let them slip through the cracks so easily.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Jon Boy, I'm sorry. I do think you're funny, and you're funny consistently. Your responses to the jokes were funny, which is why they kept happening.
*friendly pat on the shoulder*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks, Katie. I think my responses were funny because I hate saying, "Okay, that's enough. Stop picking on me." When it gets to that point, everyone feels bad. And I know that you're a nice person who wasn't doing it to make me feel bad, so I was determined to take it the right way. But it just started to get old, and I've been grumpy lately.
[ January 15, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Poor Jon Boy. *sympathetic pat* It's that time of month, huh?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Okay, I'll stop. *re-pats shoulder in a very appropriate fashion* It's the streak of the devil inside, I think. If it helps, I only tease those whom I think can take it, have back-up, and who won't be hurt because it's obviously not true. I know you have a good sense of humor, have lots of back-up that tells you how funny you are, and so you know it isn't true.
Plus, your responses were funny.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
We started health education in grade 3. And I for one am very happy they did.
We didn't cover sex at that point, but puberty, etc. That year we started on "you will start changing soon and that's normal" sort of bit.
By grade 4 we talked about the menstrual cycle, etc.
We covered "health education" from grades 3-10. We learned tons of stuff...
We talked about abuse- physical, emotional, and mental.
We talked about depression, about different physical illnesses.
We learned how to "properly" take care of young children and babies. How to change diapers, how to prepare bottles.
We learned about nutrition, about what our bodies need.
We learned what to do if we were raped- what organizations were there for support. Which organizations were "private" (ones who would offer help without making you report it to the police).
We learned about shelters, about food kitchens, about where in the community we could get help if we ever needed it.
We learned about birth control (doctor's and health nurses came in for this), the different types, the prices, and the consequences. We learned about STD's. We learned about other diseases that could be transferred by other means.
And we were taught about abstinence. I went to a Catholic school. We were told the churches views- that sex was for in the marriage and for procreation. It was emphasized time and time again. In both health class and in religious education.
We learned about our bodies, about the opposites sex bodies. We learned how they function, how to take care of them, how to identify if something "serious" is wrong and the steps to take.
Birth control was only part of it. And not a terribly big part.
And I -am- for sure happy that I was taught this at school.
My mother died suddenly when I was in grade 8. We never even got the chance to cover everything that was in those classes. Because my mother died, should I have wandered around in oblivious bliss? My father never would have told me. Hell, he wouldn't go and buy pads -with- me. He'd wait in the car well I went in.
You can't trust that parents will tell their children everything they need to know about their bodies. Some just don't know about them. Others aren't comfortable talking about it. Others just don't get the chance due to disease and death or other reasons out of their control.
Belle (and others), I mean this in the context of a daughter who never got to have many of these (and many other) discussions with their Mother (or Father but for other reasons)... If, for whatever reason there isn't a chance for you to tell your daughters/children these things, would you really want them not to know? Or to have someone who might not have all the information trying to educate your children?
[ January 15, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Jaiden ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm all in favor of putting condom vending machines in high school bathrooms and locker rooms (both male and female ones).
Access to information is important, and easy access to contraceptives without embarassment or a sermon is even more so.
I do believe in sex education in school and special counseling for at risk students. So many teenage girls are still getting pregnant even with the sex ed classes we have been giving. STDs are still there among the young and we need to be more aggressive in combating these situations.
Abstinence should be a vital part of the curriculum, but it should not be the whole curriculum. One only has to take a look at the birthdates of ourselves and our siblings and compare them to the marriage dates of our parents. Or I guess, for a younger generation, look into who the baby diddy is.
Perhaps in the case of unwed mothers, the state should require paternity testing before any form of public assistance is given. Potential fathers could be subpoenaed to provide samples and those found to be the fathers would be required to provide court ordered child support. With such strictures, it might carve into what has been a steady problem for so long.
One thing we can't do, however, is adopt a sex ed curriculum that stigmatizes sexual relations, it creates an unhealthy outlook in some students and backfires in others (sometimes some students find that by being "bad" they gain something among their peers ... the easy girl in high school was rarely without friends and admirers...)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:It's that time of month, huh?
O_o Maybe I really should've had a whole course on sex ed, eh?
quote:If it helps, I only tease those whom I think can take it, have back-up, and who won't be hurt because it's obviously not true. I know you have a good sense of humor, have lots of back-up that tells you how funny you are, and so you know it isn't true.
This makes me feel a lot better. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
(Should this go in a different thread? Probably. But I'm lazy. I invite you to sue me.) It's weird, but I never really get tired of people picking on me. When I'm in a good mood, I find it funny. When I'm in a bad mood, I like to make myself feel as bad as possible, so I really wallow in it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Saxy, you're a freak.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(warning... a long rambly AJ post)
Hmm, sex ed is an interesting topic for me. I never really had an formal sex ed, since I was homeschooled. A bunch of homeshooled girls and mothers got together to watch a video they felt was appropriate several years early. I don't know where I learned it, but I basically knew everything in it already. Later on when I actually started my period, my mother gave me an extremely rudimentary explanation of how to insert a tampon. I did better by reading the directions.
I took college biology when I was 15 and that was pretty much as rigorous of a scientific explanation as you can get, since you had to memorize and regurgitate it on a test.
My parents are definitely in the abstinence before marriage camp. They didn't worry too much since I never had a boyfriend while living at home. Their main occupation was making sure that any of the guys that were my friends never considered me girlfriend material. However, Mom's refusal to listen to medical advice in one case did affect me quite a bit.
I had extreme acne. Like most kids these day with extreme acne they put me on Acutane. The dermatologist normally prescribed birth control along with the Acutane for all female patients because Acutane can cause such horrible birth defects. My mother (in the room with the doctor and me of course) looked the doctor straight in the eye, and said, no she isn't going on birth control and she won't get pregnant. The doctor then looked me straight in the eye and said, you realize if you do get pregnant you would probably need an abortion? I think I nodded my head, but I wasn't about to open my mouth one way or the other since I would have gotten in trouble no matter what I said. I knew I wasn't sexually active at the time, and that I wouldn't be, knowing I was on this medication.
However, I did not have nearly a drastic improvement while on acutane as most female patients do. It turns out that if they had put me on birth control at that time my acne problems would have been corrected because the root cause was entirely hormonal in nature.
Six or so years later, when I graduated from COLLEGE. Mom came out to visit at my graduation, and had a hissy fit because my face was breaking out. It always had and I was just used to it by then, and I'd been under huge amounts of stress my senior year. Fortunately I'd figured out how to use make up in the mean time to minimize the worst of it (no thanks to my mother who didn't believe in wearing any). Anyway she dragged me to the dermatologist while she was visiting because she insisted on doing it while I was still on her insurance. My mother is a determined lady and it wasn't worth the argument so I went. She reeled off the litany of my face looking awful to the latest dermatologist. (Do you know what it is like to have both parents tell you, you look awful and to go wash your face the entirety of the teen years and most of college?) The doc looked at me and I could tell see the humor in the situation of a woman dragging her 21 year old in. He could probably tell by my entire body language what I thought of the ordeal, especially considering I'd had to lie on the checklist about drinking and being sexually active since my mother was looking over my shoulder when I filled it out. He looked my mother straight in the eye and said. If it has lasted this long, the problem is clearly hormonal, when was her last OB/GYN appointment?
My mother sputtered a bit about me not needing it, because I wasn't married. He gave her a thorough lecture on women's health (which I enjoyed because of her discomfiture) and we left. Fortunately by the time the OB/GYN appointment rolled around, she had left to go back home, and I was able to talk to a doctor in peace and confidentiality. Turns out I had polycystic ovaries, and that my current birth control didn't provide enough estrogen to compensate for my high testoserone counts that caused the acne.
All of this could have been avoided and I could have been acne free years earlier if they had put me on birth control when I went on acutane to begin with. The relatives started doing the same thing to one of my teenage female cousins, and were talking about putting her on acutane. They asked my opinion and I told them exactly what I thought in hindsight and that the hormones from birth control would do her more good than the acutane if her problem was at all similar to mine. Fortunately for my cousin, her father is a pharmacist and he understood the medical logic (though he'd never applied it to his own child before) rather than being as muleheaded as my mother.
Most of my interesting and practical, and fortunately medically correct sex ed, was learned from all of my friends I hung out with while I was high school age, but going to the community college. They were all science nerds so they would discuss it from both the sexually and scientifically explicit and rigorous angles, and I'm lucky to have known them, even if it was an eye opener a couple of times, finding out more than I wanted to about their sex lives! Fortunately my parents only saw the science nerd side and had no idea how kinky they actually were. Otherwise I'm sure I would have been banned from hanging out with them!
AJ
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Awww, thanks kat. I knew you cared. Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Belle, I think my teacher did a wonderful job of presenting information without pushing an agenda. He was very much in the no premarital sex camp, but I only knew that because I went to church with him. I must have just gotten extremely lucky.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yes, boys need to know it just as well, I just used girls in my example because I was thinking of my daughter.
I sat down with my daughter and explained all this to her already. We opened an anatomy book together and I told her everything, from what ovulation is to what STDs are.
I don't think the school should give my daughter condoms. In my household we don't condone pre marital sex, and I don't want the school interfering in what messages I choose to send my child about sexuality. That doesn't mean I want my child to remain ignorant - I just want her hearing it from me first. That's why I have given her all the information I could and answered every one of her questions. It got to the point that she told me to hush, she didn't want to hear anymore.
I was taken to an OBGYN when I was 14. I intend to take my daughter to one as soon as she begins menstruating. Not so she can be given birth control pills, but so her health can be assessed and she can be monitored. Coming from a long lineage of women with PCOS and endometriosis, she has a fair chance of having one or the other or both. I agree with your doctor AJ, that girls should see a GYN long before they need an OB.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Belle, that's why I don't feel strongly about having condoms available at the school. But I still feel strongly about giving them the entire sex education talk in school. Your thorough discussion with your daughter doesn't mean that every parent gives their children the same thorough education.
I feel it goes into lifelong learning. I was taught how to write checks in middle school. Everyone should be handed the same basic knowledge in school, _especially_ when it's as important as sex.
It seems like you're saying that sex is too important to be left to school administrators. And I'm saying that sex is too important not to be.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think condoms should be available from a school nurse, on request. I think beyond that (except maybe as a practical portion of sex ed, the old "condom on a banana" shtick) is unnecessary.
Personally, I think that comprehensive sex ed should be explicitly opt out. I think at the beginning of any school year that will have sex ed in some form, a letter goes home to all parents, to be returned with the parent's signature if they don't want their child in sex ed. The reason for this is for people like Jaiden, or myself, who have unavailable, uncomfortable, or uneducated parents. Parents like you, Belle, are pro-active enough in this area such that requiring you to sign an extra piece of paper is not a problem. But to have sex ed be opt-IN will (and would have) caused many more children to have no clue, or grossly inaccurate ideas about sex, and their body.
It's convenient to argue that sex ed is the beginnings of morality taught in schools, but even comprehensive sex ed programs are 99% apolitical. There's the occasional outliers, but there is no system that can account for that, without outliers of its own. It's up to the local parents to then take responsibility like you do, Belle, to prevent the outliers. If they don't, then they either don't care as much as they proclaim, or they assume the schools are simply teaching the parents' brand of morals anyway.
But your alternative seems to me to create more outliers of a nefarious type: naive, mistaken kids. Those outliers are a lot harder to fix after the fact.
-Bok
Posted by Alisa (Member # 6072) on :
Belle:
quote: It's my job to instill morals and values and to teach her why we think sex should be reserved for the marriage bed.
Unfortunately, Belle, this doesn't always work. I have plenty of friends whose parents have taken this same approach, and very few of them are still waiting. The sad thing is, teenagers have sex. I'm not condoning it (I'm personally waiting for marriage), but it's true. Few kids end up with the same views as their parents on sex. There's nothing wrong with wanting to instill your values in your kids, but I think that they should know how to have safe sex, if they decide to do so.
quote:I especially don't want the school giving her the idea that sex is okay so long as she uses a condom.
That's not what schools are saying. They're saying that if you do decide to have sex, you'd better use one.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Why just last night I got Knight to Black Rooks Three.
I feel so freakin' lame. Is the point of this that I'm supposed to use my own dirty mind to figure out what Dan got?
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
quote: The pregnant girl responded, "What does sex have to do with having kids?"
I've heard this too...and even worse I was teaching the male anatomy to my child development class last semester and over half of my students couldn't correctly identify a penis. One boy even got it wrong. *shakes head sadly*
I teach in a high school with a fairly high population of teen parents. Research shows that teaching about contraception is much more effective in preventing STD's and pregnancy than teaching only abstinence.
While I am a firm believer in abstinence, I also believe in making educated choices. Many of my students who are parents are in that situation for one reason: they didn't know how to keep it from happening other than just not "doing it."
Teaching abstinence is great- but that's a moral decision that some people will choose not to make. I view teaching about contraceptives and protection against STD's as education on safe sex, not encouragement to have sex.
[ January 31, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Coccinelle ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why is it assumed that safe sex techniques are only useful for teaching teens to have sex? Don't married people need to know this if they wish to avoid more children every year?
You can teach abstinence and the avoidance of premarital sex and still teach safe sex.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
You know what I've always wondered? Given the preponderance of free condoms in sex ed, not to mention the pamphlets from Planned Parenthood, who often help high school girls get abortions with or without parental consent, I wonder if high school sex ed teachers have ever considered trying to be completely fair to to give students all the possible options.
That is, why don't they also pass out a list of fast marriage license providers in the state, or nearby in other states? You know, drive-thtough chapels that don't look too hard at ID or ask for parental consent.
I mean, if you can trust a kid to decide to have sex as a teenager, even if it's "safe sex", why not to get married?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most people who teach sex education don't trust a kid to be able to decide ably whether or not to have sex.
They understand that lots of kids are going to decide stupidly to have sex (perhaps some in an informed manner as well).
And as such, its far better to educate kids on what it means to have safe sex rather than to create a situation where they're either going to have an abortion, put the child up for adoption (least likely), or have to raise the kid (and with either of these last two the kid has to go through the societal humiliation we've constructed for pregnant kids below college level).
This isn't about some sexual agenda against what you consider moral, Sachiko, this is about preventing kids from being in bad situations they would otherwise fall into, and in particular educating those whose parents have taught them f***-all about safe sex, or even sex at all.
[ January 31, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
No, I'm not talking about a moral agenda. I'm just talking about presenting all the options and educating children about them, so that they can make an informed choice.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Question: If not teaching abstinance only, what CAN we do to curtail teenage promiscuity?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
What would people think if a Safe Sex Ed class had an opt-out like this:
If to opt-out, you fill out a form requiring both parent and child's signatures. It would ask if you had already taught Abstinence or Safe Sex (or both). Then it would ask the child to sign in agreement.
1) I have taught my child abstinence. 1) I was taught that sexual intercourse is unacceptable before marriage.
2) I have taught my child of safe sex options. 2) I was taught how to use and obtain condoms for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and the prevention of pregnancy. I was taught how to use and obtain birth control pills for the prevention of pregnancy.
-------------------
Unless are truly angry about having the word "condom" on anything their child could read...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're either deliberately or naively twisting what sex education is about. Sex education is not about helping kids make an informed choice whether or not to have sex, it is about ensuring that when kids do make that choice they know how to protect themselves.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well, I agree with you Fugu that in an ideal society, there would be no problem with sex ed in schools.
I also (but to a lesser degree) respect a parent's decision to educate their child individually. I'm just very concerned that some children will get absolutely zero education (not even abstinence ed) after their parents sign them out of the class due to communication problems.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
That consent form sounds nice, but I think the issue a lot of people have with that would be that children get into "trouble" (STDs and inintentional pregnancy) because they are ignorant of the basics of sex ed.
(Okay, correction, SOME children will chose to make "trouble" for themselves no matter what; others do it out of ignorance of human biology and contraceptives.)
These children have "trouble" ( ) because their parents either: 1. Fell down on the job of teaching them because of ignorance, laziness, or discomfort with the subject, or 2. Deliberately didn't teach their children because of moral beliefs.
The chip on my shoulder would like to point out that many people add "false", "restrictive", or "outdated" before the phrase "moral beliefs". Okay, Chip is done.
If the feeling is that these ignorant children must be rescued from their parents' incompetance, a consent form like that wouldn't address those issue adequately.
It sounded nice, though. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Why wouldn't sex education be about helping kids make an informed choice? That's what they claimed it was about in school.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I dunno. I have no clue what the opt-out rate would be in different communities. Maybe you'd have to do a book report to fulfilll the requirement of Sex Ed
Opt-out is definitely better than Refusing To Teach Contraception and STD Prevention. I feel the parents who really don't communicate with their children wouldn't turn in the form.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I'm still wondering what would be wrong with giving kids information on marriage licenses and local chapels.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wrong? Nothings particularly wrong about it, except it has nothing to do with sex education. The choice to get married is not something that our school system, in sex education or out, is intended to get involved with.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Marriage is very much involved with sex education, as sex ed is taught. Sex is a huge, complicated issue fraught with emotional and physical and societal consequences.
Many people oppose the "here's a free condom" kind of sex ed because they believe sex is a sacred act reserved for those who are married and that sex and marriage are inseperable issues.
I think marraige has everything to do with sex, and therefore sex ed, and if the schools are willing to get involved with one, why not the other?
After all, if students are mature enough to be given information on how babies are made, and are given resources on how to prevent or abort those babies, then why not offer resources on marriage?
Being a contractual situation, I would think marriage is a less controversial topic than ones that deal with the creation and extinction of human life.
[ January 31, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
My school, like Jaiden's, started with sex-ed in elementary school, where we covered basics like puberty and how to be healthy in general. They started teaching the basics of menstruation as well, which I think is important because girls are menstruating as early as 8 or 9 years old now.
I'm pretty sure they started teaching about STDs, contraception, and other stuff like that in about 5th grade, the first year of junior high. My mom and I still laugh about the first day of sex-ed. I came home after school, and told my mom all about what they were teaching me. (My mom and I have always been very close and she's always been very open with me and my sister about sex and related subjects...we read the "Where do babies come from?" book when we were about 6 and 4, respectively.) I related everything I had learned about STDs and condoms. And I told her that abstinence was the best way to prevent STDs and pregnancy. But I was a little bit confused -- I looked at her and asked, "But Mom...what's abstinence?"
So, for the record, I believe all sex-ed classes should also teach vocabulary.
I, however, am all for complete sex education, especially in low-income areas. If you think about it, most (and I'm honestly going to say all) Hatrackers are well-educated (we're all literate, at the very least), and have enough money to have access to a computer. It is not our children we need to worry about.
I challenge you to compare teen pregnancy rates among children of people like yourselves and teen pregnancy rates of kids of people living in or close to poverty. The difference is astounding. Public policy needs to be directed towards helping kids from low-income, broken or non-existent families whose parents don't have time to or choose not to be involved in their childrens' lives. This is why the opt-out system is a good idea -- parents like Belle are involved enough in their kids' lives to take the time to sign a piece of paper. Other parents may not be.
Basically, as I've been reading this thread, I've become concerned that everyone here has basic assumptions about the kind of kids we're dealing with -- namely, our own. But Hatrack is not at all representative of the general population.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I think there's a tendency to assume that because students come from poor or broken families, they are not only more ignorant of sex, but are also unable to refrain from it.
Children do need a knowledge of human biology.
But I think that trying to fix the problem of poor, broken homes and neglected children with birth control is too simplistic. It's slapping a band-aid on a symptom and it doesn't address the real problems that got those families to that point to begin with.
What all children should be taught is how to make wise decisions for themselves, by teaching them about the consequences of their actions. I think having students carry around a bag of flour like it's a child is a good introduction to Responsibility 101.
I wouldn't like to assume that, if a child hasn't been taught responsibility, they cannot learn it. It seems unfair that Hatrack kids would get careful moral and/or religious instruction, whereas disadvantaged kids would get instructions on how sex is done, free birth control, and the number to the local Planned Parenthood.
Don't disadvantaged kids deserve to have the long-term consequences of promiscuous or pre-marital sex pointed out to them, too? Isn't that important for their emotional sexual health, to learn to recognize the dangers of not controlling their sexual urges?
[ January 31, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:I think there's a tendency to assume that because students come from poor or broken families, they are not only more ignorant of sex, but are also unable to refrain from it.
Take a look at some of the statistics, Sachiko.
[ January 31, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
What statistics?
Are there statistics showing that some people are morally stunted and that's why they're poor? That income corresponds with an inability to learn to control oneself, or to make decisions based on other than that which is immediatly pleasurable or convienent?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
And *sigh*.
I never said that disadvantaged kids shouldn't learn that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy, best way to protect yourself, yadda yadda yadda....I'm saying *everyone* should get the whole package, and that when legislators consider these issues they need to consider families and children who have other problems that prevent them from adequately educating their children about sex and responsibility.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Stay away from "morally ANYTHING". A "moral" upbringing is no worse, necessarily, than an "amoral" upbringing. What we're going for here is a safe, responsible upbringing.
I'm sorry, but just because you believe that the Bible says no sex before marriage and you follow that belief doesn't make you "morally" superior to ANYONE.
I never asserted that poor or disadvantaged children are "morally stunted". They are victims of circumstance.
[ January 31, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Is the high teenage pregnancy rate in impoverished populations due to lack of knowledge or cultural influence?
I think all the schools in Alabama have been teaching sex ed for quite some time (they were at least teaching it when I was in school) and yet we still have major problems with teenage pregnancy and infant mortality. IIRC, we have the worst infant mortality rate in the country, most of it due to infants being born to poor teen mothers who don't get prenatal care.
My husband regularly takes pregnant girls to the hospital in labor, who when he asks them the name of their OB tell him they haven't seen a doctor since they got pregnant. At best, some of them go to the public health clinic to pick up prenatal vitamins.
How is sex ed helping? Can we show that teen pregnancy rates go down in areas that distribute free condoms? (I'm asking not challenging, if someone has those stats I'd love to see them)
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote: Among teens 15 to 17 years old, 46 percent of those with incomes below the poverty level are at risk of unintended pregnancy, compared with about one third of teens with family incomes 2.5 times the poverty level or above.1
There is a direct relation between poverty level, education of parents, and pregnancy rates in communities of color. Young people who live in extreme poverty with parents who have low levels of education have higher rates of pregnancy than youths who live in better socio-economic conditions.8
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I guess I just believe that if a single condom handed out in school prevents a single teenager from contracting HIV, then sex-ed is worth it.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I agree with that.
I just think that teenage promiscuity is symptomatic of greater societal problems, and, honestly, I think that some of the things that some legislators do only encourage the problem.
Although that's a different issue entirely.
Give kids the whole "Tab A inserts into Slot B, and that's how babies are made" course of instruction.
But I object to the addition of "and here's how to enjoy sex, and here's how to make out without have actual vaginal intercourse, and for those of you unsure about your orientation, here's information on homosexual acts."
I also object to schools connecting children to organizations that will teach them these things, and then denying responsibility.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Stay away from "morally ANYTHING". A "moral" upbringing is no worse, necessarily, than an "amoral" upbringing.
Well, we disagree strongly here, but we don't disagree on the fist part of your statement. Public schools shouldn't teach sexual morality.
The problem is that I view giving them free condoms as sending them a very clear message - "We have told you that sex can be bad for you, but we're going to give you this because you figure you're going to do it anyway." To me, that is sending a message to teens that they cannot control themselves and are slaves to their hormones and shouldn't even try to live according to their religious or moral belief system.
I object to them sending that message.
At the same time, I HATE the rate of unwanted pregnancies in this country. I have a great deal of compassion for the mothers and the unborn children. Teen pregnancies contribute to a high number of abortions each year, which really upsets me.
I would love to find the ultimate solution, but unfortunately I don't know it. I can only take what I think is best for my child and do the best I can.
I have no control over what other parents teach their children. But why doesn't the school focus on parental education? My school sends home pamphlets telling me how to talk to my kids about drugs. Why not how to talk to kids about sex? With suggestions on how to stress abstinence, and with information about safe sex and birth control. The parent can choose what to share with their child.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But I object to the addition of "and here's how to enjoy sex, and here's how to make out without have actual vaginal intercourse, and for those of you unsure about your orientation, here's information on homosexual acts."
I also object to schools connecting children to organizations that will teach them these things, and then denying responsibility.
What's the rationale here? If the teens don't enjoy sex, they'll be less tempted by it?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Kasie, I meant stats on whether or not sex ed programs lower the rate of teen pregnancies.
As for schools providing information and referrals to organizations that promote abortion, I ran across some interesting things the other day. I'll try to find a link.
Anyway, it's a legal organization that is challenging schools who do exactly that. They say the schools are being noncompliant in their reporting of sexual abuse by referring an underage girl to an abortion clinic. In the case of a girl who is pregnant by someone over 21, they are covering up statutory rape.
They've also been investigating planned parenthoods that supply abortions to girls who admit their boyfriends are over 21, and then don't report it.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Belle -- the statistics were for Sachiko. I'm not sure if I can find the statistics you were looking for, but I'll take a look around.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah. Good gravy, what classes in high school teach you how to enjoy sex?!?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Not in my high school! I went to high school in Salt Lake, to a high school that was uptight even by Utah standards.
But in my fifth grade sex ed class in California, we got some pretty explicit information.
And I've read about sex ed programs that cross the line in teaaching about sex.
And, yes, I do think that it would be counterproductive to say, "Hey, kids, don't di this really, really, fun thing. Which is done like this. Don't do it."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I wish I'd had a class like that in high school.
quote:And, yes, I do think that it would be counterproductive to say, "Hey, kids, don't di this really, really, fun thing. Which is done like this. Don't do it."
Look, I see what you're saying, but denying that sex is fun is just a flat-out lie. Kids will figure it out for themselves anyway, at the very least when they try masturbation, and if you've lied to them or witheld such a central fact during your sex ed they probably won't trust what they were taught.
[ January 31, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:pretty explicit information
Please be more explicit.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:In all 50 states, sexual activity with underage children is illegal. Also, every state mandates that if a healthcare worker has reason to suspect that an underage girl is being sexually abused, they are required by law to report that information to a designated law enforcement or child protective services agency. That agency is then responsible to investigate the possibility that the child may be the victim of sexual abuse or statutory rape.
Because the pregnancy of an underage girl is evidence that she is the victim of sexual abuse, any healthcare worker who has contact with a pregnant underage girl has an obligation to initiate a report to the state.
The important point here is that the healthcare worker is required to report the incident, not investigate it. The responsibility of determining whether or not the circumstances that led to this girl's pregnancy are criminal lies solely with the state agency to which the report is mandated.
Additionally, the fact that a minor girl may be lawfully allowed to have an abortion or secure birth control without her parents being informed is irrelevant. The law still mandates reporting of the sexual activity to the state.
Another quote:
quote:Another educational opportunity relates to the nation's 16,000 school districts. It is well known that many of them allow Planned Parenthood and similar organizations to come on campus and teach sex ed or provide counseling. In addition, many school districts refer their students to these types of family planning organizations.
We have already completed a nationwide direct mail campaign to inform every one of these school districts about the legal exposure they have created for themselves by associating with these organizations. They need to know that should the organization in question provide services to an underage student without reporting to the state, the school district could be brought into any subsequent litigation.
You can read the text of the letter they sent to the schools here:
Note it's a pdf file.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This is a smart approach by the pro-life movement. Go after the process legally and by letting schools know they could be held liable.
They did an investigation by calling abortion clinics and asking questions.
quote:We have over 800 tape recordings that show how Planned Parenthood and NAF abortion workers secure business from victims of statutory rape by undermining parental authority, encouraging children to lie and promising minors that their employees will ignore mandatory reporting laws. Hundreds of Planned Parenthood clinic and National Abortion Federation clinic employees have been caught on tape expressing their willingness to conceal the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl by a 22-year-old man. Even though many of these Planned Parenthood and NAF employees openly acknowledged that statutory rape is a crime and that they are required by law to report it, they made it clear that they do not abide by the law.
I have some personal involvement in a case that is ongoing (therefore I'm prohibited from talking about it in detail) which involves a clinic that falsified reports and endangered the life of a patient. (I'm not the patient or the provider, if you're wondering!) As it looks right now, there is a strong chance the clinic will lose its license and the doctor is facing criminal charges.
I never gave any consideration to the statutory rape issue, it's very interesting.
GAH! I hit post too soon. Anyway, my point is that I think the best way to get anywhere in the pro-life movement is to do things legally, orderly, and use the current systems of law. That's what the case we're involved in is doing, and while it's slow and frustrating, it's perfectly legal and proper and will get results much better than picketing or throwing eggs at the doctor will.
Sorry - this isn't an abortion thread. *hushes*
[ January 31, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Sorry - this isn't an abortion thread. *hushes*
Good idea. It scarcely need be said that most Planned Parenthood employees would find clear cases of statutory rape as objectionable as you yourself would.
It is also quite possible that many PP employees don't see borderline cases of statutory, such as sex between an 18- and 16-year-old in some states, as deserving the serious criminal penalties it entails, especially when people are in love. Also, there are rules of confidentiality that hold between health providers and patients. This stuff about statutory seems to be a little-known exception. I had certainly never heard of it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No, but it's pretty clear that this organization has done the research they need to as applies to state laws on reporting. The investigated every single state and sent FOIA requests to determine the level of compliance.
I would say, they have their facts pretty straight.
And I disagree with your statement, on the basis that too much evidence was gathered that directly contradicts your assertion that Planned Parenthood finds statutory rape objectionable. Certianly they didn't think they needed to report it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wait. What's the connection between PP reporting 'statutory rape' and the debate between abstinence and safe sex again?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'll gladly move it to a new thread, if that's what everyone wants.
But the connection is that we began talking about handing out condoms in school, and I remembered that some legal organization had established this put the schools in legal jeopardy. Then I found the link and expounded on it.
I'll start a new thread though, if you don't want to derail this one.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But giving out condoms is a far cry from refering students to PP? Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Done. New thread is up.
Storm, giving out condoms isnt' the same as referring, but giving out condoms to someone you suspect may be a victim of abuse is facilitating that abuse. That's the point the organization was making in its letters to school districts.
Another thing it mentioned was that even if the teacher knows or has good reason to suspect that the student is not a victim of statutory rape, or even if the teacher knows the student's parents are aware it still does not release them from the requirement of reporting the child's suspected abuse to the state
The teacher can't determine on his own if the child is not being abused. His job is to report it and let the state investigate it.
I'll address any other comments on the other thread, but I do want you guys to know I don't belong to this life dynamics corporation and I don't know that I support them in everything, I haven't read all the stuff on their website. I'm simply throwing it up for discussion because I think it's an interesting take on the pro-life fight to limit abortions. It's something I haven't seen tried before.
Back to your originally scheduled thread. Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Well, we disagree strongly here, but we don't disagree on the fist part of your statement. Public schools shouldn't teach sexual morality. -Belle
But we do expect schools to teach our children morality regarding drug use/abuse, work ethics, and nonviolent interactions with others! Sexuality affects the ways schools can operate. When teens get pregnant, their education is severely affected!
I think that it is important to give kids the facts about their bodies, including the fact that sexuality is pleasurable. And the fact that it is dangerous. Why be untruthful? And encourage them to make wise decisions as a whole person - physically, emotionally, educationally, religiously, etc.
As a part of any education, decision-making and critical thinking skills ought to be taught. If children learn to examine an issue from various angles (not just "don't do it!" or "use condoms.."), then they will be on their way to making mature decisions. More than ever, children need to learn and use these skills at a young age. You can start with decisions about a class pet or a class problem (with tattling, for instance). You can critically evaluate writing and projects. By giving them the opportunities to learn and practice critical thinking, you are giving kids a chance to make good decisions.
[ January 31, 2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Jenny Gardener ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I agree.
I never said that children should be taught that sex isn't fun. I mean, good luck with that one.
Children should be taught how to be responsible adults; I really believe that academic success is secondary to that.
I think that teaching abstinence is part of teaching that sense of responsibility.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Children should be taught how to be responsible adults; I really believe that academic success is secondary to that.
I think that teaching abstinence is part of teaching that sense of responsibility.
And yet abstinence is not required behavior for responsible adults...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Says you. . .
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Says the guy whose parents must have had sex at some point...
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Maybe we should just ban premarital sex!
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I say we should step up research into reproductive cloning and then ban sex entirely.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I say we should step up research into reproductive cloning and then ban sex entirely.
Yes, see what society thinks of that. I think that would last about as long as it takes for a man to see an attractive woman or a woman see and attractive man. Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
We can breed that out of them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
D'oh!
I meant to say that pre-marital abstinence is the behavior of responsible adults. . .
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I see no problem with adults having premarital sex, as long as they're responsible about it and realistic about possible consequences.
So why teach kids otherwise? I mean...I definitely think they should be informed that they have resources at their disposal. One of my friends had to visit Planned Parenthood a few days ago. Granted, she's eighteen, but that's really not far from the ages when schools have sex ed.
[ February 01, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Guy?!? You think I'm a guy?
Hmmm, maybe a course in basic human biology would be beneficial for Hatrackers...
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:I meant to say that pre-marital abstinence is the behavior of responsible adults. . .
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Well, consider good vibes sent your way. ![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Papa!
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I went to high school in Salt Lake, to a high school that was uptight even by Utah standards.