quote: Pregnancy Rate In the United States, the teen pregnancy rate is more than nine times higher than that in the Netherlands, nearly four times higher than the rate in France, and nearly five times higher than that in Germany
Abortion In the United States, the teen abortion rate is nearly eight times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly seven times higher than that in the Netherlands, and nearly three times higher than the rate in France
HIV in Young Women and Men In the United States, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in young men ages 15 to 24 is over five times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly three times higher than the rate in the Netherlands, and about 1 ½ times higher than that in France.5
Each of these nations (France, Germany, and the Netherlands) has an unwritten social contract with young people: "We'll respect your right to act responsibly, giving you the tools you need to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV."
In these nations, societal openness and comfort in dealing with sexuality, including teen sexuality, and pragmatic governmental policies create greater, easier access to sexual health information and services for all people, including teens. Easy access to sexual health information and services leads to better sexual health outcomes for French, German, and Dutch teens when compared to U.S. teens.
If you were against providing frank and accessible sex ed to high school students (along with condoms) do these statistics change your mind?
I respect people who want to control how and when their kids learn about sex. That's fine. You can write a note and have little Johnny excused from sex ed. But why would you deny other people's children the opportunity to learn about safe sex by advocating the removal of effective sex ed from schools?
Clearly I have a specific point of view on this subject. But I'm not a parent, educator, or a health care professional. So if you have good reasons against providing sex ed and condoms in high school, I'm very interested in hearing your reasons and perhaps reassessing my own position on the subject.
I've never participated in a sex ed debate on Hatrack before so I apologize if this thread is a tiresome regurgitation of past debates.
edited to add last paragraph.
[ September 25, 2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
Wow! The rates for STD's like chlaymidia, 20 times higher here than in France, and Gonorrhea, 74 times higher than France and the Netherlands, are enough for me to insist that we must talk to our teens more.
As an educator in a high school where 20% of my students are parents, I'm completely pro honest frank discussions on pregnancy prevention and safe sex.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
As a medical professional, I'd say the same. I understand that this is not a belief shared by all, and I can respect that, so long as the marked contrast in the numbers for other cultures with different customs is clear and understood those discussing it.
There are reasons for deciding what should be permissible from a societal standpoint other than just STI rates, pregnancy rates, abortion rates, etc., but what those numbers are and which policies are connected to higher ones should be acknowledged and dealt with, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I do think a morality-based abstinence culture could adequately protect from early pregnancies and STDs. The problem is, we don't have one of those cultures, nor do I think we feasibly could. So we must improve our sex education in some way.
Edit: In other words, we need to stop pretending teens won't have sex. It is possible to do this without "encouraging" sex or sending the message that there's no point in trying to remain abstinent.
Dagonee
[ September 25, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I agree with what Dragonee just said. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I would really like to know how and what Europeans teach their kids, and why it works.
Edit: I KNOW this is a generalization, but I have always felt that he Europeans I have met had a very casual attitude towards sex. Not a bad kind of casual attitude, but sort of like what Sara said in her post about sex, that it just is, it is not such a glorified thing. I dated a few men from Norway, and they made me feel so much more at home with my own body. I did not feel like I was being judged.
[ September 25, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
From my brief experience, I think the issue and concept of sexuality is handled in a far more open and for lack of a better word, mature manner.
It would be interesting to compare the knowledge and awareness of sexual issues of European teens versus their American counterparts, as well as studying the attitudes regarding human sexuality.
Although I do remember a growing complaint regarding the depiction of violence against women on television in France which was tied to an increase in attacks and violent assaults directed towards women.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: From my brief experience, I think the issue and concept of sexuality is handled in a far more open and for lack of a better word, mature manner.
For all my beliefs of chastity and my antagonism towards pornography, I believe this is a good and healthy thing. I think there is a "puritan" tradition handed down to us that the only way to keep our kids chaste is to hide info about sex. Deny it, keep them in the dark, make them ashamed and guilty. I *so* do not agree with this way of thinking!!!
I think we *can* teach our children to be chaste while at the same time being open, comfortable, and mature about sex. I think having quality sex ed will go far in helping this, but it also takes several generations to shake off the traditions of shame and non-communication.
I have a good friend who's father comes from the old-school agricultural America where you NEVER talk about sex. Ever. She asked an innocent question, and he jumped down her throat. Scared her to death. Made her feel like her curiosity was dirty and evil. She vowed never to discuss such things with him again. This man is the brother of my father-in-law.
This attitude does far more harm than good, IMO.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I agree. It makes a person vulnerable to a person who THINKS they know more about sex but have only read porn. Folks just aren't on the same page when it comes to sex ed and that has to change. Merely teaching abstinence is a bandaid on a gushing wound approach, it leads to disaster. Balance and instilling confidence. That is the key.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
It's interesting...one American friend who lives in Argentin but lived in Brazil for a long time, once told me that he was shocked when he first came to Brazil, because of the casual general attitude toward sex and sexual education. I once thought that was because her family was strict (although I don't know her family) or something like that. Now I see that can be one of those cultural things.
Unfortunatelly, as a teacher, I also see some ugly things, like...23 year old women with 11 year kids...a lot of people dying from AIDS or suffering because of other DST (although Brazil has a pretty decent prevention program)... well, I really would like to know how european sexual education works.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It makes a person vulnerable to a person who THINKS they know more about sex but have only read porn.
Amen! I wonder how much the ridiculous lack of reality in porn is a result of the shame we feel in openly dealing with the subject. Porn is a poor source of sex-ed. It is not made for accuracy but rather to impress the viewer.
And sex humor--some of it really puts me off. For instance, why is it funny to have a skit on SNL the whole purpose of which is to see how many times you can say the word "penis"? The only reason it is funny is because we have such inhibitions about saying the word. Sex humor would not be nearly so shocking--or in my opinion so rude, if we all spoke more openly and comfortably about the subject. I am not a fan of most sex humor. I think it is innane and immature.
Is speaking more openly of it, answering the curious questions of our children going to cause them to seek out sex in more immature ways? I think it is the very difficulty they have *finding* answers to their questions that their curiosity builds to the point where they behave far more foolishly.
IMO, leaving sex such a mystery does not make it more beautiful for the person who remained chaste until their wedding night. It makes sex confusing, frustrating, and painful.
But then, I have always been curiosity-driven, so I sympathize with those who desire answers to their questions. My desire to answer the questions of others is very powerful because I know how much it always meant to me to find the information I was looking for.
But more importantly that appeasing curiosity and educating our children, I think, is the handling of sex in a respectful manner. We must instill a sense of respect for sex in the rising generations.
That is why I am in favor of chastity, modesty, and avoidance of pornography. I feel that promiscuity, immodesty, and pornography cheapen sex, make it less of something shared between two people and broadcast it to a wider group experience. I firmly believe that sex is something that should be shared between two people and two people only. (I realize plenty of people disagree with this.) I believe that removing it from the "two people" experience lessens the bonding power of love, weakening it, weakening families, weakening our society. I am certainly not a sex-anarchist.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Teen and pre-teen pregnancy is not an uncommon phenomenon in the US, although I believe it tends to fall along socio-economic lines which I suspect is also a factor in Brazil and indeed elsewhere.
Combine that with poor or limited resources and - is Brazil pre-dominately Roman-Catholic?
-Trevor
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
It's still a Catholic country, although not as much as it once was.
The things I see over here saddens me a lot. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Which means parts of Brazil get the short end of the stick:
1. Little or no resources 2. Little or no education 3. Religious institutions that decry birth control, even if available 4. Poverty
And to be fair, this sad combination is hardly limited to Brazil, but they all play a factor in the idea of sexual education.
One could argue culture as a fifth option, but I think the first four conspire to flavor the cultural component of this discussion.
-Trevor
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I wish the term "teen sexual health" was an oxymoron.
[ September 25, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If the religious institutions are powerful enough to reduce availability of birth control to teens, aren't they powerful enough for their sexual morality to have an effect on teens as well?
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Apparently not. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The former the religious institutions have to change the minds of people with power... usually middle-aged religious men who hope to see the power of religious institutions spread.
To change teenage morality, you need to deal with teenagers... and who knows how to get a teenager to do what you want him to do.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: If the religious institutions are powerful enough to reduce availability of birth control to teens, aren't they powerful enough for their sexual morality to have an effect on teens as well?
The thing is, those two efforts are very different things. One is done by force of authority and funding, the other is a matter of personal freedom. While authority can teach abstinence, they can't force obedience without limiting freedom. I don't think any of us want something like that forced.
Some believe that it is impossible for a teenager who is given opportunities to be sexually active to remain chaste. I know for a fact that it is possible. But it has to be something that teenager believes in and believes is important. If they are forced into it out of fear or guilt, this does harm.
I think abstinence should be taught and encouraged, particularly within the family first, but not forced. This way will never provide for a large number of chaste teenagers, but it *will* produce some chaste teenagers that are also wise and strong in character.
But I have never thought that abstinence is the only thing that should be taught. Birth control and STDs ought to be fully understood by all teenagers.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’ve never understood the idea that you shouldn’t teach kids about sex if you think they shouldn’t be having it in the near future. Most of what we teach kids in school we expect them to use for the rest of their lives, not just (and sometimes not at all) immediately.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You tell me Dag - why do people only listen to one part of the message and not the whole thing?
The Roman Catholic Church has been very aggressively opposed to birth control in any fashion or form as being immoral and, if memory serves, a sinful act.
I would suppose the notion of "condoms are bad" influence the opinions of people who are in a position to supply or facilitate access to condoms to the people who may or may not buy into the moral message being delivered and may or may not buy into condom use.
-Trevor
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I found most amusing when the Rio de Janeiro Archbishop said, last year that "Condoms do not prevent AIDS or other DSTs because the virii are too small, and can squeeze between the rubber pores".
Then I remembered that many people would believe in him.
And I started not to find it amusing at all. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, that just sucks.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Ed, my high school biology teacher told me that. I've since discovered that he was wrong or lying or both, but coming from such a "credible" source, it's hard to disbelieve at first...
[ September 25, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
A priest (an Archbishop!) is bad enough, but a biology teacher!? Sheesh! What's wrong with these people!?
It ticks me off. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I remember that story, or at least one similar, but I thought the source was coming from the Vatican proper.
-Trevor
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I believe the Rio de Janeiro message echoed the Pope's announcement.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If they wanted to challenge the assertion that the results of the testing were flawed, that's one thing.
But applying a lay person's rough understanding of concepts and judging testing standards by that is both reckless and dangerous, especially if people might be swayed by your statements.
-Trevor
Posted by Peer (Member # 4686) on :
So, as a few people are interested about sexual education in europe I´ll try to rememember when and what was teached to me.
The first part was in 6th grade. There we learned all about the differences in anatomy, what will happen in puberty,what will happen in pregnancy, what methods of contraception and std prevention there are and how to get the pill/condoms etc.
All students could ask everything they want to know about sex.
Of course there were also discussions when would be the right time to have sex, that it should involve love and nobody should have sex when he feels he doesn´t really want it / is not ready for it.
Then there were lessons through grades 7 to 10 where some of the stuff was reiterated and there was even more time for the students to ask questions and discuss things that came up since the last sex ed block.
Apart from that there are youth magazines (printed and on tv) where there is a sex ed column.
I remember it was fun reading the letters from kids to the team and the answers. Something like: Is my penis too small, will I get pregnant from kissing/petting, I have wet dreams am I ill and so on.
This is for germany btw. If there are any more questions feel free to ask. Also, I would be interested what is teached in the US and when.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Actually, Peer, that's more or less the same as my experience here in the US. When I was fairly young--3 or 4, I believe--my parents got me a book on sex from the library, and read it with me. In 5th (or possibly 6th, I'm not absolutely sure) grade we watched a movie about the physical aspects of sexual reproduction, and then had a question and answer session after. The focus was definitely on the mechanics, rather than other aspects. I remember that one of my classmates asked what sex felt like, and the male teacher yelled at her, said that he couldn't believe that she'd ask such a thing, and stormed out. He was always storming out, as I recall. Very odd guy. The other teacher there tried to explain to her what sex felt like, but of course didn't do a very good job. How do you describe something like that?
Then, in 8th grade, we had a sex ed unit in health class that involved a discussion of both the physical and emotional components of the experience, how to put on a condom, information on STDs, etc.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think it's not only a question of how Europeans treat sex, but how they treat nudity. A German post-doc in my lab mentioned that he feels no problems being naked in front of his children (3, 4) and thinks it's really weird that Americans have such problems with nudity. It seems to stem from the fact that generally, Europeans separate sexuality from nudity while Americans don't. See how obsessed the American public was with the nipple fiasco of Janet Jackson's.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think the discomfort with sex is more pervasive (as brought up by Suneun) and more children are being opted out of standard sex ed by their parents. Of note is whether sex ed is a required part of any, some, or all homeschooling curricula, and if it is, what the minimum would be. (I don't know. I'm curious, so I'll try to look it up.)
There is a difference also (I think) in the availability of contraception. Likely many of our children in the US have an educational experience similar to counterparts in some European countries, but likely there is much diversity in such experience here.
Posted by Peer (Member # 4686) on :
Well nudity really isn´t that much a concern as it seems to be in the US.
I remember seeing my parents naked quite often when I was a kid.
We have beaches and some other places intended for being attended nude.
There´s also no ban of nudity for the TV.
You can see full front nudity in prime time TV. If it fits into the story it´s filmed that way.
This nipplegate here would have just been a source for comedians.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sara, homeschooling laws vary by state. Though there are variations, you can often view them through the same lens as private schools. (This is particularly true in California where I know the laws the best.) There are generally no exact requirements that private schools have to teach sex ed. The whole point is that they are private. Most places it says generally "teach subjects similar to the public schools" but there is a lot of discretionary leeway.
So no, I don't believe there is anywhere specifically that requires home schoolers to teach sex ed. I suspect I would have heard about the uproar if there was, because I still keep abreast of homeschooling issues. And many homeschooling parents don't want to teach their children "sex ed" persay.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Just for example, here's a bill the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is opposing in CA.
Not exactly sex ed but it gives you the idea of what would happen if the bill specifically mentioned sex ed. While the HSLDA policy stances on many things are unapologetically Christian, they do not require you to be a Christian to join, and they will defend any homeschooler that joins their organization (The membership fee is about $150/year) if legal issues regarding homeschooling arise regardless of religious affiliation. They in fact want to do so, because it enables them to help set precedent in the lawsuits if they possibly can.
[ October 04, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
My public school sex ed was very intersting: I learned about all the STDs, but no birth control methods. Our teachers couldn't even show us a condom in the foil package, much less demonstrate how one is put on.
At this point, I would like to say that TWO of my friends from high school had children before their junior year--one figured that since she didn't get pregnant from unprotected sex the first time, then it was ok. The other used the condom incorrectly.
For quite a long time, I only knew about two methods of birth control--condoms (for men, not for women) and the pill. I learned about other forms (implant birth contol, female condoms, et cetera) doing independent research. Not even the Student Health Center publicizes these methods. During the Student Organization Fair, they handed out buttons that said, "Sex can wait--masturbate."
Another scary, scary fact is that Baton Rouge is the second highest city in the nation for HIV/AIDS, and the statititics are growing. This goes to show that abistinance sex ed is NOT WORKING. In my opinion, parents need to realize that their darling little girl or boy is going to be a teenager in an over-sexed world and prepare them for the worst, ie casual sex. When I turned 18, my mother bought a box of condoms and put them in her bathroom, made me read the instructions and 'practice' putting one on a banana. While I was deeply embarassed at the time, I'm rather thankful that she was so open about it.
Referring to Eduardo's post about the archbishop and Catholic teachings, birth control is a sin, but premarital sex is just as big. One time when I was talking to our priest during a youth group meeting, he mentioned one teenager who came in for confession because he got a girl pregnant. When the father asked why he didn't use birth control, the young man replied, "Because Father, condoms are a sin." He advised us that, if we did decide to have premarital sex, to use a condom, because "if you're going to sin, see the whole thing though."
I've also heard fellow parishoners say that "HIV/AIDS was brought by God to punish gays", and almost got myself excommunicated by yelling back at them (these were higher-ups, like the priest who taught my Sunday School class in middle school). When AIDS first became a huge problem, it was, in part, due to the fact that homosexual men didn't use condoms because of one reason: YOU CAN'T GET A MAN PREGNANT. Now it's more well known that condoms can prevent not only pregnancy but STDS, so more homosexuals are using them during sex.
What I'm basically trying to say is that I was taught to use condoms and other kinds of birth control, and my children will be as well, sin or not. After all, as Corelle and I are fond of saying, "That's why Catholics have the loophole called Confession".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We had a priest say almost the same thing to us in High School. He gave us the overview of Catholic teachings on sexuality. Then he mentioned that if someone decides to not live up to those teachings, they had a responsibility to minimize the potential harm caused by that decision, including prevention of pregnancy and STDs.
Dagonee
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
My school teaches abstinence only education this means: "If you have sex, you can get STDs, this is all the nasty things STDs will do to you..."
When I posted this here before AJ and Celia took me under their collective wings and taught me everything I should have learned in school.
The clincher however, is that this spring my city had an outbreak of oral STDs among middle schoolers in one of our middle schools. (They were having oral sex in the cafeteria during lunch!) Obviously this caused a huge uproar all over the city and in the media. Well, one day my mother calls me into the room and tells me that she just found out we were being taught abstinence only. She had no idea! She had never really talked to me about birth control, except to tell me to use it if I had sex, because she thought I was learning it all in school.
So, if abstinence only education is designed so that parents can teach their kids what they think they should know about sex, shouldn't there be some kind of communication so that the parents know they need to be teaching their kids?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
What an interesting topic. I do think Americans tend to be a bit too uptight about sex and nudity. My sister, for instance, never let her son see her naked after he turned a year old - that always seemed weird to me, but I know other parents who have made similar decisions.
I think what blacwolve mentioned about communication between parents and school is very important. I know I won't be leaving sex ed up to the school system. My son is 9 and has known about the actual mechanics of sex for about 3 years now. He was very curious and wanted to know the "how" right away. My daughter, who is 6 now, still hasn't asked about the "how." Either way, I think it's important that parents be open with their children. The problem with leaving it up to the school is that if your teen gets into trouble and you've never bothered to talk with them about birth control because you thought the school was doing it, why in the world would your teen come talk to you?
space opera
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Am I the only who has never taken any sex ed class, ever? I think I only got out of in high school because I took two years of biology and to take Health I'd have to skip another AP class. Somehow I never had any film in the fifth grade, nothing. Nothing from the parents either, other than one extrememly squicky dinner where my parents went over the ways one could get AIDS and told us we didn't want to do any of them.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
About the 'how' question... I never really had to ask, my mother had those discussions with me when I was old enough to grasp the concept. Of course, I also was two when my little brother was born, so that could be a factor as well--I think if I had been an only child, I wouldn't have asked, although I get the feeling I still would have been told.
Edit to add: My sex ed was part of PE, not Health. In fact, my Health class book didn't even have a chapter on sexual health, or even a picture of reproductive organs. Of course, for an all-girls gym (that's right, no boys in sight, not even the coaches), we had to have parentally signed permission forms to show *gasp* naked breasts! Like I don't see two every day when I take a shower. And THAT was for breast cancer self-tests. So you can imagine how sex ed was.
[ October 04, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Considering the number of people I know who lost their virginity around age 13, it's important to get good sex education in before then. That's also when several people I know began smoking pot and starting to drink.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Very true, dabbler. I think it's some sort of rebellion in teens, when they hit thirteen to start doing things they're told not to.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Mayday, how did you absorb that info. at such a young age? My son (who was 6) was completely grossed out!
space opera
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
She went over it, again and again as I got older. And she didn't go into graphic detail, she basically just outlined the rough sketch, as in "the daddy lays on top of the mommy...", expanding on that as I got older. She also used this book, the title of which I can't remember.
Plus, being the daughter of a teacher and an engineer, I think I genetically have a sponge for a brain.
[ October 04, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, I'm the daughter of a teacher and an engineer too!
quote:When I posted this here before AJ and Celia took me under their collective wings and taught me everything I should have learned in school.
Yeah just call us Hatrack's answer to Dr. Ruth. AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mayday: you should ask such people (who think AIDS is a punishment for homosexuality) why they believe God has such bad aim.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Amen, dabbler.
I think sex education in school should actively involve the parents, and should begin around 5th grade. Parents should have a class of their own, and get literature telling them how to talk to their pre-teens and teens about sex and how to keep the lines of communication open.
That said, I fear that no matter what we do to encourage parental involvement, there are some parents who either willfully or negligently don't talk to their kids about sex (or drugs, or anything their precious child would 'never do'). We should have better public education about sex.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I never took a sex-ed course either, though, well...
When I was sixteen, my sister gave me her Human Sexuality textbook (from a course she had to take while getting her MS in Psychology). She said it was all about facts, nothing to be ashamed of, though I might want to skip ch 21, as some of the pictures were graphic. *gigglefit*
So, anyway, I went to college armed with facts. The results of ever Master and Johnson study completed before 1985, anyway. I think that has a lot to do with the fact that I didn't fall prey to more experienced men and the pressure of my own natural curiosity. I mean, I KNEW that sex wasn't all THAT, despite the advertising.
Eventually I discovered that sex CAN be all that and bag o' chips, if you have the right person and a level of intimacy and committment that makes the rough spots easier to deal with together.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Rough spots? One of you had better go and see a doctor.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, AJ. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Note: While celia and I have an interest in scientific facts we are not and have not claimed to be medical health professionals. We are engineers.
(So we aren't taking over your job Sara )
But, if you have a sexual-related question that you'd like a private opinion on, Celia's better at fielding the hard biological fact questions and I'm better at fielding the possibly kinky stuff.
(lol, and those who see us post possibly would have guessed the exact opposite.)
AJ
[ October 04, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Good Grief, AJ, dish about sex all you want! I have no turf wars here.
(I was just saying thanks for the homeschool info -- you went to the trouble to dig up a lot of good stuff for me to read.)
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Hey count me in on the fielding-random-sex-questions point-guard. If it's too wild for even me, I have plenty of wild friends (see 13 year old friends on previous page).
Might I add, AJ's kinky side is what makes her such a great AIM pal Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oh, that's what you were talking about Sara. I just wanted to make it clear that we weren't despensing "medical" advice.
The HSLDA has some schizophrenic positions to me, like I don't understand how they can possibly support the Defense of Marriage act, when they are for deregulation or minimal regulation of homeschools, and are really very libertarian in a lot of positions. It's basically the religion hangup.
In their early days when I used to read my mom's newsletters they weren't as big about sticking their nose into non relevant politics, because there were more non-fundamentalists as their [albeit paid] constituency. One of the lawyers wrote a piece on the DMA where he tried to make it make sense. And though he made a valiant effort, he just didn't quite get there to me.
However I agree that some of the rammifications from some of the UN resolutions are important, especially as treaties are binding in the US as the highest law of the land.
AJ
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
What I meant by 'rough spots' is the fact that it hurts somewhat, to begin with. And those times when you or your partner accidentally fall out of the love swing backwards and end up suspended from the ceiling by your ankles. This can be awkward unless your really comfortable with someone. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Oh, that's what you were talking about Sara. I just wanted to make it clear that we weren't despensing "medical" advice.
Never even occured to me that it could be an issue. And anyway -- if you're correct, then you are correct, regardless of the degree.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I read a disturbing article about the trend of oral sex in middle schools. What is up(so to speak) with that?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
To preserve virginity and/or to "not have sex" ( ) is the reason I've been given and read about.
From my institution, researchers published an article about the classic division of herpes (HPV-1=oral and HPV-2=genital) having switched. And exposure that transmits Herpes means exposure to potentially a lot else, too. A lot.
[It's one of the reasons I harped on making sure we did not simply equate "having sex" with "pregnancy risk" earlier in this thread. Oh, Elizabeth. So sad.]
[ October 04, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yes, Sara, they mentioned that about STDs. My friend's son came home and said kids are having sex in the middle school. He meant IN the middle school, not middle schoolers having it elsewhere. My baby goes to sixth grade next year!
There is a movie coming out about this topic, which was written by a girl who had been involved in some of this action. I will see if I can find the name.
(embarrassed cough) The article was in Family Circle. I read it while my hair was dyeing.
[ October 04, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Lord have mercy.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*nods*
The middleschoolers have assigned seats in the cafeteria so they can't do anything during lunch. You'd think the adminstraters would catch something like that, but when there are 4 of you and 300 of them...
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Both of the male assistant principals at that school have left for other jobs.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I went to a Catholic school and we started sex ed in seventh grade. And besides my parents taught us about it on their own too. I actually learned more about every subject from my folks than I did from school... up till High School.
It wasn't that they wanted us to be home schooled, but they thought that for a parent to expect the system to solely educate their children was irresponsible.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sara's point is why I promoted the notion that sexual activity should be clearly defined and not left as ambiguous as "sexual activity" which gives kids the half-arsed justification for all kinds of reckless behavior without understanding the potential consequences.
-Trevor
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
@Elizabeth
Could you have been thinking of Thirteen ? It caused a stir at the film festivals. Written by and starring Nikki Reed, now age 16.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I read a disturbing article about the trend of oral sex in middle schools. What is up(so to speak) with that?
quote: The middleschoolers have assigned seats in the cafeteria so they can't do anything during lunch. You'd think the adminstraters would catch something like that, but when there are 4 of you and 300 of them...
I understand the concern that parents have. Obviously, no one wants junior doing anything beyond holding hands and the occasional kiss in middle school. However, isn't there a larger question of male/female socialization? This probably deserves it's own thread, but is it really going to help boys and girls grow up with an appropriate view of the opposite sex if the message they are constantly pummeled with at school is that the opposite sex is dangerous? What about the idea that they can't be trusted? That they are guilty solely because of their age?
Yeah, I know. Appropriate communication. The solution for all social ills. I guess I fear that the logical message being disseminated by the teacher or staff is going to get lost in the static of everyday communication and the example of segregation.
I'm not against segregration, a priori, but on the other hand, I also think that there are always positive and negative aspects to any behavior, and while I understand why segregating boys and girls away from the opposite sex is right in the short term, since it keeps the very few bad apples from being able to do the dirty deed, I wonder what the long term effects are going to be.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Zamphyr, Yes! That was it. Did you see it? I believe the message was supposed to be "Don't do this!" not "This is cool."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
SS- I don't know that they're assigned according to gender. The school had to do something, when your students are giving head in the cafeteria the parents aren't going to accept, "well, we didn't want to segregate them, so we decided to just let it happen."
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Nope, haven't seen it yet. Its on my list of good things to rent.
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
About six months ago I saw ”Thirteen” together with my 14 year old daughter (you know, I’m a European… ).
For the purpose of this post I asked her if she could identify three major themes in the movie, and she said: “Peer pressure, a need to belong somewhere and searching for a more adult identity but overreaching. When I asked her what she thought the message of the movie was, she said: “Do what your mother tells you”, so I think we can conclude that the message to teenagers is: “Don’t do this!”
It’s a very strong and direct movie, and teen sex is an issue, but I would say that it’s really not the main point. I agree with the themes my daughter identified, and I would also add friendship, drug abuse, unconditional love, child raising and adult relationships. To say it’s a movie about teen sex would be to overlook the greater context.
And just in case I have shocked someone by taking my daughter to see “Thirteen”: I saw this as a great opportunity to discuss important and difficult issues with her, and I would rather see it with her and have the chance to discuss it with her afterwards than having her see it unsupervised later. Does that make sense? And of course I wouldn’t have taken her to see it if I hadn’t deemed her mature enough.
To Hatrackers with daughters (and sons, perhaps, although they may not identify with the main character to the same degree) at the right age, I feel I can recommend that you try watching this movie together. Almost everything you are afraid of for your child can be discussed with basis in this movie.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Trondheim : Why are you spelling your name wrong?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Trondheim, Do you think a high school health teacher could show this movie? Or not?
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
KoM: Am I spelling my name wrong? I hadn’t realized. How should I be spelling it? Or is this a joke that I'm just not getting?
Elizabeth: It depends on the age of the students, but I think he/she could if the communication with the students and not least with their parents is good. I guess no teacher would show the movie without watching it first, so their own judgement would be the deciding factor in any case. What I can say is that I personally wouldn’t hesitate to show it to e.g. a class of 15 year olds, but then I don’t believe that profanity or sex scenes in a movie will corrupt the audience. Others might view that differently.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I will let her know about it, and she will know what to do. She could always just suggest it to arents and students to watch together at home. Thanks.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The city is properly spelled Trondhjem. *Sniffs in a snobbish bokmål sort of way.*
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
I wish it were so, KoM... but unfortunately I'm forced to spell it differently from the proper pronounciation.
So how come you know this? The å makes me think I'm dealing with at the least a fellow Scandinavian. Hei, in any case!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, it's true that the government tries to enforce Trondheim. But this is a privately owned board; I very much doubt the Mållag are going to come after you here.
To answer your other question, I'm not from Norway, I'm from Bergen. Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
And yet you are arguing on the side of the Trondhjemmers?
I called myself Trondheim for two combined reasons: I live there and OSC saw fit to name a planet after my city. So while my native instinct may have been to write Trondhjem, common sense dictates Trondheim.
So do you call yourself King of Men because you are from Bergen?
Sorry all for the derailment of this thread, but this calls for three cheers in my book. This is the first time I have ever encountered anyone (originally) from my country in any of the literature forums I've participated in.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
YOU are Dr. Ruth. I'm Sue Johanson. Sheesh!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So do you call yourself King of Men because you are from Bergen?
Nah, it's like this : I needed a nick, I was reading Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time, and I'd just gotten to the part where Walker contemplates what he can do in this world, and is saying "William Walker, King of Men. It had a nice ring to it." I found myself agreeing. Since then, I've signed up everywhere with that name, it is rarely taken by anyone else.
That said, I am a rabid Bergen patriot, and I expect a certain amount of respect and submission from my countrymen of the lesser cities.
And I argue for 'hjem' because that's the way I pronounce it, and therefore obviously correct. Ideally we'd also have a particular letter for the sharp 'r', maybe an accent?
[ October 06, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You sure it isn't the other way around? Sue discusses more kinky sex stuff than Dr. Ruth.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I just wanted to make it clear that we weren't despensing "medical" advice.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
This goes to show that abistinance sex ed is NOT WORKING. In my opinion, parents need to realize that their darling little girl or boy is going to be a teenager in an over-sexed world and prepare them for the worst, ie casual sex. When I turned 18, my mother bought a box of condoms and put them in her bathroom, made me read the instructions and 'practice' putting one on a banana. While I was deeply embarassed at the time, I'm rather thankful that she was so open about it.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)