Wonder if it has anything to do with all the liberal values they're being taught: <---- news story site
[ January 31, 2005, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Eduardo, you just have to click on the smilies.
Jay, I would think that the 2nd amendment is a conservative position and the 1st is a liberal one. I don't think the story you linked says that kids are being indoctrinated by liberals as much as it says that liberals are doing a bad job of indoctrinating them.
Perhaps the liberal education isn't as liberal as some people would lead you to believe. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Abstinence does not work. Just telling a kid not to have sex by using a bunch of threats and bad science is ineffective. Why can't they give a good mixture of, don't have sex, but if you end up in that situations here's what you need to do. Honest education, that's what is needed. Not this whole just don't do it then show dozens of half nekkid people parading around on television looking as tempting as hot cookies and cold milk.
And, damn, do I ever hate Seven Heaven *has nothing to do with the topic*
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
As a teacher, I must say: abstinence programs won't work. Honest education is the only way. And I agree with the first article. I guess it's more about politicds than about the kids.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Scary isn't it?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wait a second 13 YEARS OLD?!?!?!?!?! i was not even THINKING about sex when I was 13. What the hell is going on? Are the hormones in the milk making everyone develop waaaaaaaaay too early?
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
there's always the possibility that more had sex than actually did. Or they didn't realize what they were doing was sex before the course.
When I was 13, I thought oral sex was passionate kissing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jay, I would think that the 2nd amendment is a conservative position and the 1st is a liberal one.
You may be right about the 2nd; your analysis of the 1st ignores about half of 1st amendment litigation. This is speaking of conservative and liberal as they are commonly percieved in issue alignment, not any rigorous definition of the terms.
Free exercise of religion has been invoked for goals perceived as "liberal" (the pledge being optional) and "conservative" (equal access to school facilities). Free speech has been invoked equally by both sides (black armbands in schools, fundign for religious magazines). Ditto for the other first amendment rights, with the possible exception of the establishment clause. But, if you pair establishment w/ free exercise, balance is restored.
Dagonee
[ January 31, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
It's scary. After I started teaching in the favelas, I saw much of it. 17 yo girls with 4 children... A 12 yo boy with 1 son (the mother was 15)...
Don't think you had a sheltered life because you didn't think about sex when you were 13. Neither did I.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I have to say I think it's silly for them to spend federal money on abstinence education. What is so expensive about asking teachers to read what is printed on a condom box? "Abstinence is the only way to guarantee protection."
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
What got to me was that the article said that increased self-esteem would convince teens that early sex would be shaming to them (I am totally paraphrasing, but that's how I digested it). Um...I never had a problem with self-esteem...and even though I wasn't *13* when I had sex, I was a teen. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Is there no middle ground of any kind? I approve of sex education, I really do, but abstinence needs to be mentioned for the sole reason that it's the absolute very best preventative measure against STDs and pregnancy available. Abstinence only education doesn't even begin to cover all the bases, but it shouldn't be totally ignored.
There needs to be some level of probable consequences brought into the discussion, but since there are bound to be exceptions to the supposed standard, they may as well learn the second-best methods to protect themselves. They need to learn that condoms sometimes break and pills don't always work.
The 13-year olds thing squicks me out to no end.
edit:
quote: What got to me was that the article said that increased self-esteem would convince teens that early sex would be shaming to them (I am totally paraphrasing, but that's how I digested it).
I think it might have more to do with self-esteem issues leading teens to submit to sexual activities without thinking that that's not the only way to get approval. But that's just me.
[ January 31, 2005, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
I get it, sarmup, thanks. *grin* I just have a thing about self-esteem. I may have had *too* much self-esteem growing up (so sez my mom, haha).
The thirteen year old thing *is* squicky.
Abstinence education is important, but so is prophylactic education.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The main thing is these programs are only focusing on that condoms break and pills sometimes don't work -- when what's much more important is that, used properly, condoms work a huge percentage of the time and pills work almost all the time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
Just going from the quote, I think the conclusion of the article -- that abstinence-only education does not work -- is hardly a given.
Did they control for the fact that people are more likely to have sex as they age?
I'm not at all shocked by the 23% statistic; from what I recall, 50% of all girls had lost their virginity by 16, and 70% of all boys. But, see, that's what I find interesting: if that's still true, then an absolute increase of just 7% over the course of a year is small potatoes, and may even imply that abstinence-only education does work to reduce the incidence of teen sex (if not to encourage safer sex, which is another issue altogether.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.
"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study
The contention seems to be that the kids who'd received abstinance-only education fared no differently than those who had other types of sex education. That is, having had abstinance-only sex ed did not have statistically significant effect on reported sexual behavior.
I, too, wonder about the "redefinition issue," though.
[ January 31, 2005, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
EDIT: Rant below, haven't read much of the above.
quote:Abstinence does not work.
This is just so FUNNY on so many levels. . .
But I'll be serious. Abstinence is the only method of birth control proven time and time again to be 100% effective.
Shocker.
Shouldn't it receive more than just a cursory mention in schools? Hey, I'm all for teaching ninth graders how to use various birth control devices, but don't downplay the efficacy of abstinence. It is the singlemost powerful contraceptive on the market-- it's cheap, it's easily duplicated, it even builds character. ( )
Sounds like a parent's and an educator's dream drug. So why do so many people disparage it? Ohhh-- because the religious right has snatched it up as another drum to beat and the irreligious left must (perforce) stand against them, NO MATTER THE COST!!
The reaction of (liberal?)people against abstinence education is much like the reaction of (some) Creationists to teaching evolution in public schools. Without thought, study, or sense, really. Why hamstring our children by downplaying what really is the most effective method of birth control? We don't teach phrenology in schools in place of psychology; we teach the New Math; our educational system should teach the truest, most effective methodologies and that goes for ANY subject.
Except sex education. The class that most teenagers need FAR more than Algebra, Chemistry, or Literature, some of us feel compelled to put out the second-string methodology, and to apologize for the effective one. Bass ackwards, folks.
[ February 01, 2005, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't have a problem with abstinence being taught, and in fact support it. I suspect you'll find most "liberals" agree. Abstinence only education I have a major problem with, though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I think a lot of the reaction comes from that when certain people talk about "adding abstinence education" (often to school districts where abstinence is mentioned quite strongly), "liberals" often interpret it as code for abstinence-only education. Which it often is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree-- the sex ed class I went through in 10th grade was a joke.
(Abstinence was not metioned as an effective means of contraception in my class, by the way)
Ultimately, I think that abstinence should be encouraged by social programs in schools, but it's going to take more than one class to make the effects seen. A culture of responsibility and respect for one's (potential) sexual partner does not crop up suddenly. (By respect, I mean the following: 'We're going to have sex. We realize that this might produce a pregnancy. We're emotionally ready for the consequences.)
Of course, I don't know that a fifteen year old exists who is emotionally ready to take care of a child. . .
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Scott, in my experience in one of the more liberal school districts in the state of Oregon, Abstinence was given plenty of mention. It was at the top of the chart of birth control methods and had the only 100% next to it.
I don't think anybody is against mentioning that abstinence is the most effective method, etc. However, I think that abstinence-only education is nearly worthless.
In my eigth grade health class, we did a project where we had to predict the expenses of a couple of high school-age students who decided to have sex, got pregnant, and decided to keep the child. That exercise did a lot to show me that, even with good luck finding decent entry-level jobs, it would be virtually impossible to achieve many goals in life. A few years later, when we had our next dose of sex ed, that's what I was thinking about.
I think that in most places, kids know what causes pregnancy. I don't think that the possibility of pregnancy (or even that nasty STD slideshow) really scares them very much. Abstinence-only education will NOT work, and in many cases, comprehensive sex-ed won't work well enough. But I tihnk that we've got to use every weapon in our arsenal to prevent unplanned pregnancy, because that's the sort of "it won't happen to me" disaster that can really ruin lives (and causes many to want abortions). If conservatives are serious about reducing unplanned pregnancy among teenagers, they will soon be forced to abandon abstinence-only education.
You've got to make kids want to be completely responsible about their behavior, which is a hard battle to fight, but it's the only way to combat unplanned teen pregnancy and STD transfer.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Ultimately, I think that abstinence should be encouraged by social programs in schools, but it's going to take more than one class to make the effects seen. A culture of responsibility and respect for one's (potential) sexual partner does not crop up suddenly. (By respect, I mean the following: 'We're going to have sex. We realize that this might produce a pregnancy. We're emotionally ready for the consequences.)
I agree. Almost exactly what our goal should be. Although, this isn't going to happen by telling kids repeatedly, "You're not ready for sex, you're not responsible enough..." Even if most school sex-ed classes amount to little more than a joke and a waste of money, it's important for people to know that information. I think the structure of even the current comprehensive sex-ed curriculums needs revision to express the responsibility both partners need to have for their relationship if it turns sexual. And I don't think schools should judge on the morality of the teens' relationships. Ultimately, they're the ones who have to decide if they're responsible enough to handle sex, and there's no moral way to stop them. Schools and other adult resources need to be there to point kids in the right directions no matter what decisions they make. That means support, letting kids know what the options are, and allowing them the freedom to make their own choices, and believing that they ARE responsible enough to make them.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
For what it's worth I took sex ed (or health class or whatever we're calling it) in a very, very, very liberal town and abstinence was mentioned in the following way: "Abstinence is the most effective, and only proven way of steering clear of pregnancy and STDs, but I'm not a fool and I know almost none of you will choose that route." And then never mentioned again. Personally I think it would've been better not to mention it at all.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm not a fool and I know almost none of you will choose that route."
Was that true? How many of your class graduated virgins?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I can't speak for Hobbes, but I know a good number of my graduating class were virgins when they walked. Practically all of my group of friends were virgins (I can only think of three people who were not, actually). I do think they were in the minority. Comparing it with my cousin's high school in Ventura, CA, mine had far fewer pregnancies, but you'd hear about an abortion every once in a while.
As a broad generalization, I would say most of the people who had been in a relationship for 5 months or more were sexually active.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I was one of only three virgins I knew when I graduated high school. And two of us were only 15. By 18, we too had lost our virginity.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well my class was about 450, I didn't know each and everyone but I would estimate (based only on what people claimed obviously as I didn't spend a lot of my time looking people's bedrooms) that 80% or higher had had sex before they graduated.
Hobbes Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
How exactly do these studys measure this? I mean -- I know if they had just asked me these questions when I was a teen - I would probably lie -- just for kicks. (not saying the stats aren't true - I'm just wondering how big of a sample they study, and all the specifics of how they are gaining their conclusion.)
Actually, I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter what curriculum on this you teach them in school - the peer pressure is a bigger factor..
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Actually, I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter what curriculum on this you teach them in school - the peer pressure is a bigger factor."
That is the claim made by people who support actual sex-ed: that since peer pressure is a bigger factor, abstinence-only education does not reduce the incidence of teen sex enough to make a real difference -- whereas teaching kids "typical" sex-ed information is useful regardless of whether they choose to have sex or not.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I personally have no problem with them teaching contraceptive information in sex-ed classes in schools (it is up to me as a parent to teach them moral values and the importance of abstinence). I do wish they would balance that with information on abstinence as well, but present all information.
However, I'll admit that I really don't necessarily want them to be presented with "alternative lifestyles" in a sex-ed class. Just the scientific facts, and not going off on all the other directions that discussion can take you.
As the parent of three teens -- all of which are still virgins at this point -- I count myself very lucky and realize we are in the minority. I, myself, was no longer a virgin at the age that my middle child is now.
Sometimes too much information proves to be better than not enough information (as was in my case).
Farmgirl
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote: I do wish they would balance that with information on abstinence as well, but present all information.
In my experince, and in the sex-ed classes of many people I have talked to, students felt there was a balance. I think everybody understood that abstinence was the safest option. One thing I think they could go into more detail on is emotional consequences of sex. I don't know if anybody really teaches anything about that. At least my teacher for the most recent couple rounds of sex-ed didn't talk about a lot of the emotional issues that go along with sex. I mean issues like peer-pressure to have sex and the sort of "conquest" attitude some people take toward sex.
quote:However, I'll admit that I really don't necessarily want them to be presented with "alternative lifestyles" in a sex-ed class. Just the scientific facts, and not going off on all the other directions that discussion can take you.
However, recognize that some people might choose "alternative lifestyles" that present them with more risk for spreading disease, and they need to be informed of that risk. I think a school can do this without promoting that lifestyle.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Abstinence does not work.
It worked well for me.
edit: But not because of anything I was taught at school.
[ February 01, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I had sex before getting to sex ed in high school. I don’t know that a class would have made any difference, but maybe these classes need to start a little younger overall.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I doubt many Abstinence-only education programs actually convince people to not have sex because the people who are going to abstain from sex through high school are generally either people who would abstain anyways, or people who might/would have sex if given the opportunity, but don't have a chance.
At best, you might swing a couple people from the list of maybes.
Ladyday, what grade was your first sex ed class? I think my school district had a brief "learn about your body" lesson in 5th grade, followed by sex ed in 7th, 8th, 10th, and (11th or 12th).
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Out of my graduating high school class of 121, I would estimate there were at least 20 virgins, if not more.
You know, lumping us all together like that makes me feel like a sacrifice...
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I think due to changing schools so much I missed the “your body” stuff they teach you in middle school…10th grade I think was my sex ed class. Maybe second semester 9th, I honestly don’t remember.
I only say that it might be better to go a little earlier on the “real” sex ed stuff because I personally found it easier to make choices before the issue ever came up. What was it Gimli said, when the fellowship was discussing some sort of vow to stay together before they set out? Something about words making you brave.
At any rate, I can’t say for sure if it would work.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We had "Skills For Adolescents" in 7th grade. Anyone who came into the district in 8th grade had to take it anyway to go on to HS. It was about 1/3 sex ed, 1/3 emotional skills, and 1/3 understanding marketing and peer pressure, and why drugs and cigarettes are bad for you. It was pretty comprehensive, and the sex ed part went into detail on why abstinence is best all around. However, we also got clear, accurate information about birth control, as well as information on pregnancy and abortion, and we had to watch a video about different kinds of abortion and a birthing video (where the woman was not given any pain control, which I recognize now as a scare tactic ). I don't know if it was effective, but I'd say it was pretty balanced and fair. The next time we had sex ed was just a unit in Health, which is required in 9th grade. That unit was mostly to answer questions that had come up and reinforce what we learned in 7th grade. I have always thought that the 7th grade class was a good idea all around.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The rational reasons to avoid promiscuity — pregnancy, disease, emotional harm — have zero impact on kids who have never had sex. They look around at each other and none of their friends look diseased. They think they have the self-control or the luck not to get anyone pregnant. They don't have the experience to think beyond their immediate desires. Scare tactics in the classroom don't work at all.
I'm all about abstinence being taught, consequences being taught, and birth control being taught. I can't see anything but good coming from teaching kids as much information as possible.
But moral advocacy — in either direction — is out of place at school. I don't want to hear "look at all this scary stuff! Don't have sex or you'll die!" and I also don't want to hear "You're all going to have sex before you leave high school, so at least wear a condom. Please? For me?"
Just teach the information. Assume the kids will use it when they're older, or assume they'll use it that night when they go home, whatever makes you happier. Just don't tell them what they're going to do. You're a teacher, not a fortune teller or a priest.
Influencing kids to make better moral choices cannot happen effectively in a classroom. That's not what they're there for. If we want to make changes to the way children make choices, the changes need to happen in our homes and in our culture.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I was a virgin when I graduated because ma Saxon had threatened me with any number of painful operations if I ever got anyone pregnant. So, my guess would be that 'kids' these days are having sex not so much because of peer pressure but because their parents these days aren't really doing their job. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:In my eigth grade health class, we did a project where we had to predict the expenses of a couple of high school-age students who decided to have sex, got pregnant, and decided to keep the child. That exercise did a lot to show me that, even with good luck finding decent entry-level jobs, it would be virtually impossible to achieve many goals in life. A few years later, when we had our next dose of sex ed, that's what I was thinking about.
Now that's awesome. Kudos to that eighth grade teacher.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Or basically what Geoff said, except I would leave off the 'culture' part, which is meaningless for a lot of people in our glorious modern society.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*applauds Geoff*
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Just skimming, I can't help but wonder if it isn't only the content of the sex ed program, but the way in which it is presented.
Why are we waiting until 15 to teach it? Are we taking the kids seriously as thinking individuals or just trying to stuff a bunch of slogans in their head?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Just teach the information. Assume the kids will use it when they're older, or assume they'll use it that night when they go home, whatever makes you happier. Just don't tell them what they're going to do. You're a teacher, not a fortune teller or a priest.
Agreed - despite my conservative Christian ways, I've always advocated teaching kids the facts about their bodies - because unfortunately, too many parents do a shockingly poor job of it.
So teach a heath class that covers anatomy and physiology of the reproductive system, talk about what causes pregnancy, what can prevent it, stress abstinence as the only sure way to prevent problems, but stop there. Don't advocate "alternate lifestyles" don't teach children how to have sex (by which I mean don't dwell on technique) give them some outside resources for more information and include both places that advocate abstinence only and places that give out more information about birth control. But stop there - because like Geoff says, you aren't there to be their priest or their pimp, you're there to inform.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why teach sex ed at all in school?
Isn't that the job of the parents?
Do you conservatives want a liberal sex ed curriculum taught? (Being gay is fine, etc.)
Do you liberals want a conservative sex ed curriculum taught? (If you have sex outside of marriage, you'll blow up, etc.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sex Ed should be taught in school because there is a legitimate government interest in ensuring kids know the facts of reproduction and how to prevent pregnancy and STDs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Don't advocate "alternate lifestyles" don't teach children how to have sex (by which I mean don't dwell on technique)
Belle, could you cite examples of primary or secondary-school sex-ed programs that do either of these two things?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There is a more legitimate civilian interest in when and how your children are taught about sex.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Storm Saxon, I think I already answered what type of curriculum I'm in favor of.
The reason I want it taught is because I think the basic physiological processes of our own bodies is education every person should know.
I do not want a liberal agenda taught, but I think we need to go further than what is traditionally known as a conservative, abstinence only, sex-is-evil type of program too.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm not saying sex ed isn't a good idea, but I think it's pretty clear that there are a lot of groups out there who want to get their tentacles in what a sex ed program teaches. Don't you think that some groups are going to think just teaching 'the facts' doesn't go far enough? And that some are going to think it's going too far?
[ February 01, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Generally speaking, a legitimate government interest trumps a legitimate personal interest. This is why we have eminent domain.
However, it is often possible to pursue the legitimate government interest while not eliminating the legitimate personal interest, as in this case.
Parents can homeschool or request kids be exempted from sex ed sections of courses.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Of course they are! People are always going to have something to disagree about.
I think my version is a bit of a compromise in that it teaches more than abstinence only but stops short of explaining the proper techniques for oral sex or of advocating experimentation with homosexuality.
Not that I think those types of things are commonly taught in schools now, I think that they are what too many members of the Christian right believe is going on. And I always encourage parents, no matter what their beliefs, to investigate the curriculum and be involved in what their kids are learning.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I can find people who object to the existence of any books in school besides the Bible and a few reference books; that doesn't suddenly make it necessary for the school to cater to that lower common denominator.
edit to add: both Belle and I are responding to SS's posts, we just keep posting past each other .
[ February 01, 2005, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Those people do not qualify as lowest common denominator. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There is a large proportion of people that think it appropriate for schools to include the bible (in libraries in particular), reference texts, and many other texts in addition. Almost by the definition of common denominator, those people who wish just the bible and reference texts are at a common denominator between those two groups.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, is the underlying argument for sex ed that parents aren't doing their job or can't be trusted to do it right, therefore the state must step in and do it for them?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, no more than the (sole) argument for any sort of class is that parents aren't doing it right. Sex ed should be taught because it is important in a way relevant to the state for students to know it, just as with other subjects.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But why can't the state trust the parents to teach it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Why can't the state trust parents to teach everything?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Good question.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To answer my own question (and I'm posting this without seeing any responses that may appear after it), because parents don't teach it, often, or teach it badly (after all, the reason some of them became parents is they didn't learn about sex ed). Sex ed can be a very technical topic that is always changing as new birth control research occurs and technologies develop. It is extremely inefficient for parents to individually teach everything that might be taught in sex ed individually; it is certainly a societal responsibility (though often not one lived up to) to instill good values in children, including basic knowledge about birth control, but to expect complex and/or up to date scientific knowledge about birth control to be instilled by every parent is simply unrealistic.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think parents should certainly have the right to teach sex ed if they want to, and opt their children out of the classes. And, I support parents who choose to homeschool and teach their kids everything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS: because we've seen the world when there isn't public education. Education becomes reserved to a few and society is at a considerable detriment. For the reasons why, read your Smith.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, definitely Belle.
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
So far, i agree 100% percent with Belle.
Side Note: In my opinion, sex-ed needs to begin way earlier than 6th, or 7th or 8th grade. My first sex-ed calss was in 6th grade, which my parents seemed to think was too early, but I first heard about sex, in second grade (i think). I was talking with my best friend at the time, and he explained it to me. Just some thoughts.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If you're going to bring up boogeymen, Fugu, we've seen the world where the state pretty much usurps the role of parents. For that, you can read your paper. See, also, China. See, also, Cuba.
And after all that, fugu, you can basically just say 'yes' to my original question. Good gravy.
Anyways.
Implicit in the argument for sex ed is the idea that parents can't raise their children properly.
It seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable and doable for parents to teach their children about sex. If parents are doing their job, then there is no reason for 'the government' to step in.
If 'the government' sees that so many parents aren't teaching their children 'correctly' about sex that it must offer sex ed classes, then I think this highlights a problem with families in this country.
As has been discussed in this thread, sexual activity of 'children' is largely based around parental involvement with their children, what their parents teach them. If the parents aren't involved, then teens are influenced by their peers.
If the goal of the state is to reduce teen sex, then just teaching the facts without some kind of morality, without the involvement of parents at home or the students at school, isn't going to be very effective.
To address the straw man that Fugu raised, I am not against an equal education for everyone. Nowhere in this thread have I implied that I am.
My belief is that there are certain things that are *private*, that the state cannot, under any circumstances, intrude upon. High on this list is parenting.
I think 'parenting' can be summed up to be raising your children as *you*, the parent, want them to be. Teaching sexual mores is a part of this.
It's great that people in this thread have recognized this and have offered the ability of parents to check their kids out of sex ed classes as a compromise.
The problem, as already mentioned, is that I think that parents *aren't* involved with their children as they should be. Further, by the state teaching sex ed, a lot of parents aren't going to be involved in that aspect of their children's lives because they believe the state has already taught their kids what they need to know.
So, not only is the state assuming a role that should belong to parents, it is further pushing the idea that parents *don't need* to be parents when it comes to certain ideas, that the state can be the parent, and I think that's dangerous, because as Fugu already mentioned, when push coms to shove, the state's interests trump your interests, and you can't fight city hall.
As I've stated in previous discussions on this forum, my compromise solution is that the state just gives everyone vouchers that can be spent on education, makes it so that everyone can only pay for education with those vouchers, then allows the parents to choose where their money goes. This way, you have equality of education. This way, the parent decides what is taught to their children, and how much they want the school involved in raising their children, and what is taught to their children.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It wasn't a straw man, it was a comparison. We have schools for some reason or another, and the same general reasons the schools teach anything in the same general reason the schools should teach sex ed.
And my counterpoint was in response to your "good question" statement.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I first got sex ed in school in 4th grade, and then the whole thing again in 5th grade when I changed schools. I learned some of it earlier than that from my parents, just a general summary of where babies come from. (Heh...I think the only misconception I had based on my parents' version was that I didn't grasp the nine-month delay between conception and birth. I dimly recall asking my dad if, when he and mom had sex to conceive me, if they had sex at home or at the hospital. I guess I thought that five minutes after you were done, *poink* there's the baby.) The elementary school classes covered all the anatomy and physiology, and then there were occasional follow-ups in middle and early high school that dealt with birth control, but I don't really recall if any of it dealt with the emotional issues surrounding it all.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Fugu, pardon.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
To answer a question that Storm posed way-back-when on the first page ...
Schools shouldn't teach that "being gay is fine" or that "being gay is not fine". They should teach that "being gay is possible" and "being gay means that your sexual desire is directed at members of your same gender" and "being gay occurs with this frequency" and leave the value judgments out of it altogether.
[ February 01, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Word, Puppy.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't agree.
There is something half-assed and unfulfilling about taking the scientific approach. It's that sort of neutered manner that makes kids resent school, and I know it actually turns a lot of kids off from school, because that way of approaching the problem renders education irrelevant. The funny bit is that by the school taking a stand not on not taking a stand, the school is actually taking a stand embracing neglect and advocating empiricism.
School isn't a place for people to skate making decisions about important moral issues, it's a place for them to engage in thinking.
[ February 01, 2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Storm, your situation is ignoring the practical catch-22. Generally speaking, parents have done a mediocre job teaching, for example, sex ed to kids. SOme due to societal beliefs/pressure, others pure ignorance. Still other parents have and are teaching their kids incorrect or outdated info about sex ed. Not everyone has time to research it well, and if they all did, I don't think our society would ever be as productive as it has been to be as great as it is.
So if we want all parents to teach sex ed, at the minimum, these parents need to be taught by someone(s). I don't see why the government can't fill tht role. Theoretically, if taught consistent sex ed, people will eventually teach all their kids, thus causing govt.-led sex ed to be irrelevant, and thus your issue would solve itself. Practically speaking I don't think we're their yet.
-Bok
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have no idea why, but after reading Puppy's post (nice allitereation by the way; and I back the actual content of said post as well ) I thought of this quote:
quote:Mr Burns: Oh, well, when I was six, my father took me on a picnic. That was a gay old time! Oh-ho, I ate my share of wieners that day
Hobbes Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'd be delighted with a frank presentation of accurate facts, and then a frank acknowledgment that different people feel different ways about this, and it isn't the school's job to try to convince you one way or the other.
That would make me estatic, actually. Along with an emphasis that abstinance from heterosexual sex is the only 100% effective form of birth control, and that abstinance from any sexual contact with anyone else is the only 100% effective form of STD prevention.
So long as the information is accurate and complete, I could die happy.
Edit: in my view, sexuality is often such a highly charged and uncomfortable topic that maintaining a clinical matter-of-factness during the discussion of the mechanics makes it possible to focus on that, rather than on something else. I don't want any discussion of the prosaic matter of this derailed, especially not when there are many [of all different approaches] who might have a vested interest in derailing it.
[ February 01, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:School isn't a place for people to skate making decisions about important moral issues, it's a place for them to engage in thinking.
How would the alternitive to the teacher not taking a definitive moral stance on the morality of homosexuality encourage moral desicion making?
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
No one else would be happy when you died though CT.
Hobbes Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm not going to do that anytime soon, Hobbes. Just a figure of speech.
I will be more cheerful in my metaphorical choices in the future. Promise. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
A couple months a go, many members of this forum stated that one of their primary fears of gay marriage being legalized was that there would, at the same time, be a resulting demonization of their beliefs in school. If memory serves, it's some of the members who are supporting the idea that a school will really, honest, just keep to the facts regarding sex.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Me, Stormie? )
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, CT. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS, we're good. I've actually got a similar idea re: schools, but consider it both necessary that the state set certain standards (and methods of standards enforcement), and that this effectively makes all schools/funded school situation public instruments rather than private ones.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Implicit in the argument for sex ed is the idea that parents can't raise their children properly.
No, implicit in the argument for sex ed is the idea that too many parents won't teach their children what they need to know about sex and reproduction. Whether it's because they themselves are unsure, or because they're embarassed, or offended, or think the kids will pick up it when they need to, or don't care, or what.
When the majority of parents start teaching their children about sex and reproduction, then I might be offended that the nature of sex ed insulted my parenting skills. But not before.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:
quote:Abstinence does not work.
This is just so FUNNY on so many levels. . .
quote:
quote:Abstinence does not work.
It worked well for me.
Sorry I'm a little late with this, but it really bugged me to see these responses. It doesn't take a genius to see the intended meaning behind the original comment, so it distressed me to see two posters whose opinions I respect using this kind of tactic. It's too easy to say, "you're liberal and I'm conservative and therefore we disagree on this issue", and then make absurd assumptions about what the other person believes. It looks like, at least to me, that everyone who's posted in this thread so far is actually pretty close to agreement. Horrors!
Speaking of absurd conclusions, what about this idea that the "liberal agenda" wants sex ed teachers to advocate experimentation with homosexuality and instruct students on sexual technique? First of all, are there people who really want this (more than a handful, anyway)? And second, do the religious right think that all liberals feel this way? If so, we are one screwed up nation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Practically speaking, Chris, I don't see that your reply effects my overall argument. Though, I don't know which is more cruel, saying that parents can't teach their children properly about sex, or saying that they could, but won't.
quote: Storm, your situation is ignoring the practical catch-22. Generally speaking, parents have done a mediocre job teaching, for example, sex ed to kids. SOme due to societal beliefs/pressure, others pure ignorance. Still other parents have and are teaching their kids incorrect or outdated info about sex ed. Not everyone has time to research it well, and if they all did, I don't think our society would ever be as productive as it has been to be as great as it is.
So if we want all parents to teach sex ed, at the minimum, these parents need to be taught by someone(s). I don't see why the government can't fill tht role. Theoretically, if taught consistent sex ed, people will eventually teach all their kids, thus causing govt.-led sex ed to be irrelevant, and thus your issue would solve itself. Practically speaking I don't think we're their yet.
Bok, I disagree that, first, practical sex ed is so convoluted that it has to be researched and taught by experts.
I disagree that lack of information is the problem. I am saying that weak families and cultures within the U.S. are the problem, and that sex ed doesn't address this problem, and, in fact, makes it worse. So, I disagree that sex ed will cause the problem to solve itself.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If memory serves, it's some of the members who are supporting the idea that a school will really, honest, just keep to the facts regarding sex.
A funny thing about "facts." Facts are the noun form of the latin facere, that is, "to make."
The Christian God is what determines our modern use of the word "fact," as facts are those things made by God, so everytime we throw the word "fact" around, we are showing how far we are entrenched and how much we believe in Christian metaphysics.
For my money, we should stop worrying about facts and get in the business of telling better stories.
[ February 01, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That actually dovetails nicely into a comment I've been meaning to make about these facts everyone thinks schools should teach. There are different stats as to the failure rate of various birth control methods. There are different stats as to what it means for children that are born into poverty, or to unwed mothers, or to mothers under the age of 16. There are different interpretations as to the *effects* of birth control. And then there's the rather large disagreement as to when human life starts, eh.
How you interpret these 'facts', which facts you use, shades the sex ed program and has ramifications as to what 'children' do with them.
So, I think saying 'just the facts' and we'll be happy ignores the complexity of the situation, no?
Facts are simple and facts are straight Facts are lazy and facts are late Facts all come with points of view Facts don´t do what I want them to Facts just twist the truth around Facts are living turned inside out Facts are getting the best of them Facts are nothing on the face of things Facts don´t stain the furniture Facts go out and slam the door Facts are written all over your face Facts continue to change their shape
--Talking Heads
[ February 01, 2005, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mike, my 'funny on so many levels' was not directed to Syn, but to the multiple sexual connotations of the word 'work.'
No indeed- abstinence does not 'work.' Neither does my humor, apparently.
Alack.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Scott, maybe I was just taking things too seriously. Alas.
Irami, etymology isn't everything. Or even particularly relevant in this case. Nevertheless, you and Stormy are right: it is more complicated than "just teaching the facts". I'm guessing this isn't going to be resolved any time soon, if ever.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think the implications are more subtle. If we stop deifying "facts," and even doubt their propriety, then the world becomes a lot richer and truthful.
[ February 02, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Language is slippery with regards to defining "fact" and determining what counts as a referent of the term "fact." This is an important thing to point out, to take note of, and to understand.
Nonetheless, it is no less slippery than any other term -- any other term -- in this language or any other. One could raise the same concerns about what counts as a "story," or what counts as a "different interpretation," or any other words we might need to use to communicate with one another. Some amount of ambiguity is the norm.
Still, demarcations have to be made, and so we must learn to live with more and less slippery terms, edging by on the most secure footholds we can (albeit warily, with an eye on just how slick the ice we travel on really is). It's hard and chancy to do so, but anything else is walking around with blinders on, IMHO.
[ February 02, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Practically speaking, Chris, I don't see that your reply effects my overall argument. Though, I don't know which is more cruel, saying that parents can't teach their children properly about sex, or saying that they could, but won't.
I'm not especially concerned with how cruel it might sound, actually. The fact remains that many don't do it, for whatever reason.
And, as has been noted, there are plenty of other topics that could be taught at home that aren't, and so the schools do that as well. Most of the other topics don't generally result in unexpected pregnancies, though...
I'm good with Geoff's suggestions. Teach comprehensive sex ed with a heavy emphasis on abstinence and factual information on birth control and health issues. "Factual" in this case meaning a consensus of available reports, as opposed to some of the blatent mistruths that have appeared in some of the abstinence-only programs.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
- Homer Simpson
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, sure, if you're making the argument to an [person without the skill or desire to apply critical analysis].
Look, I get the wariness about "facts." It's appropriate. I share it. But if you really want to commit to the claim that there cannot be more or less "usefulness" /slash/ "congruence with reality" /slash/ "whatever your favorite definition of truth is," then there is no point in
- taking your car to a mechanic - seeing a physician - reading a driver's manual and so on.
To some extent these are all dealing with provisional interpretations of what works. Of course, it is true that mechanics, physicians, and driver's manuals are all subject to error. However, in general they represent some sort of consensus (be it in training or in commonly accepted patterns of behavior) within a skilled community. And that consensus has been tested against reality, and reality has been allowed to resist and inform the interpretation.
Doesn't mean any of it is Right (with a capital R), just that we have the most reason to believe that some given thing is currently the most useful interpretation. Later, it may not be as useful. Certainly, we seem to adopt a less useful strategy if we march forward without the clear acknowledgement that yes, our language is slippery, and yes, we may be wrong. Thus, facts should be neither deified or reified, and there should be discussion about what are better and worse interpretations.
Believe it or not, I've come to terms with that, and I can live with it. I am, however, quite willing to entertain other interpretations.
[ February 02, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't think that scientific facts are worthless. I do think that scientific facts only tell a part of the picture, and this wasn't the problem when God was the guarantor of facts because God was the whole picture and facts were a mere subset.
And now we are left with hollow facts discovered by science and statistics, and we wonder why they aren't compelling. It's because the dignity and virtue and perfection of facts laid in their relationship to God. We killed God but want to keep persuasive power of facts, and I just don't think we can have it both ways.
I don't think that the answer is an artificial God resuscitation, a la "Weekend at Bernie's," but a better look at the dignity and dignities of these "facts" to find a more compelling story to tell.
[ February 02, 2005, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm all for a discussion of what is and is not useful in a given context. You'll have no problems on that score from me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's my take on it:
1. Education divorced from moral instruction is incomplete. It's no good knowing how to achieve a particular physical effect if you have no good basis for selecting which physical effects you wish to achieve.
2. It is impossible to divorce moral instruction from religion if one wishes to cover morality in a comprehensive fashion.
3. It is not appropriate for state-run schools to provide religious instruction.
4. Therefore, state-run schools cannot provide a complete education.
This does not mean that state-run schools are failures or have nothing to offer in education. The can be an important core of an education that includes supplemental education from parents, churches, civic organizations, etc. Or, some parents may send their kids to non state-run schools where the moral instruction is more fully integrated.
Sex education is merely one area where the science/morality divide is more noticeable.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think there need to be some sort of normative story outside of facts in order for the facts to make sense.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'd agree that facts never "speak for themselves" -- they have to be interpreted and put into some sort of contextual structure. I'd lean more toward Mission than Baroque, myself, but that's because I think it's hard enough to address the facts directly without a mess of furbellows and ornamentation.
We can certainly devise an experiment to test that theory, though.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We can certainly devise an experiment to test that theory, though.
nah,
What would you test for, efficacy or propriety? Whether it works can be tested for, but that won't tell you much besides the fact that it works. Hell, war works, it doesn't mean that it's proper.
And I don't know how one can experiment for propriety. It seems like someone has to think about it, it's the same reason we don't like our politicians putting their finger in the wind to tell them which way to vote.
[ February 02, 2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'd test for efficacy, and I'd discuss propriety. I don't think we are really disagreeing, you know. Just different emphases placed on the various facets of the same general answer.
You're making me think, though. Thanks.
[ February 02, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
what kind of experiment are we talking about?
Perhaps sewing dead body parts together and creating a living being to see if s/he has sex or stays abstinent? sounds interesting, kinda like necrofelia (spelling?), but interesting
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
<---- news story site![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)