Abstinence Only Sex Education [Archive]

ETWolverine

Dec 24, 2007, 12:40 PM

There are, in my opinion, two reasons that abstinance-only sex ed doesn't work.

1) There is no stigma anymore to having sex before marriage. In fact, it is exatly the opposite... you are a pariah or need help if you've never had sex.

Take movies like "Hitch" and "40 Year Old Virgin" for example. "Hitch" is about a guy giving people advice on how to get the women, and "40" is about a bunch of friends who help a 40-year-old virgin get a woman. The concept in both of these films is that it's not okay to NOT get a girl before marriage. And that idea pervaids society. Being a virgin has a stigma, but having sex does not. Our society clearly has it backwards.

2) Our media has pushed the bounderies of what is acceptable for kids to see to such a point that those kids are overwhelmed by media imagery. When countered by the newspapers, magazines, TV, movies, DVDs, books... even cartoons push the bounderies... how can parents hope to compete with that huge flow of sex-positive imagery?

Part of the reason that the Orthodox Jewish community has had such success in this area, in my opinion, is that TV and movies are limited. Most kids sit home on a Saturday and watch a DVD or cable TV. On Saturday, most Orthodox Jewish kids are in the Synagogue praying, and turning on a TV is prohibited by Jewish Sabbatical law. In addition, many Yeshivas actively work to keep TV out of the homes of their students, and parents are quite happy to comply. So the influence of media over our kids is less pervassive. The voices of the parents and teachers have a chance to get through over the din of media imagery. And there is a consistent message going to the kids from the schools and from the parents vis-à-vis sex before marriage.

Now... I don't expect the non-Orthodox-Jewish world to suddenly stop using media. TV, cable, DVDs, magazines, etc. are here to stay. So there is no way to limit the media influence.

My solution to this is to USE the media to push this agenda... the same way that media has actively helped in anti-teen smoking, anti-teen drug use, anti-teen drinking advertising campaigns. Statistics have shown that teen drug, smoking and alcohol use is down due to these ongoing ad campaigns... so it is demonstrable that media can influence kids' moral, ethical and legal behaviors.

So why not do the same thing with teen sex? Why not have an abstinance-only ad campaign that uses the same techniques as these anti-drug, anti-smoking campaigns? TV ads have stigmatized smoking, and so smoking has decreased in popularity among teens. TV ads have shown the horrors of drunk driving, and so kids are staying away from alcohol to a greater extent. TV has been helpful at showing kids who resist drugs as free-thinkers, and drug-users as peer-pressure dupes with no thoughts of their own, and so fewer kids have qualms about saying no to their peers. So do the same with teen sex on TV ads.

That way the media, instead of just pushing sexual imagery on teens, can also be a part of the solution of countering those images. Add to that parents who push abstinance-only behaviors, and schools that push abstinance-only behaviors, and we have everybody working together to counter the idea that teen sex is okay.

Suddenly parents don't have to try to fight the media in order to influence their kids, and kids are getting a consistent message, instead of one message from parents and another from the media.

If everyone (parents, teachers, media) were all pushing the same message that kids should not be having sex before marriage, the consistancy of that message would definitely have an effect on kids, who right now are getting mixed messages ("don't have sex" "having sex is cool, being a virgin is uncool" "don't have sex, but if you do, use protection"). It has woked before, and there is no reason to believe that it couldn't work again. It worked in the Orthodox Jewish community, it worked for drugs, alcohol and smoking. So why not give it a shot?

Elliot

jillianleab

Dec 24, 2007, 01:17 PM

ETW, the type of "abstinence only" education you are describing is very different from what the current program teaches.

From my link on the first page:

Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous
instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific
information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears
as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that
“twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four
chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual”; the
correct number is 23.

Several curricula cite an erroneous 1993 study of condom effectiveness that has
been discredited by federal health officials. The 1993 study, by Dr. Susan Weller,
looked at a variety of condom effectiveness studies and concluded that condoms
reduce HIV transmission by 69%.27 Dr. Weller’s conclusions were rejected by
the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued a statement in 1997
informing the public that “FDA and CDC believe this analysis was flawed.”28
The Department cited numerous methodological problems, including the mixing
of data on consistent condom use with data on inconsistent condom use, and
found that Dr. Weller’s calculation of a 69% effectiveness rate was based on
“serious error.”29 In fact, CDC noted that “[o]ther studies of discordant couples
— more recent and larger than the ones Weller reviewed, and conducted overseveral years — have demonstrated that consistent condom use is highly effective
at preventing HIV infection.”30
Despite these findings, several curricula refer approvingly to the Weller study.
One curriculum teaches: “A meticulous review of condom effectiveness was
reported by Dr. Susan Weller in 1993. She found that condoms were even less
likely to protect people from HIV infection. Condoms appear to reduce the risk
of heterosexual HIV infection by only 69%.”31 Another curriculum that cites Dr.
Weller’s data claims: “In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV
approximately 31% of the time.”32

The parent guide for one curriculum understates condom effectiveness by
falsely describing “actual use” as “scrupulous.” It states: “When used by
real people in real- life situations, research confirms that 14 percent of the
women who use condoms scrupulously for birth control become pregnant
within a year.”49 In fact, for couples who use condoms “scrupulously,”
the 2% to 3% failure rate applies.

Although religions and moral codes offer different answers to the question of
when life begins, some abstinence-only curricula present specific religious views
on this question as scientific fact. One curriculum teaches: “Conception, also
known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper
third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.”68 Another states:
“Fertilization (or conception) occurs when one of the father’s sperm unites with
the mother’s ovum (egg). At this instant a new human life is formed.”69

One curriculum that describes fetuses as “babies” describes the blastocyst,
technically a ball of 107 to 256 cells at the beginning of uterine implantation, 70 as
“snuggling” into the uterus:

Instead, some of the curricula provide distorted information on cervical cancer,
suggesting that it is a common conseque nce of premarital sex.

the curriculum misleadingly puts the CDC data in a new chart called
“Percent HIV Infected” and scrambles the CDC data in a way that suggests
greatly exaggerated HIV rates among teenagers. For example, where the CDC
chart showed that 41% of female teens with HIV reportedly acquired it through
heterosexual contact, the curriculum’s chart suggests that 41% of heterosexual
female teens have HIV. 95 It similarly implies that 50% of homosexual male teens
have HIV.96

Puberty. One curriculum tells instructors: “Reassure students that small
lumps in breast tissue is common in both boys and girls during puberty.
This condition is called gynecomastia and is a normal sign of hormonal
changes.”106 This definition is incorrect. In adolescent medicine,
gynecomastia refers to a general increase in breast tissue in boys.107

Those are just the highlights...

Dark_crow

Dec 24, 2007, 01:27 PM

Why should government have its hand in the matter? Keep government out of it.

Wondergirl

Dec 24, 2007, 02:12 PM

i'm starting to see your point, but to be honest with you, i'm not...too ok with someone "monitoring" my sexual (or the lack of) experiences...

would they monitor my room? if so, would they monitor me when i go outside my room? (e.g. - my friend's place, a party, school, a library? (remember that one?))

Well, of course we each would have an RFID chip embedded under our skin that would track us no matter where we are and there could even be a little webcam or audio device included so the screener could be "right there". And we'd sign a contract that there wouldn't be any critiquing of our behavior, just a yes or no report on sexual activity (for the $$ payment part of the deal). The chip would be removed on our wedding day. Maybe.

(My parents did something like this without a real chip. The fantasy chip was called responsibility. There was a second chip called guilt. The monitoring was that they knew where I went every time I went somewhere, and I called in to report to them if it got to be after 11 or past curfew. It worked. They removed the chips after I had been married for three years. I got pregnant soon after.)

But just think of the money you could be awarded for good behavior, i.e. abstinence!

ISneezeFunny

Dec 24, 2007, 02:36 PM

(My parents did something like this without a real chip. The fantasy chip was called responsibility. There was a second chip called guilt. The monitoring was that they knew where I went every time I went somewhere, and I called in to report to them if it got to be after 11 or past curfew. It worked. They removed the chips after I had been married for three years. I got pregnant soon after.)

Sorry, I laughed out loud when I read that.

My parents tried something like this. 1st one was called... fear of a beating. 2nd one was called... fear of a beating. 3rd one... you get my drift.

For some reason, however, it just works... only... sometimes... on some kids. Out of a 100 kids that were raised "properly"... which nowadays, you don't have a clue as to what "raising a child properly" really means... out of 100 of them, maybe 10 will end up in jail, maybe 10 will have kids out of wedlock, maybe 30 will go to ivy league schools and be a professional... and about 50 of them will simply get regular jobs. However, out of them, most will have sex before marriage. Is it wrong? Who knows.. if sex is "done right"... monogamous in a relationship... two young healthy people who love one another... using protection... is it still wrong?

Wondergirl

Dec 24, 2007, 02:44 PM

sorry, I laughed out loud when I read that.

I wrote it hoping it would give you a chuckle.

I grew up before civil rights, was the oldest child and first daughter of a minister. I was the example for the rural community we lived in. I didn't have a chance.

if sex is "done right"... monogamous in a relationship... two young healthy people who love one another... using protection... is it still wrong?

How do they know it's a real, committed love that will last? Of course, how do any of us know that? Maybe that "piece of paper" somewhat ensures that the couple will at least make an effort to stay together permanently.

Wondergirl

Dec 24, 2007, 02:50 PM

raised "properly"...which nowadays, you dont have a clue as to what "raising a child properly" really means

To shoot a gun, you need a firearms license and you can't shoot it just anywhere. For many jobs, you need training and education and perhaps even a license or certification. For something so important as raising a child, there are no requirements for training, education, obtaining a license or certification. We go into it blind and stupid.

My mother always used to tell me that she wished she could throw out the first kid, and start over with the second, now that she knew what she was doing. Since I was the first kid, I really didn't like to hear that. I thought I was turning out very well, a total pleaser.

ISneezeFunny

Dec 24, 2007, 02:51 PM

How do they know it's a real, committed love that will last? Of course, how do any of us know that? Maybe that "piece of paper" somewhat ensures that the couple will at least make an effort to stay together permanently.

Very very true. What I meant by "two people that love one another" was simply... just love. Not true love... not "i'm going to marry you and spend the rest of my life with you" love... but just love.

For example: two students in college or grad school... who have been together for some time. They truly respect one another and enjoy their time with one another, and they would like to express their love through sex, hoping that it will bring them closer physically and emotionally.

They communicate with one another about it, use protection, and take all precautions. They may or may not marry one another. Is that still wrong?

Side note: recently there was an article stating that some (correct me if I'm wrong here with the number) 90+% of people in the U.S. have had pre-marital sex, and about 65% of teens between ages 18 - 20 have had sex.

Wondergirl

Dec 24, 2007, 03:04 PM

hoping that it will bring them closer physically and emotionally.

My mother would say that that's not the purpose of sex, to do it with the hope of bringing yourself "closer" to someone else. That would be the excuse for any time, anywhere, whenever hormones begin churning. She would say the purpose of sex is to express your love once you have formally and legally committed yourself to one person.

Thinking like my mother would sure cut down on non-marital sex, wouldn't it. Oh, gee, it's the way most people (even the non-Christians) used to think about sex.

ISneezeFunny

Dec 24, 2007, 03:13 PM

Yeah... most people also used to get up to change the channel, right? ;) those good old days.

I'm not saying pre-marital sex is right, or wrong. I'm just saying, if you're going to do it, then be smart about it. Don't sleep around... don't sleep with the first girl you meet at a frat party, mainly because you'll wake up in the morning, go through her medicine cabinet hoping her pill bottles will say her name, because surely, you have no idea what it is.

My brother is a freshmen in high school, and I'm embarrassed to say, his friends know more about sex than the people in my class (I'm a senior in college). I'm serious! They know different positions, different ways of doing it, etc. it's... a bit filthy out there.

So. When he hits junior year of high school, (and I pray this day will never come... ) I will give him the talk. And I will buy him a box of condoms. Awkward? Absolutely. Unpleasant? You betcha. But I'd rather have a brother who's disgusted by the idea that his older brother just gave him the talk than one with a kid at the age of 16.

p.s. - for those who wonder why my parents aren't giving him the talk... I'm asian. Traditionally, asian cultures don't talk about sex. It's taboo to talk about it. My parents never gave me the talk... figured I'd learn on my own. Did it push me to have sex? I don't think so. I knew what was wrong... what was right. Plus, I lost my virginity later than my friends who actually did have the talk with their parents.

jillianleab

Dec 24, 2007, 03:42 PM

Why should government have its hand in the matter? Keep government out of it.

The ONLY reason I object to this is because I fear so many kids would never learn a thing, or would learn incorrect information. Many parents are embarrassed to talk to their kids about sex, so they might take the attitude, "Meh. They'll figure it out!" Where does that leave the kid? Knocked up and with herpagonosyphalaids!

Sex ed is one of those tough subjects - it's nearly impossible to teach it without moral overtones. Since everyone's morals are different, it causes conflict. Even if they stuck to strict medical information ("This is how menstruation works, this is how a woman gets pregnant, these are prevention methods) and left out any moral guidance ("Use a condom", "Wait until marriage") it's going to offend people.

I do fully support a parent's choice to opt their child out of sex ed, but I wonder if it's always in the best interest of the child...

BABRAM

Dec 24, 2007, 05:27 PM

I don't know what the specifics, or details, that President Bush's advisory cabinet, Secretary of Education, have outlined in a national syllabus concerning "abstinence." I don't think that it should be a separate class though. Perhaps one time at the beginning of the school year in a two hour seminar format. I can say that I do agree with the idea in general and that it should be advised to students, as a positive. My concern is that it's really not our teachers responsibility to become the parents. It is the parents, however, that should be teaching their children abstinence at home. Instilling responsibility and teaching the consequences of actions. Unless your child is attending a very observant private institution, meaning that your child is surrounded by positive influences with verified history, it is very likely that sexual relations will occur especially to some degree (perhaps a moderately high percentage for some neighborhoods) in many public school systems (or outside of school for that matter). I know Bush would be criticized for suggesting that the parents take on this responsibility, but that's whom I hold accountable, not the teachers.

Bobby

ETWolverine

Dec 26, 2007, 07:54 AM

Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous
instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific
information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears
as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that
“twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four
chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual”; the
correct number is 23.

Several curricula cite an erroneous 1993 study of condom effectiveness that has
been discredited by federal health officials. The 1993 study, by Dr. Susan Weller,
looked at a variety of condom effectiveness studies and concluded that condoms
reduce HIV transmission by 69%.27 Dr. Weller’s conclusions were rejected by
the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued a statement in 1997
informing the public that “FDA and CDC believe this analysis was flawed.”28
The Department cited numerous methodological problems, including the mixing
of data on consistent condom use with data on inconsistent condom use, and
found that Dr. Weller’s calculation of a 69% effectiveness rate was based on
“serious error.”29 In fact, CDC noted that “[o]ther studies of discordant couples
— more recent and larger than the ones Weller reviewed, and conducted overseveral years — have demonstrated that consistent condom use is highly effective
at preventing HIV infection.”30
Despite these findings, several curricula refer approvingly to the Weller study.
One curriculum teaches: “A meticulous review of condom effectiveness was
reported by Dr. Susan Weller in 1993. She found that condoms were even less
likely to protect people from HIV infection. Condoms appear to reduce the risk
of heterosexual HIV infection by only 69%.”31 Another curriculum that cites Dr.
Weller’s data claims: “In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV
approximately 31% of the time.”32

The parent guide for one curriculum understates condom effectiveness by
falsely describing “actual use” as “scrupulous.” It states: “When used by
real people in real- life situations, research confirms that 14 percent of the
women who use condoms scrupulously for birth control become pregnant
within a year.”49 In fact, for couples who use condoms “scrupulously,”
the 2% to 3% failure rate applies.

Although religions and moral codes offer different answers to the question of
when life begins, some abstinence-only curricula present specific religious views
on this question as scientific fact. One curriculum teaches: “Conception, also
known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper
third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.”68 Another states:
“Fertilization (or conception) occurs when one of the father’s sperm unites with
the mother’s ovum (egg). At this instant a new human life is formed.”69

One curriculum that describes fetuses as “babies” describes the blastocyst,
technically a ball of 107 to 256 cells at the beginning of uterine implantation, 70 as
“snuggling” into the uterus:

Instead, some of the curricula provide distorted information on cervical cancer,
suggesting that it is a common conseque nce of premarital sex.

the curriculum misleadingly puts the CDC data in a new chart called
“Percent HIV Infected” and scrambles the CDC data in a way that suggests
greatly exaggerated HIV rates among teenagers. For example, where the CDC
chart showed that 41% of female teens with HIV reportedly acquired it through
heterosexual contact, the curriculum’s chart suggests that 41% of heterosexual
female teens have HIV. 95 It similarly implies that 50% of homosexual male teens
have HIV.96

Puberty. One curriculum tells instructors: “Reassure students that small
lumps in breast tissue is common in both boys and girls during puberty.
This condition is called gynecomastia and is a normal sign of hormonal
changes.”106 This definition is incorrect. In adolescent medicine,
gynecomastia refers to a general increase in breast tissue in boys.107

Those are just the highlights...

Jillian,

First of all, please tell me how knowing the exact, correct rate of failure of condoms is going to prevent teen pregnancy. Even assuming that Weller was wrong, and even assuming that the failure rate for condom use is only 2-3%, how does knowing that prevent teen sex or teen pregnancy?

Second, according to many (if not most) religions, life does begin at conception. And while such life is not viable from the point of conception, there is no scientific evidence that this is NOT life. So that description of when life begins is as legitimate as any other... no more or less arbitrary than any other. Furthermore, the use of the term "baby" to describe the fetus is a perfectly legitimate description as well, for those who believe that life begins at conception. It isn't "wrong", it is just different from the term that Right To Choosers would like us to use.

Third, exactly how does knowing when conception takes place and when life begins affect the rate of teen pregnancy and teen sex? Is "scientifically correct education" doing anything to stop kids from having sex? Seems to me that fewer kids were becoming pregnant in the 50s when there was no such thing as sex ed and when abstinance training was the norm. How has all this scientific knowledge improved things?

You see, Jillian, that is the whole point. Since the 60s, we have been getting a tripple message... one that says "don't have sex" from the parents, and another that says "sex is cool" from the media, and a third message from "educators" who tell us "don't have sex before marriage, but if you do, use a condom and birth control"... which kids always take as tacit permission to have sex. Give a kid an out or an excuse, and he'll use it. That's what kids do.

And educators justify this mixed message through talk of educating kids about the realities of sex. Supposedly, if kids know the "truth" about sex, it will prevent them from having sex or becoming pregnant... but the numbers clearly show that it hasn't worked out that way. Not because of what information is being transmitted or whether that information is accurate or not, but because kids are being told that sex is okay... even if that isn't the intent of those transmitting this information.

Here is the only thing that teens need to know about having sex:

1) Sex can get you pregnant.
2) Sex can give you diseases, some of which can kill you, and others that have no cure.
3) Becoming pregnant before marriage or getting a disease will change your life irrevocably for the worse and forever.
4) Even condoms and birth control are not perfect ways to stop disease or pregnancy.
5) The only sure way to keep from getting pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted disease is abstinance.

End of lesson.

Every one of those 5 facts is "scientifically accurate". Every one of them is completely truthful. And every one of them gives a single message... don't have sex before marriage.

I managed to type that "lesson plan" in about a minute and a half... maybe less. That's about how long a "sex ed" class should be. Statistial information on condom failure rates, biology regarding the origin of life, psychology regarding the effects of sex on the relationship, sociology regarding the effects of pregnancy on teens and their babies, etc. are all irrelevant to this message. They don't add anything to the message. They don't make things any more "real" for the kids than what I wrote above. It wastes time, and gives kids an out to have sex and screw up their lives. And that is directly counter to the stated purpose of these "sex ed" teachers, which is to protect the kids.

This is the abstinance-only sex-ed program that I support.

Anybody have any issues with it?

Elliot

excon

Dec 26, 2007, 08:20 AM

Here is the only thing that teens need to know about havin sex:

1) Sex can get you pregnant.
2) Sex can give you diseases, some of which can kill you, and others that have no cure.
3) Becoming pregnant before marriage or getting a disease will change your life irrevocably for the worse and forever.
4) Even condoms and birth control are not perfect ways to stop disease or pregnancy.
5) The only sure way to keep from getting pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted disease is abstinence.

End of lesson....... Every one of those 5 facts is "scientifically accurate". Every one of them is completely truthful. And every one of them gives a single message... don't have sex before marriage.

Anybody have any issues with it?

ElliotHello El:

Yes. Me.

You ended the lesson without educating them. What your message “don't have sex before marriage” does, is indoctrinate them. School should be about education – not indoctrination. I'd leave the indoctrination to the parents.

So, I'd amend your “lesson” to read as follows:

1) Sex can get you pregnant.

2) You can catch deadly diseases with unprotected sex.

3) Condoms for the most part DO work in disease prevention.

4) Birth control for the most part, DOES work to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

5) The only sure way to keep from getting pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted disease is abstinence.

End of lesson.

Every one of those 5 facts is "scientifically accurate". Every one of them is completely truthful. And every one of them gives a single message... If you have sex before marriage, protect yourself.

That's what educating them would do.

Or do you think it's fine that political or religious indoctrination SHOULD be done by the public educators? Would you say the same thing about that left wing loon (indoctrinator) who teaches at the University of Colorado??

Or is it only OK when they indoctrinate with YOUR message?

excon

ETWolverine

Dec 26, 2007, 09:05 AM

Excon,

And what's wrong with "indoctrination" as you put it? There are some issues that are black & white, and telling it like it is is what we should be doing. Indocttrination can only occur if there is another valid viewpoint that we are hiding from kids. In my opinion, there is no other valid viewpoint in this case.

We don't tell kids that its okay to steal as long as they have the protection of a good attorney who can get them off most of the time. We tell them that stealing is wrong. There's no information about the statistics of lawyers getting their clients off. There's nothing about how theft is OK if it is done in the "proper manner" and if you get caught you need to have a good attorney. We don't equivocate on theft with our kids, because theft is WRONG and we know it.

Do we say that not teaching our kids information about attorneys is "indoctrination"? No. Because there is no other valid viewpoint other than "stealing is bad".

So why do we say that giving a clear message of "don't have sex before marriage" in no uncertain terms, without any talk about condoms and birth control, is indoctrination? Why do we say that kids need "the full story" on sex if we know that teen sex is wrong?

The only possible reason that we would OK such an ambiguous message, and that we would call abstinance education "indoctrination" is because we are not quite so sure that the message regarding teen sex is black-and-white. Many of us don't believe it ourselves. Deep down, there are some who don't really have a problem with teen sex as long as it is protected sex. That is the only reason that an unambiguous message of "don't do it" without any caveats is "indoctrination".

Sorry, but I don't see it as indoctrination. I don't condone teen sex on any level. I see this as a black-and-white issue. Teen sex is wrong. Period. Anything that give the impression that teen sex MIGHT be OK as long as there is protection is wrong. Period. Any ambiguity in this message is WRONG. Period. It can only be "indoctrination" if there is another valid viewpoint that you are trying to hide from the kids. In my opinion, there is no valid viewpoint other than "teen sex is wrong, don't do it".

The "alternative" viewpoint of "It's ok to have teen sex as long as you are protected" is NOT a valid viewpoint, because it is NOT OK to have teen sex.

Or do you think that it is?

Elliot

tomder55

Dec 26, 2007, 09:05 AM

I don't know if Washington is better off or not but they made the decision to refuse the money rather than to comply with the provisions. That is a choice states make all the time regarding Federal grants.Like it or not they come with strings attached.

Look at it this way ; many of us wonder if it is the proper role of the national government in a Federal system to support any local education initiatives let alone sex ed. . Under President Bush we have had a consistent policy of national funding going to Abstinence Only Sex Education . By the way ;this has been the policy of the US since 1996 so again ;this did not begin and end with the GWB administration.

It would be up to Congress to change the stipulation. As I recall Madame Mimi planned to let Title V abstinence-education grants expires at the end of June.But I have no recent information on if it was extended.

And yes;to a degree education is indoctrination .Certainly behavior is taught in schools as well as at home. Civics is a matter of indoctrination also . The question really is ;which behavior do we want our children indoctrinated to follow ? A definitive "don't do it " is a stronger message than the muddled message of "don't do it ....but if you do......"

speechlesstx

Dec 26, 2007, 09:54 AM

Or is it only OK when they indoctrinate with YOUR message?

If only it were as simple as teaching your course. Therein lies the problem, I don't want our kids indoctrinated at school period. I've seen all the complaints about the abstinence only curriculum so I wanted to see what "comprehensive" curriculum was like. Here's some of what I found (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/index.htm):

Drawing Conclusions (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/drawingconclusions.htm): An Ice-Breaker*

Purpose: To give participants the opportunity to interact with each other and to expose underlying preconceived notions about GLBTQ people

Time: 45 minutes

Materials: Newsprint and markers; five index cards

Planning Notes: Before the session, write one of the following phrases on each of five index cards: GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, and STRAIGHT
Procedure:

* Begin by randomly dividing the group into five smaller groups (preferably of at least three people). Give a sheet of newsprint and a marker to each group; at the same time, hand the group one of the five index cards that you prepared in advance.

* Explain to the participants that each group has been given an identity and that the group will now draw a person who looks like or represents that identity. Participants can offer their own ideas or suggest ideas they have heard from others. Be sure to remind everyone that this is a safe space and that no one needs to be afraid or worried about suggesting a trait or idea to include in the group's picture. However, encourage the groups to work together in coming up with the final product. Tell them that they will have 15 minutes to complete their drawing.

* After 15 minutes has passed, ask all the groups to stop working even if they haven't finished. Then ask each group to stand up and explain their drawing in detail. After all the groups have explained their drawings, lead a group discussion using the questions below.

Discussion Questions:

1. How did the groups decide what each person would look like? Was it difficult to come up with a picture?
2. Where did your ideas come from about what each of these people looked like? People you know? The media?
3. Do your pictures convey positive or negative images of the identities?
4. Which of the identities do you think was easiest to draw? Hardest? Why?
5. What conclusions if any can you draw from this exercise?

What does this exercise have to do with preventing pregnancy and STD's? Nothing.

Create a poster or overhead with the following questions:

1. How does the method prevent pregnancy and STIs and HIV?
2. What makes the method easy for teenagers to use?
3. Can teens avoid disadvantages? How?

Procedure:

1. Tell the group that each bag contains a sample of a contraceptive method available to teens without a prescription, along with written information about that method. Go over the following instructions:

* Teens will be divided in teams.
* Each team will focus on one of the nonprescription methods.
* Read the information about your team's method and answer the questions listed on the poster or overhead.
* Pretend you work for an ad agency that promotes your method of contraception. Design a one-minute television commercial to market your contraceptive method (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/contraceptcommerc.htm) to teens. Be sure to emphasize what makes the method effective and easy to use.

2. Divide into six teams and ask each team to choose a representative to select one of the bagged methods. Distribute newsprint, markers, and other drawing materials to each team.
3. Have teens work on their commercials.
4. After 15 to 20 minutes, ask teams to present their commercials to the group. After each presentation, lead the group in a round of applause. Then, correct any misinformation presented.

I didn't send my kids to school to learn how to market contraceptives to teens.

10. A teenager has the legal right to obtain emergency contraception without her parent's permission.

A: True. Teens in every state have the right to obtain emergency contraception without parental consent or notification. Most Planned Parenthood and health department clinics offer confidential services to teens. Nevertheless, some private physicians' offices and health clinics require parental consent.

11. ECs can only be obtained from a doctor.

A: False. There are numerous ways to obtain a prescription. Call the National EC Hotline at 1-800-NOT-2-LATE to locate the nearest doctor or health clinic; call 1-800-230-PLAN to find the nearest Planned Parenthood health center. To find a nearby clinic, visit "www.not-2-late.com" or to get a prescription online (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/ec2.htm) visit "www.virtualmedicalgroup.com."

If I found out a teacher had helped my kid get an online EC prescription from a "virtualmedicalgroup" I would sue the pants off the district.

Ask participants to take five to 10 minutes to write down their family's values (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/familymessages.htm) on each topic.

Handout
How Does Your Family Feel About…

Write down the messages your family has given you on each of the following topics. What values do the messages convey?

Messages

Earning good grades in school
Cheating
Having friends
Being loyal
Using alcohol and other drugs
Lying
Making money
Selling drugs
Gaining respect from others
Being disrespectful
Graduating from high school
Getting a job
Going to college
Having expensive clothes, like running shoes
Having sex as a teenager
Using condoms or other forms of birth control
Trusting yourself
Getting a job to help your family
Having children
Getting in trouble with the law or other authorities, such as the principal

Maybe it's just me, but I find this exercise a little intrusive.

How to Be a Super Activist and/or Ally (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/activistally.htm)*

Purpose: To identify ways to be a great activist and/or ally to GLBTQ people; to get into action

Materials: Newsprint and markers; handouts, 14 Ways Homophobia and Transphobia Affect Everyone and Ways to Be a GLBTQ Ally or Activist; Leader's Resource, Ways to Fight Homophobia and Transphobia

Time: 45 minutes

Planning Notes: Go over the handout, 14 Ways Homophobia and Transphobia Affect Everyone. Be prepared to lead a discussion on it. Be ready with brief examples that you can use if necessary.
Procedure:

* Ask the group how they think homophobia and transphobia affect GLBTQ youth—write the participants' responses on newsprint on the board. (Help them to think of answers such as: they hurt them; they can cause depression; they make GLBTQ youth think that they aren't as good as other people; they can lead to drug and alcohol use, etc.)
* Next have participants count off so they can form into groups of four or five. Say that they will have about 10 minutes to discuss whether homophobia and transphobia affect straight youth. If they think that the answer is yes, ask them to come up with five or six examples.
* Bring the groups back together and ask them to share some of the things they came up with. Record their answers on the newsprint.
* Distribute and discuss the handout 14 Ways Homophobia and Transphobia Affect Everyone.
* Ask participants to get back into their groups. Tell them that they are now going to spend about ten minutes discussing ways that GLBTQ youth and their straight allies can fight homophobia and transphobia. Distribute the handout Ways to Be a GLBTQ Ally or Activist. Ask participants to first spend about five minutes filling in the handout individually. Tell them you will let them know when the five minutes are up.
* Once the five minutes are up, ask the participants to talk in their groups about ways they identified to fight homophobia and transphobia. Tell participants that they can add to their original list if someone in their group has a good idea they hadn't already thought of.
* Ask everyone to reassemble. Ask for volunteers to share ways in which they think they can act as an ally of GLBTQ youth. Write the ideas on a sheet of newsprint. Add checkmarks beside similar or second suggestions that have already been made. Ask participants to add to their own handout any suggestions that they hear for the first time that seem especially good to them. Include the suggestions from the Leader's Resource, Ways to Fight Homophobia and Transphobia, if no one suggests them. Ask participants to add asterisks (stars) on their handouts by any action(s) they are willing to take in the future. Ask them to commit to taking those actions consistently (whenever the need arises) and to add their signatures to their handouts if they haven't already done so.
* Finish up with the Discussion Questions below.

Discussion Questions:

1. Did you learn anything today that surprised you?
2. Were you surprised about ways in which homophobia affects your life? The lives of your friends and family?
3. In view of what you know now, will you take action to oppose homophobia and transphobia when you witness them?

No indoctrination there, right? Now I know there are those here that will say they find nothing wrong with this, but I say it has no business in public schools.

excon

Dec 26, 2007, 09:55 AM

In my opinion, there is no valid viewpoint other than "teen sex is wrong, don't do it".

The "alternative" viewpoint of "It's ok to have teen sex as long as you are protected" is NOT a valid viewpoint, because it is NOT ok to have teen sex. Or do you think that it is?Hello again, El:

I'm not surprised that you think giving children correct information about sex is giving them PERMISSION to HAVE sex. Those words are what YOU and right wing buddy's make up. They're NOT mine. You can't find them anywhere in the things I say. But, facts don't often times stop zealots like you.

If there's a viewpoint about having sex being WRONG, let the parents teach it.

If there's information that will protect children who DO have sex, let the schools educate them.

Seems simple to me.

excon

PS> By the way, if you look around, the viewpoint that having sex is WRONG (even by YOUNG GIRLS), isn't shared by very many people. Have you glanced at a teen magazine lately??

Oh, I agree, in their more pious moments at a PTA meeting or at church, people will furl their brows and say sex is bad. Then they'll go home and turn on Desperate Housewives.

Uhhh, the kids are watching.

N0help4u

Dec 26, 2007, 10:14 AM

It isn't so much that 'correct information about sex is giving them PERMISSION to HAVE sex'.
But kids are taught to accept it as nothing any more valued or more serious than dogs after each other. In grade school they are not taught accept homosexuality as a life style choose of others, they are taught CONSIDER it as a lifestyle FOR YOURSELF. Many kids are growing up saying they are 'not gay' and 'not bi' but just experimenting.

Sex education the way you suggest is already being done in the schools for the past 10 to 15 years and the results are more kids are having more sex and more sexual partners and more babies and more abortions.
Then by the time they are in their 20's they are so confused and have no idea what love is enough to make a good choice in a choosing a partner.

The funding is for the abstinence program. If the school wants to teach what they have been teaching then they can get the funding for that from where they HAVE been getting it.

excon

Dec 26, 2007, 10:16 AM

No indoctrination there, right? Now I know there are those here that will say they find nothing wrong with this, but I say it has no business in public schools.Hello Steve:

I agree with you, there should be NONE of that in public schools. However, as long as SOME viewpoints are allowed, there will be some you don't agree with.

Earlier, I suggested a 5 point sex education class. I further suggest that it is viewpoint FREE. Here it is again:

1) Sex can get you pregnant.

2) You can catch deadly diseases with unprotected sex.

3) Condoms for the most part DO work in disease prevention.

4) Birth control for the most part, DOES work to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

5) The only sure way to keep from getting pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted disease is abstinence.

End of lesson.

excon
The sex mon

speechlesstx

Dec 26, 2007, 10:17 AM

It would be up to Congress to change the stipulation. As I recall Madame Mimi planned to let Title V abstinence-education grants expires at the end of June.But I have no recent information on if it was extended.

Yes, by a vote of 276–140 the House not only extended the grants but the funding increased (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/abstinence-only-sex-education-165424.html#post791761) by $27.8 million - along with an increase in Title X family planning funding.

speechlesstx

Dec 26, 2007, 10:21 AM

End of lesson.

Like I said, if only it were that simple.

jillianleab

Dec 26, 2007, 10:37 AM

Oh, ETW, how we disagree! :D

Jillian,

First of all, please tell me how knowing the exact, correct rate of failure of condoms is going to prevent teen pregnancy. Even assuming that Weller was wrong, and even assuming that the failure rate for condom use is only 2-3%, how does knowing that prevent teen sex or teen pregnancy?

The point is they are lying to the kids to scare them. Giving false information to scare kids into doing what you want is not education. Beyond that, poorly educated teens become poorly educated adults. It is my opinion that the kids who are taught the incorrect failure rate of condoms might figure "Well, these things don't work anyway, might as well not use them". So, knowing the actual failure rate might not prevent teen sex, but it helps prevents teen pregnancy. If given the choice of the two - I want fewer teen mothers. Ideally you drop both figures, but lying isn't going to do that.

Second, according to many (if not most) religions, life does begin at conception.

That says it all. From a biological standpoint the moment of conception produces a blatocyst, which is NOT a life. It is personal and religious opinion when life begins. So no, it's NOT scientifically accurate, it's religiously acurate which doesn't belong in a health class. Read my link - there's a great deal about the needs of men and women in there too which is rather disturbing and not scientifically based at all.

Third, exactly how does knowing when conception takes place and when life begins affect the rate of teen pregnancy and teen sex? Is "scientifically correct education" doing anything to stop kids from having sex? Seems to me that fewer kids were becoming pregnant in the 50s when there was no such thing as sex ed and when abstinance training was the norm. How has all this scientific knowledge improved things?

Because sex ed is not just about preventing teen sex and teen pregnancy. It's sex EDUCATION. It's like an extra biology class, but better. If incorrect information were being taught in a bio class, would you object? I don't understand why you object to informing students - you can have it both ways. Equip them with the knowledge they need to make correct decisions in the future and tell them not to do it. Telling them condoms work doesn't have to be equal to giving them the green light to sneak behind the bleachers. And "this scientific knowledge has improved things" by encouraging students to become health care professionals, to not be afraid of people with HIV, to know you can't catch an STD from a toilet seat, and you can't get pregnant from touching someone genitals. Oh, and to have protected sex when they DO engage (teen or adult).

You see, Jillian, that is the whole point. Since the 60s, we have been getting a tripple message... one that says "don't have sex" from the parents, and another that says "sex is cool" from the media, and a third message from "educators" who tell us "don't have sex before marriage, but if you do, use a condom and birth control"... which kids always take as tacit permission to have sex. Give a kid an out or an excuse, and he'll use it. That's what kids do.

I agree, kids are getting a mixed message. I don't agree that informing kids about contraception gives them permission to have sex. Lots of married couples use condoms and birth control (everyone I know) and if they learned in school these things don't work, why would they think they would work as an adult? I suppose you might be of the opinion sex should be for procreation only, but I don't think you are. Further, you have previously stated you don't care what adults do, so shouldn't adults be educated too? Shouldn't we send our kids into adulthood with the proper knowledge to make correct decisions?

And educators justify this mixed message through talk of educating kids about the realities of sex. Supposedly, if kids know the "truth" about sex, it will prevent them from having sex or becoming pregnant... but the numbers clearly show that it hasn't worked out that way. Not because of what information is being transmitted or whether that information is accurate or not, but because kids are being told that sex is okay... even if that isn't the intent of those transmitting this information.

Yes, the numbers have not shown the objective to be working, but I was in high school less than 10 years ago - I remember sex ed. It was worthless. It came too late (meaning many people I knew were already having sex) and it was poorly designed. It was taught just like a bio class - no emphasis on WHY one should wait was there, except maybe a few mentions. No mention of the impact of having a child as a teen, no mention of the impact sex can have on a teen relationship. I think we spent a day on sex ed, we spent more time on drinking and the effects of alcohol. Oh, and they told us more often not to drink than not to have sex. The current curriculum is BROKEN, but a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer. This will make speechless have a heart attack (:))... but I agree with PP about having comprehensive sex ed from the beginning of school. I think if we start young we can prevent kids from having sex to early.

Here is the only thing that teens need to know about having sex:

1) Sex can get you pregnant.
2) Sex can give you diseases, some of which can kill you, and others that have no cure.
3) Becoming pregnant before marriage or getting a disease will change your life irrevocably for the worse and forever.
4) Even condoms and birth control are not perfect ways to stop disease or pregnancy.
5) The only sure way to keep from getting pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted disease is abstinance.

End of lesson.

I think I've explained why I don't agree with this lesson plan - it's doesn't teach kids anything. School is about receiving an education. By all means, if you don't want your kids to know how condoms actually work, how STDs are transmitted, what can be done to prevent them, what can be done to prevent pregnancy and so on, opt them out and teach them your lesson plan above. MY kids will be informed. BTW, #4 is not "scientifically accurate". Both things will change your life forever, but it won't necessarily change it for the worse.

Also, you seem to waiver - you say "no sex before marriage" but you've previously said (in another thread) you don't care what adults do. I don't think teens should be having sex, but I think sex before marriage is VERY important.

It's my opinion that the kids who don't have sex until later in life do so because of the lessons taught at home, not at school. The lessons at school might reinforce their decision, it might make some kids who are on the fence go the right way, but really, it comes from the home. Sex ed isn't what is causing teen pregnancy and sex numbers to go up, it's lack of parental involvement.

jillianleab

Dec 26, 2007, 10:44 AM

In grade school they are not taught accept homosexuality as a life style choose of others, they are taught CONSIDER it as a lifestyle FOR YOURSELF.

Sorry, but where is this happening? This is not something I'd ever heard of. Do you have a link?

ETWolverine

Dec 26, 2007, 10:51 AM

Hello again, El:

I'm not surprised that you think giving children correct information about sex is giving them PERMISSION to HAVE sex. Those words are what YOU and right wing buddy's make up. They're NOT mine. You can't find them anywhere in the things I say. But, facts don't often times stop zealots like you.

YOU may not actually be saying it. Neither might the sex-ed teachers... not in so many words. But as I said above, give a kid a way out and he'll take it. Saying "teen sex is bad, don't do it", leaves no way out, no ambiguity. Saying "teen sex is bad, but if you do it, use protection" leaves the kids a way out and creates ambiguity that teens will use with all the facility of a professional criminal attorney, and you know it.

If there's a viewpoint about having sex being WRONG, let the parents teach it.

If there's information that will protect children who DO have sex, let the schools educate them.

Why should sex be taught at all outside the home? If sexual viewpoints are an issue for parents, let it STAY in the home, and let schools stay out of it.

Seems simple to me.

Is that because you are being simple-minded? :rolleyes:

PS> By the way, if you look around, the viewpoint that having sex is WRONG (even by YOUNG GIRLS), isn't shared by very many people. Have you glanced at a teen magazine lately??

Oh, I agree, in their more pious moments at a PTA meeting or at church, people will furl their brows and say sex is bad. Then they'll go home and turn on Desperate Housewives.

Uhhh, the kids are watching.

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY PRIOR POSTS!!

The media are complicit in this issue. But if we could turn the media towards the solution, as we have done regarding teen drug use, teen smoking, teen drinking, etc. then the solution is at least partially at hand. If we used our ad geniuses to put on an abstinance-only campaign the same way that they put on anti-smoking campaigns, it would certainly help matters.

If media, schools, and parents all got onto the same page and stopped giving ambiguous messages regarding sex to our kids and instead started giving a single message of abstinance to them, our kids attitudes would change.

So glad you agree as to where the problem lies.

Elliot

N0help4u

Dec 26, 2007, 10:52 AM

I hear many stories from parents of kids on the radio happening in many different places

Homosexual Lifestyle Exposed (http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/gaystudy.html)

Gay News From 365Gay.com (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/04/042706book.htm)

Schools Official Assails 'Gay Lifestyle' (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58894-2005Feb2.html)

Court Rules Schools Can Teach Homosexuality Without Parents Consent or Choice to Opt Out (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07022604.html)

Wondergirl

Dec 26, 2007, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by N0help4u
In grade school they are not taught accept homosexuality as a life style choose of others, they are taught CONSIDER it as a lifestyle FOR YOURSELF.

If you honestly and unbiasedly read the links you posted, you will find that your quote about schools teaching students to consider homosexuality is not true.

At least one of the links is a fundamentalist Christian attack on homosexuality. On the other hand, the schools/teachers in two of the links attempted to teach diversity and acceptance of someone who is not like oneself.

tomder55

Dec 26, 2007, 11:03 AM

Yes, by a vote of 276–140 the House not only extended the grants but the funding increased by $27.8 million - along with an increase in Title X family planning funding.

So when given a choice between defunding a program they don't agree with or expanding federal spending the Democrats can't help themselves... they opt for expanded spending every time ? Lol

excon

Dec 26, 2007, 11:04 AM

Why should sex be taught at all outside the home? ..... let schools stay out of it............. The media are complicit in this issue.Hello again, El:

Bingo... Sadly, however, most parents don't. You say the kids should remain ignorant. I say they shouldn't.

Regarding the media; You, of the right wing persuasion, think the media CREATES popular culture. I, of the correct wing persuasion, understand that the media only REFLECTS popular culture.

excon

Wondergirl

Dec 26, 2007, 11:22 AM

N0help4u agrees: my statement was from hearing parents telling what their kids are being taught in grade school. My kids told me similar stuff. Those are just some sites I looked up on the subject.

I was a grade school teacher. I have two children who attended school. I was in the local PTA and even served as an officer. I helped out at many fund-raising events. In short, I was part of many converstions with other parents.

Unfortunately, too many of them stretch the truth to fit into their own religious agenda. If this is the report from public schools: "School officials said they were not seeking to promote a [homosexual] agenda, beyond tolerance and a kind of cultural literacy," there are parents who will decide that public school students are being given a green light to "choose homosexuality." And that's not the case at all.

ETWolverine

Dec 26, 2007, 11:28 AM

Oh, ETW, how we disagree! :D

The point is they are lying to the kids to scare them. Giving false information to scare kids into doing what you want is not education. Beyond that, poorly educated teens become poorly educated adults. It is my opinion that the kids who are taught the incorrect failure rate of condoms might figure "Well, these things don't work anyway, might as well not use them". So, knowing the actual failure rate might not prevent teen sex, but it helps prevents teen pregnancy. If given the choice of the two - I want fewer teen mothers. Ideally you drop both figures, but lying isn't going to do that.

That says it all. From a biological standpoint the moment of conception produces a blatocyst, which is NOT a life. It is personal and religous opinion when life begins. So no, it's NOT scientifically accurate, it's religiously acurate which doesn't belong in a health class. Read my link - there's a great deal about the needs of men and women in there too which is rather disturbing and not scientifically based at all.

Because sex ed is not just about preventing teen sex and teen pregnancy. It's sex EDUCATION. It's like an extra biology class, but better. If incorrect information were being taught in a bio class, would you object? I don't understand why you object to informing students - you can have it both ways. Equip them with the knowledge they need to make correct decisions in the future and tell them not to do it. Telling them condoms work doesn't have to be equal to giving them the green light to sneak behind the bleachers. And "this scientific knowledge has improved things" by encouraging students to become health care professionals, to not be afraid of people with HIV, to know you can't catch an STD from a toilet seat, and you can't get pregnant from touching someone genitals. Oh, and to have protected sex when they DO engage (teen or adult).

I agree, kids are getting a mixed message. I don't agree that informing kids about contraception gives them permission to have sex. Lots of married couples use condoms and birth control (everyone I know) and if they learned in school these things don't work, why would they think they would work as an adult? I suppose you might be of the opinion sex should be for procreation only, but I don't think you are. Further, you have previously stated you don't care what adults do, so shouldn't adults be educated too? Shouldn't we send our kids into adulthood with the proper knowledge to make correct decisions?

Yes, the numbers have not shown the objective to be working, but I was in high school less than 10 years ago - I remember sex ed. It was worthless. It came too late (meaning many people I knew were already having sex) and it was poorly designed. It was taught just like a bio class - no emphasis on WHY one should wait was there, except maybe a few mentions. No mention of the impact of having a child as a teen, no mention of the impact sex can have on a teen relationship. I think we spent a day on sex ed, we spent more time on drinking and the effects of alcohol. Oh, and they told us more often not to drink than not to have sex. The current curriculum is BROKEN, but a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer. This will make speechless have a heart attack (:)).... but I agree with PP about having comprehensive sex ed from the beginning of school. I think if we start young we can prevent kids from having sex to early.

I think I've explained why I don't agree with this lesson plan - it's doesn't teach kids anything. School is about receiving an education. By all means, if you don't want your kids to know how condoms actually work, how STDs are transmitted, what can be done to prevent them, what can be done to prevent pregnancy and so on, opt them out and teach them your lesson plan above. MY kids will be informed. BTW, #4 is not "scientifically accurate". Both things will change your life forever, but it won't necessarily change it for the worse.

Also, you seem to waiver - you say "no sex before marriage" but you've previously said (in another thread) you don't care what adults do. I don't think teens should be having sex, but I think sex before marriage is VERY important.

It's my opinion that the kids who don't have sex until later in life do so because of the lessons taught at home, not at school. The lessons at school might reinforce their decison, it might make some kids who are on the fence go the right way, but really, it comes from the home. Sex ed isn't what is causing teen pregnancy and sex numbers to go up, it's lack of parental involvement.

Oh... so we're worried about kids getting "accurate" information about sex, but not about them getting an education in reading, writing and arithmatic, history, geography, social sciences, etc. Why are "educators" so worried about making sure kids know about sex, but willing to sacrifice on REAL education? Please don't tell me how worried about education our schools are when 80% of kids can't find their own home state on a globe. EDUCATION is the LAST thing on school administrations' minds. Except when it comes to "GLBT issues", how to use a condom, and how to have "safe sex"... then suddenly we're worried about getting "accurate information" to kids.

So tell me, Jillian, why were there so many fewer teen pregnancies and cases of teen sex during the 50s and prior... before sex-ed became a hot topic? If kids were avoiding pregnancy and not having sex BEFORE sex-ed, but are having MORE sex and getting pregnant more often AFTER sex-ed started, what does that tell you about sex ed?

Somehow, kids in the 50s and earlier learned the lessons of how to avoid STDs and pregnancy without the schools stepping in to give them "accurate information". And they managed to have babies after getting married too, so their natural abilities were not inhibited by not having sex-ed classes. The lack of "accurate information" didn't hurt them.

Since the 60s, however, sex-ed has become the norm. Kids have learned about condoms, about BC, about STDs, and about pregnancy. The information may or may not have been accurate, but there was certainly more information available through sex-ed than ever before. And yet, despite that, teem sex, teen pregnancies, STDs etc. all grew by huge percentages.

What happened?

Simple: this idea that kids are supposed to have "accurate information" about sex as teens backfired badly. Whereas before, they were simply told "don't do it" they are now hearing "don't do it, but if you do..." And the only part they are hearing is "but if you do..."

So, how do we fix it?

Well first, we stop telling the kids "if you do..." There is no "if you do..." If you do, then you have messed up badly, and you will suffer the consequences of your actions. Go back to the unambiguous message of "don't do it".

Second, you scrap the whole idea that junior high school and high school are supposed to be there to teach kids about accurate/safe sex. They are not. They are there to teach kids how to read, write, and do math and understand history so that they can become productive memebers of society. (Note that I did not say "REproductive members of society".) Sex education is not for the school system. You want to know about human biology, take a bio class.

Third, you get the media to start becoming a part of the solution, not the problem. Ad campaigns. Enforcement of the movie ratings system to keep kids below a certain age away from certain movies and DVDs. You start sending a consistent message regarding teen sex--- doing it isn't cool, it's going to get you in trouble, so don't do it. You get parents, teachers, and advertisers to all push that same message... and you leave off the stuff about "but if you do..." because THAT is the mixed message. Just don't do it.

That's all there is to it. It's a simple plan. It doesn't take much effort, but it does take changing the way people think about sex-ed in schools. It doesn't work, it never has, and it never will. Making it "more accurate" isn't going to change that fact. We have 40+ years to prove that it hasn't worked.

You have a model of a society that successfully eliminates teen sex and teen preganancy and STDs to copy. Several in fact. The religious Muslim community in the USA has managed to handle these issues as well as the Orthodox Jewish community. You have a model that works... one where schools and parents and media are all working in tandem to give the same message. COPY that model, and you can solve, or at least alleviate, the problem.

Elliot

speechlesstx

Dec 26, 2007, 11:30 AM

Sorry, but where is this happening? This is not something I'd ever heard of. Do you have a link?

I don't know where or if this is happening, but here is a recommended lesson plan from Advocates for Youth I find disturbing:

How to Be a Super Activist and/or Ally (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/activistally.htm)*

Purpose: To identify ways to be a great activist and/or ally to GLBTQ people; to get into action

Materials: Newsprint and markers; handouts, 14 Ways Homophobia and Transphobia Affect Everyone and Ways to Be a GLBTQ Ally or Activist; Leader's Resource, Ways to Fight Homophobia and Transphobia

Time: 45 minutes

Planning Notes: Go over the handout, 14 Ways Homophobia and Transphobia Affect Everyone. Be prepared to lead a discussion on it. Be ready with brief examples that you can use if necessary.
Procedure:

* Ask the group how they think homophobia and transphobia affect GLBTQ youth—write the participants' responses on newsprint on the board. (Help them to think of answers such as: they hurt them; they can cause depression; they make GLBTQ youth think that they aren't as good as other people; they can lead to drug and alcohol use, etc.)
* Next have participants count off so they can form into groups of four or five. Say that they will have about 10 minutes to discuss whether homophobia and transphobia affect straight youth. If they think that the answer is yes, ask them to come up with five or six examples.
* Bring the groups back together and ask them to share some of the things they came up with. Record their answers on the newsprint.
* Distribute and discuss the handout 14 Ways Homophobia and Transphobia Affect Everyone.
* Ask participants to get back into their groups. Tell them that they are now going to spend about ten minutes discussing ways that GLBTQ youth and their straight allies can fight homophobia and transphobia. Distribute the handout Ways to Be a GLBTQ Ally or Activist. Ask participants to first spend about five minutes filling in the handout individually. Tell them you will let them know when the five minutes are up.
* Once the five minutes are up, ask the participants to talk in their groups about ways they identified to fight homophobia and transphobia. Tell participants that they can add to their original list if someone in their group has a good idea they hadn't already thought of.
* Ask everyone to reassemble. Ask for volunteers to share ways in which they think they can act as an ally of GLBTQ youth. Write the ideas on a sheet of newsprint. Add checkmarks beside similar or second suggestions that have already been made. Ask participants to add to their own handout any suggestions that they hear for the first time that seem especially good to them. Include the suggestions from the Leader's Resource, Ways to Fight Homophobia and Transphobia, if no one suggests them. Ask participants to add asterisks (stars) on their handouts by any action(s) they are willing to take in the future. Ask them to commit to taking those actions consistently (whenever the need arises) and to add their signatures to their handouts if they haven't already done so.
* Finish up with the Discussion Questions below.

Discussion Questions:

1. Did you learn anything today that surprised you?
2. Were you surprised about ways in which homophobia affects your life? The lives of your friends and family?
3. In view of what you know now, will you take action to oppose homophobia and transphobia when you witness them?

* Adapted and reprinted with permission of Gay-Straight Alliance Network of San Francisco, California.

This is the kind of nonsense that advocates of "comprehensive sex education" want in our schools if it isn't there already, along with exercises in having kids create ads for contraceptives, discussing personal family matters, how to get prescription EC online (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/ec1.htm) from a virtual doctor, and incredibly, a "heterosexual questionnaire (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/heterosexual2.htm)."

Heterosexual Questionnaire*

Please answer the following questions as honestly as possible.

Heterosexual Questionnaire*

Please answer the following questions as honestly as possible.

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and how did you first decide you were heterosexual?
3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
4. Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a fear of others of the same sex?
5. If you have never slept with a member of your own sex, is it possible that you might be gay if you tried it?
6. If heterosexuality is normal, why are so many mental patients heterosexual?
7. Why do you heterosexual people try to seduce others into your lifestyle?
8. Why do you flaunt your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?
9. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
10. With all the societal support that marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexual people?
11. Why are heterosexual people so promiscuous?
12. Would you want your children to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face, such as heartbreak, disease, and divorce?

You have GOT to be kidding me, right? Why are so many mental patients heterosexual? You might be gay of you tried it? Would you want your children to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face, such as heartbreak, disease, and divorce? Why on earth should anyone confront our children with crap like this?

N0help4u

Dec 26, 2007, 11:30 AM

I was a grade school teacher. I have two children who attended school. I was in the local PTA and even served as an officer. I helped out at many fund-raising events. In short, I was part of many converstions with other parents.

Unfortunately, too many of them stretch the truth to fit into their own religious agenda. If this is the report from public schools: "School officials said they were not seeking to promote a [homosexual] agenda, beyond tolerance and a kind of cultural literacy," there are parents who will decide that public school students are being given a green light to "choose homosexuality." And that's not the case at all.

Also you do hear of many teachers that put their own views on a subject that isn't necessarily the curriculum. Look at all the teachers even having sex with the students and so forth.

When I was in 9th (1970) grade I had a teacher that was always telling us to go on down to the peace rally and smoke weed and we had a 'all about get high class' with him (short of actually doing it).

So I am sure many of the stories are true but not necessarily endorsed by the school board but how do you weed it all out??

Wondergirl

Dec 26, 2007, 11:39 AM

Also you do hear of many teachers that put their own views on a subject that isn't necessarily the curriculum. Look at all the teachers even having sex with the students and so forth.

When I was in 9th (1970) grade I had a teacher that was always telling us to go on down to the peace rally and smoke weed and we had a 'all about get high class' with him (short of actually doing it).

So I am sure many of the stories are true but not necessarily endorsed by the school board but how do you weed it all out???

The majority of teachers are moral and trustworthy. Tell me how many are having sex with their students and encouraging them to break the law. I'm positive the numbers are minuscule.

You weed it all out by being involved in your child's school and knowing what goes on--and bringing abuses to light.

One of my sons had a teacher who didn't give a hoot about how he spelled words. Even the class mentioned to him that words were spelled wrong. He said, "Then look up the words and spell them right." Parents made things uncomfortable for him so that he is no longer a teacher at that school; he left education for the corporate world.

ETWolverine

Dec 26, 2007, 11:44 AM

Hello again, El:

Bingo... Sadly, however, most parents don't. You say the kids should remain ignorant. I say they shouldn't.

That's not an issue for the schools to be solving. It ain't their problem. They should stay out of it. If parents want to handle the issue themselves, fine. If not, it's STILL not the schools' problem.

And I have yet to see a parent who hasn't said to their kid the very simple message of "don't do it". EVERY parent tells their kids that much. And that is the ONLY message that teens should be getting. It's this "but if you do..." message that they get from schools that muddles the issue. Schools should stay out of it.

Regarding the media; You, of the right wing persuasion, think the media CREATES popular culture. I, of the correct wing persuasion, understand that the media only REFLECTS popular culture.

Excon

Really? Since when? Are you truly saying that media doesn't create popular cutlure? Are you saying that if the winners of American Idol hadn't been on TV they would still be famous? That we would give a crap about Paris Hilton if she wasn't in the media? That Anna Nichole Smith's death would have caused more than a mild rustle in her home town if she wasn't plastered all over the media twice a week? The MEDIA made these people, and these people drive pop culture.

That's why something like "yellow journalism" is so bad... because the media does have the power to drive society. Whereas culture was once driven by the aristocracy of old... by the styles and eccentricities of kings, queens, and members of their courts... today it is driven by the media.

Yes, media reflects pop-culture. But they also determine who is popular and who to watch within pop-culture (who's hot and who's not), and in doing so, they drive pop-culture to follow those icons of their own creation. They only reflect what they created in the first place. Ego, they are part of the problem... but can become part of the solution.

This is basic sociology and basic mass media studies... subjects that are SUPPOSED to be taught in schools... not that sex-ed crap.

Elliot

N0help4u

Dec 26, 2007, 11:48 AM

got to spread rep ETW
... look at Britneys sister out of no where simply because she 'got pregnant'.
The media has devalued morals more than anything.
You can't even watch a 'family show' without hearing some degrading sexual joke or
*promoting* it somehow.

jillianleab

Dec 26, 2007, 12:39 PM

Oh... so we're worried about kids getting "accurate" information about sex, but not about them getting an education in reading, writing and arithmatic, history, geography, social sciences, etc. Why are "educators" so worried about making sure kids know about sex, but willing to sacrifice on REAL education? Please don't tell me how worried about education our schools are when 80% of kids can't find their own home state on a globe. EDUCATION is the LAST thing on school administrations' minds. Except when it comes to "GLBT issues", how to use a condom, and how to have "safe sex"... then suddenly we're worried about getting "accurate information" to kids.

Wait a sec - when did I say kids shouldn't get accurate or thorough education in other subjects?? :confused: I don't think educators are the ones who want to scrimp on the education we are giving our kids - it's the people handing out the checks. Have you ever worked for a public school system, or known someone who does? There is a shortage of good teachers out there because the pay is lousy and the work is hard, but the GOOD teachers actually CARE and protest when funding is cut and they have to scale back on lesson plans. And I find it very disturbing you don't think sex ed is a worthwhile subject to provide accurate information for, and you don't consider it a "real" subject. Do you advocate sexual ignorance?

So tell me, Jillian, why were there so many fewer teen pregnancies and cases of teen sex during the 50s and prior... before sex-ed became a hot topic? If kids were avoiding pregnancy and not having sex BEFORE sex-ed, but are having MORE sex and getting pregnant more often AFTER sex-ed started, what does that tell you about sex ed?

Culture. Globalization. The "free love" era. Parents who both have to work full time and end up leaving their 13-year old unsupervised. The media. BAD sex ed.

Oh, and in the 50s and prior, if you got knocked up you got sent to a home for unwed mothers and your baby was raised as your sibling. Yes, let's go back to THAT.

[QUTOE]So, how do we fix it?

Well first, we stop telling the kids "if you do..." There is no "if you do..." If you do, then you have messed up badly, and you will suffer the consequences of your actions. Go back to the unambiguous message of "don't do it".

Second, you scrap the whole idea that junior high school and high school are supposed to be there to teach kids about accurate/safe sex. They are not. They are there to teach kids how to read, write, and do math and understand history so that they can become productive memebers of society. (Note that I did not say "REproductive members of society".) Sex education is not for the school system. You want to know about human biology, take a bio class.[/QUOTE]

Ok, let's pretend there's no sex ed in schools. All we do is scream "DON'T DO IT!!!!" YOU think that will make kids not do it. YOU think there will be a drop in teen pregnancy and teen sex. I think there will be an increase in teen pregnancy and stds because teens are STILL going to do it and now they won't have any clue at how to prevent it. I think there will be an increase in incorrect, dangerous information spread out there. Like it or not, sex is a part of life, and in order to be a productive member of society, you have to know about it and know how to make smart choices about it. What good does it do to to be a math whiz if you think you can't get pregnant while breastfeeding (that's how my grandmother got pregnant with my aunt - in the 50s)

Third, you get the media to start becoming a part of the solution, not the problem. Ad campaigns. Enforcement of the movie ratings system to keep kids below a certain age away from certain movies and DVDs. You start sending a consistent message regarding teen sex--- doing it isn't cool, it's going to get you in trouble, so don't do it. You get parents, teachers, and advertisers to all push that same message... and you leave off the stuff about "but if you do..." because THAT is the mixed message. Just don't do it.

You keep saying this to me, and I keep telling you I agree, the media messages are part of the problem. But here's what you seem to be forgetting - the shows and movies that have sexual situations in them are for ADULTS, not kids. Grey's Anatomy isn't a show for 14 year olds. 40-year-old Virgin was rate "R", it was made for adults. Are you saying the gubment should step in and tell movie makers they can't make these movies because we have to protect our precious little snowflakes from any and all images of sex? Or that they can't advertise until after a certain time because, again, our precious little snowflakes might catch a glimpse of a kiss? Grey's Anatomy is on a 9pm - shouldn't most kids be in bed by then? Shouldn't it be up to the parents to make sure their kids aren't watching something like that? Or if they are, that's it's not appropriate behavior for him/her? Where's the personal responsibility?

And what happens when you don't tell teens about condoms and the pill? Ok, you've managed to keep them from doing it when they're teens, but now, at 23, they decide to do it. Condom? What's that? The pill? What pill? Oops - pregnant! Now make them married - is it any better if they aren't ready for a child at that point? Should people only get married when they are financially and emotionally ready for a child? Because if you don't teach them about contraceptives at SOME POINT we're going to have a bunch of idiot pregnant adults running around.

You have a model of a society that successfully eliminates teen sex and teen preganancy and STDs to copy. Several in fact. The religious Muslim community in the USA has managed to handle these issues as well as the Orthodox Jewish community. You have a model that works... one where schools and parents and media are all working in tandem to give the same message. COPY that model, and you can solve, or at least alleviate, the problem.

Elliot

And in those communities you have a strong religious backing. You also have a limited number or teens. You also have a strong community backing. You also have a low rate of teen PREGNANCY - that doesn't mean some aren't having sex. I had sex as a teen - I never got pregnant. Without knowing that, my parents and school could say what they did with me worked. I know better, but they don't.

jillianleab

Dec 26, 2007, 12:46 PM

This is the kind of nonsense that advocates of "comprehensive sex education" want in our schools if it isn't there already, along with exercises in having kids create ads for contraceptives, discussing personal family matters, how to get prescription EC online (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/ec1.htm) from a virtual doctor, and incredibly, a "heterosexual questionnaire (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/heterosexual2.htm)."

It's comprehensive speech. It's not just teaching about sex, it's teaching about communities and relationships and tolerance and different lifestlyes. It's getting kids comfortable talking about sex so they won't treat it like it's a secret, like it's taboo. So that maybe, if they are comfortable saying "birth control" they can go to their parent and ask for it. So that, later in life, when they DO have sex, they can pick the right contraceptive to use.

And the hetreosexual questionnaire? I swear to god, you have a knack for taking things out of context!

THIS: is the point of the hetersexual questionnaire:

Heterosexual Questionnaire*
Purpose: To give straight people an opportunity to experience the types of questions that are often asked of gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual people

Time: 40 minutes

Materials: Handout Heterosexual Questionnaire

Procedure:
Explain to the group that, when gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth are beginning to 'come out,' they are often asked questions that are nearly impossible to answer. In order to help participants understand the heterosexist bias** in our culture, you will ask them to grapple with these same questions in regard to heterosexuality.
Say that you will give them each a handout. They will break up into groups of four or five and try to come up with answers. Say that you want them to try to answer each question as well as to react to the questions as a whole. Irrespective of each participant's sexual orientation, everyone should attempt to answer as though he/she is heterosexual.
After about 10 minutes, ask everyone to reassemble in the large group. Ask the participants the Discussion Questions below.

You're a better person than that. A better person than someone who will skew something and take it out of context to fit his agenda, aren't you? I hope so, but as evidenced, you might not be. I'm disappointed, I really, really am. That was a low blow and it was pathetic.

Fr_Chuck

Dec 26, 2007, 12:52 PM

Schools should not cross the line into religious values. Once they do they are teaching their own religion. The ideaqs and values of sex and of acceptance of other life styles beyond conventional ones is not the schools place,

That is why of course I would never send my child to a public school.

excon

Dec 26, 2007, 12:58 PM

So tell me, Jillian, why were there so many fewer teen pregnancies and cases of teen sex during the 50s and prior... before sex-ed became a hot topic?Hello again, El:

Uhhhh, Dude! They invented a thing called the birth control pill. It came out in the 60's. I actually think THAT was the turning point, not sex ed.

I coulld be wrong... but I'm not.

excon

Wondergirl

Dec 26, 2007, 01:49 PM

Schools should not cross the line into religious values.

In Illinois there's a huge effort being put into a program called the "Character Counts! Coalition" that includes public schools. There are Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, citizenship. Here's the main site:

http://charactercounts.org/pdf/about/QuickLook-1005.pdf

Teaching morals and values is teaching religion? CC says no.

speechlesstx

Dec 26, 2007, 02:32 PM

It's comprehensive speech. It's not just teaching about sex, it's teaching about communities and relationships and tolerance and different lifestlyes. It's getting kids comfortable talking about sex so they won't treat it like it's a secret, like it's taboo. So that maybe, if they are comfortable saying "birth control" they can go to their parent and ask for it. So that, later in life, when they DO have sex, they can pick the right contraceptive to use.

Jillian, what business do our schools have teaching this kind of "comprehensive" sex ed? FYI, I have never said we can't teach sex ed in schools, but this kind of crap is as offensive to me as abstinence only education is to Planned Parenthood. Is there no happy medium? Seriously, I don't object to basic, unbiased sex ed but I don't want ANY public school teaching my kids about relationships, tolerance, different lifestyles and birth control - it's none of their $#$%! Business. And it's %$#$#@ sure not there place to give kids info on obtaining prescription EC online from virtual doctors. If you can't see the ethical concerns there I don't know what else to say.

And the hetreosexual questionnaire? I swear to god, you have a knack for taking things out of context!

Taking something out of context is when "a passage is removed from its surrounding matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context) in such a way as to distort its intended meaning." I did no such thing, I presented it word for word directly from the source and furnished the link.And if you were familiar with me at all you would know I abhor "contextomy" and expend a great deal of effort putting things back into context.

THIS: is the point of the hetersexual questionnaire:

Yeah, I get the point. What is the point of helping our children "understand the heterosexist bias in our culture?" Hmmm?

You're a better person than that. A better person than someone who will skew something and take it out of context to fit his agenda, aren't you? I hope so, but as evidenced, you might not be. I'm disappointed, I really, really am. That was a low blow and it was pathetic.

Jillian, talk about disappointing, I present word for word lesson plans from the source and you consider it a pathetic, low blow, intentional misrepresentation. Funny how it's noble to point out the errors in abstinence curriculum but "pathetic" to post verbatim lesson plans that undermine parental rights. What has apparently escaped you is I'm willing to compromise. I don't call for your kids to be indoctrinated with a faith based, error filled abstinence curriculum - don't call for mine to be indoctrinated with this other crap.

Wondergirl

Dec 26, 2007, 02:41 PM

excon agrees: Boy, did THEY screw up! They forgot VIRGINITY!

Boys are trustworthy when they are with girls = virginity
Boys respect girls' purity = virginity
Boys show girls that they are responsible when they understand what "no" means = virginity
Boys are fair to girls when they don't get them drunk and in a compromising position = virginity
Boys care about girls when they only hold hands and kiss with closed lips = virginity
Boys are good citizens when they keep their hands above deck = virginity

Hmmmm.

speechlesstx

Dec 26, 2007, 02:45 PM

The current curriculum is BROKEN, but a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer. This will make speechless have a heart attack ()...

And why is that Jillian? What makes you think I would want "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics?" I don't recall having endorsed this abstinence only education. It seems to me you're not only reading between lines that aren't even there, you're misrepresenting me in the process.

but I agree with PP about having comprehensive sex ed from the beginning of school. I think if we start young we can prevent kids from having sex to early.

Nonsense, let kids be kids again.

jillianleab

Dec 26, 2007, 03:14 PM

Jillian, what business do our schools have teaching this kind of "comprehensive" sex ed? FYI, I have never said we can't teach sex ed in schools, but this kind of crap is as offensive to me as abstinence only education is to Planned Parenthood. Is there no happy medium? Seriously, I don't object to basic, unbiased sex ed but I don't want ANY public school teaching my kids about relationships, tolerance, different lifestyles and birth control - it's none of their $#$%! Business. And it's %$#$#@ sure not there place to give kids info on obtaining prescription EC online from virtual doctors. If you can't see the ethical concerns there I don't know what else to say.

Then opt your kids out. But ask yourself - why is it so wrong to teach our kids about how there are different people in this world, and that they all deserve respect? I never said I agree with everything on their agenda, but I certainly agree with teaching people of ALL ages that EVERYONE deserves the same level of respect.

Taking something out of context is when "a passage is removed from its surrounding matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context) in such a way as to distort its intended meaning." I did no such thing, I presented it word for word directly from the source and furnished the link.And if you were familiar with me at all you would know I abhor "contextomy" and expend a great deal of effort putting things back into context.

And you don't think you've done this? You don't think by posting the list of questions, without clarifying WHY those questions are given to the kids is taking the list out of context? I read the list, and I said to myself, "Why are they encouraging kids to consider they might be gay? Something isn't right here." and as I investigated further, I found those questions are there to let the kids understand the ridiculous questions that are asked of gay kids everyday. To give them perspective on it, not to have them ask themselves if they are gay. Out of context indeed. You did provide the link - the link to the questions, not to the lesson plan. It was devious and taking it out of context. Disagree with me if you want, but you did this in another thread with info from PP too.

Yeah, I get the point. What is the point of helping our children "understand the heterosexist bias in our culture?" Hmmm?

So we can put a stop to intolerance, discrimination and murder based on sexual orientation. Charles Howard: Gay Hate Crime Victim (http://gaylife.about.com/od/hatecrimes/a/charleshoward.htm)

Jillian, talk about disappointing, I present word for word lesson plans from the source and you consider it a pathetic, low blow, intentional misrepresentation. Funny how it's noble to point out the errors in abstinence curriculum but "pathetic" to post verbatim lesson plans that undermine parental rights. What has apparently escaped you is I'm willing to compromise. I don't call for your kids to be indoctrinated with a faith based, error filled abstinence curriculum - don't call for mine to be indoctrinated with this other crap.

Yes, it is noble to point out medical inaccuracies in the abstinence only curriculum. Your daughter has AIDS, do you want the kids across the street to be taught they can "catch it" from her if she sweats on them? If they comfort her when she cries? It is quite pathetic to post verbatum the lesson plan from the comprehensive lesson plan when you've taken it out of context. If by my "indoctrination" you mean my idea that all people should be treated equally and with respect no matter what their sexual orientation is, then yes, I DO think your kids should be indoctrinated with that. Respect and tolerance helps society function. Beyond that, I've NEVER said someone shouldn't have the right to opt their kids out of the program. Want your kids to hate gays, or be in denial they exist? Opt them out and teach them whatever you want.

And why is that Jillian? What makes you think I would want "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics?" I don't recall having endorsed this abstinence only education. It seems to me you're not only reading between lines that aren't even there, you're misrepresenting me in the process.

Read my post again. I didn't say you want the abstinence only program. I said it would give you a heart attack that I advocate the comprehensive program (and it was a joke, btw). So no, it is you who is reading between the lines that aren't even there and misrepresenting me in the process. Teaching kids that there are many different kinds of people in this world in no way prevents them from being kids. Would it make you feel better if we called it "life education" instead of "sex education"?

ETWolverine

Dec 26, 2007, 03:31 PM

Jillian,

Ok, let's pretend there's no sex ed in schools. All we do is scream "DON'T DO IT!!!!" YOU think that will make kids not do it. YOU think there will be a drop in teen pregnancy and teen sex. I think there will be an increase in teen pregnancy and stds because teens are STILL going to do it and now they won't have any clue at how to prevent it.

History, as I have said before, would seem to indicate otherwise. There was a lot less teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD trouble before sex ed was put in place. How do you account for that? My point is that the model I ascribe to DID work on the large scale for the general population prior to the introduction of sex ed.

Elliot

Wondergirl

Dec 26, 2007, 03:58 PM

There was a lot less teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD trouble before sex ed was put in place

I don't know how old you are, Eliot. I was a hormonally-challenged teen during the late '50s and early '60s. I attended public grade and high schools in both large towns and rural areas of NC and NY. No one had ever heard of sex ed back then. There was none. At home, few parents said "Don't do it." Parents didn't talk to their kids about sex and kids didn't ask questions. Knowledge about sex came from peers, older sibs, and from books read in dark corners of the library (altho most of the really helpful ones were locked up).

Why then didn't a lot of us "do it"? Fear, simply because of fear--mostly fear that we would go to hell. Hell would come after I died. Pregnancy was a given if I "did it". Hell on earth would be after several months with Aunt Dorothy who lived in the Idaho wilderness and who would arrange to have the baby that I would never see be given to some family whom I would never meet or know.

speechlesstx

Dec 26, 2007, 04:30 PM

Then opt your kids out. But ask yourself - why is it so wrong to teach our kids about how there are different people in this world, and that they all deserve respect? I never said I agree with everything on their agenda, but I certainly agree with teaching people of ALL ages that EVERYONE deserves the same level of respect.

It's the parent's job, it is not the school's place to contradict or undermine parental values whether you agree with those values or not. The school is not the parent.

And you don't think you've done this? You don't think by posting the list of questions, without clarifying WHY those questions are given to the kids is taking the list out of context?

Absolutely not. It is impossible to take something "out of context" when the entire context was presented - along with links to the source for further investigation. If you want to know the why's behind it check out the link I furnished, my point is I find the questionnaire itself offensive and inappropriate for public schools and I'm sure others would agree.

I read the list, and I said to myself, "Why are they encouraging kids to consider they might be gay? Something isn't right here." and as I investigated further, I found those questions are there to let the kids understand the ridiculous questions that are asked of gay kids everyday. To give them perspective on it, not to have them ask themselves if they are gay.

There you go, that's why I cite my sources. If only it were about giving kids perspective but it isn't. I also pointed out and quoted the lesson plan to teach kids how to be "a great activist and/or ally to GLBTQ people (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/activistally.htm)" that finishes with this:

Ask participants to add asterisks (stars) on their handouts by any action(s) they are willing to take in the future. Ask them to commit to taking those actions consistently (whenever the need arises) and to add their signatures to their handouts if they haven't already done so.

I guess you missed the part where they are recruiting the kids to go beyond perspective and into the realm of activism. And by the way, here's the teacher's resource (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/activistally1.htm):

Ways to Fight Homophobia and Transphobia

Here are just a few of the many ways that young people can fight homophobia and transphobia. If participants have a hard time coming up with actions they can take, suggest some of these.

1. Be a friend to GLBTQ youth or to other GLBTQ youth.
2. When you hear homophobic or transphobic comments, calmly assert your belief in everyone's right to be treated with dignity and respect.
3. Join the gay/straight alliance in your school.
4. Start a gay/straight alliance, if one doesn't already exist in your school.
5. Ask to speak with adults in charge (of the school, agency, community of faith, etc.) about the importance of a 'zero tolerance' policy for homophobic and transphobic comments and actions.
6. Write a letter to the editor of your hometown and/or school newspaper.
7. Ask for a panel discussion on GLBTQ issues. Ask that GLBTQ youth participate on the panel.
8. Ask for a relaxed dress code that honors each person's individuality and unique gender expression.
9. Ask that all teens be able to bring a date of their own choosing (same-sex or opposite sex) to the prom, dances, parties, etc.
10. Create and distribute a list of community resources for GLBTQ youth.

I stand on my first previous, in context, postings. Public schools are not places to mold little GLBTQ activists.

Out of context indeed. You did provide the link - the link to the questions, not to the lesson plan. It was devious and taking it out of context. Disagree with me if you want, but you did this in another thread with info from PP too.

Devious my arse, I've provided more than sufficient context, links, and supporting evidence to back my claims in both posts. You can save that argument for someone deserving. Passionate yes, but certainly not devious.

Yes, it is noble to point out medical inaccuracies in the abstinence only curriculum. Your daughter has AIDS, do you want the kids across the street to be taught they can "catch it" from her if she sweats on them? If they comfort her when she cries?

Jillian dear, please point out one instance where I've supported that curriculum.

It is quite pathetic to post verbatum the lesson plan from the comprehensive lesson plan when you've taken it out of context. If by my "indoctrination" you mean my idea that all people should be treated equally and with respect no matter what their sexual orientation is, then yes, I DO think your kids should be indoctrinated with that.

I think you really need to get a grasp on what "out of context" means. This would be out of context:

Incredibly, Advocates for Youth sex education curriculum teaches students that "the great majority of child molesters are heterosexual."

I presented what to me is an outrageous exercise - verbatim - suggested for students and asked why our children should be confronted with such nonsense. Nonsense is exactly what it is, a tactic the left loves to use to not only further their agenda but make conservatives look like neanderthals, I've faced it on pages like this a thousand times.

I do think kids should be taught to respect all people, but that indoctrination is no more welcome in my home than mine is in yours. Find a truly unbiased curriculum that we can compromise on and we won't need to have this argument.

Respect and tolerance helps society function. Beyond that, I've NEVER said someone shouldn't have the right to opt their kids out of the program. Want your kids to hate gays, or be in denial they exist? Opt them out and teach them whatever you want.

In addition to having never supported the abstinence curriculum, I've never said anyone shouldn't be able to opt out of it either. I don't want the schools to teach either version.

Read my post again. I didn't say you want the abstinence only program. I said it would give you a heart attack that I advocate the comprehensive program (and it was a joke, btw). So no, it is you who is reading between the lines that aren't even there and misrepresenting me in the process. Teaching kids that there are many different kinds of people in this world in no way prevents them from being kids. Would it make you feel better if we called it "life education" instead of "sex education"?

Jillian, I've been around the block a time or two, very little surprises me - especially the fact that you advocate comprehensive sex ed - seeing as how you'd already told me you do. Therefore, either way your "heart attack" comment was unnecessary. And no, I wouldn't feel better calling it "life education." Disguising the lessons I revealed as "life education" would be devious. Teach them how to read, write, add, etc. and expect respect for others - leave the values education to the parents.

jillianleab

Dec 26, 2007, 05:01 PM

ETWolverine

Dec 27, 2007, 08:37 AM

All of which was during a different time and different culture. Things change and adaptation must take place.

But the only thing that has really changed is the adoption of sex-ed as part of the school curriculum. I think that sex-ed, which was supposed to be a solution, is itself part of the problem. The equation is simple: before sex-ed, there were fewer teen pregnancies, fewer STDs and fewer teens having sex. After sex-ed, the number of teen pregnancies skyrocketted, STDs became common, and more teens were having sex at younger and younger ages.

If you think or have experienced that simply telling your kids not to have sex will work, by all means, go for it. I think and I have experienced otherwise.

Your expereince is due to the mixed signals that I mentioned above... which you have agreed is part of the problem. Ergo, the solution is to change the message so that all parties are giving the same message. You have not had the experience of everybody being on the same page and everyone telling kids not to have sex without any caveats.

You cannot know if it works, because you haven't tried it. Your only experience has been with a "mixed-message" system. You have no experience with a real abstinance-only system. Those who have experienced it... those who grew up duing or were parents during the 50s, or those from religious Jewish or Muslim families... can attest to how well it works.

In any case, I think that, based on teen preganancy numbers, STD statistics, abortion rates, etc. we can both agree that what we are doing now just isn't working. Where we disagree is not with whether there is a problem. There clearly is. Where we disagree is with regard to the solution.

Elliot

excon

Dec 27, 2007, 08:51 AM

But the only thing that has really changed is the adoption of sex-ed as part of the school curriculum.Hello Elliot:

Dude! How can you continue to ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room called the BIRTH CONTROL PILL? Well, I'm not going to letcha.

excon

speechlesstx

Dec 27, 2007, 09:07 AM

We disagree, speech. You can explain and backpedal and cover up all you want, but it is still my opinion you took that questionnaire out of context and posted it here to make the program look worse than it is. That's my opinion, you say otherwise. I don't agree. Can we move on?

Jillian, it's hard to move on while you continue to publicly make false and insulting claims about me. Not only have I allegedly posted something out of context "to make the program look worse than it is," now I'm backpedaling and covering up. Insulting someone is an odd way to expect that someone to move on. It just escapes me how someone can be accused of taking virtually an entire webpage, with links, out of context - that's more than just a disagreement.

It's especially interesting when you consider the House report you cited itself provides less context than I furnished. It's even more telling that I agreed we should not teach our children such false information, while I continue to get pummeled over presenting the other side of things in full context with links. Is that how we move on, I shut up and allow your arguments and accusations to stand? Is that what I deserve for agreeing with you on abstinence education, presenting the other side in what I said may or may not be in some of our schools and calling for compromise? If so, I want no part of that world - I'm not going to give ground if the other side refuses to move also.

Jillian dear, please point out one instance where I've supported that curriculum.

I didn't say you did, I was using that as an example as to why it is "noble" to point out the medical inaccuracies of the program. Read the post again.

Jillian, you're missing the point. In more than one post now you and several others have been arguing against a curriculum I never supported in the first place. I have only argued against contraception in schools and the type of "comprehensive" sex ed that Planned Parenthood and others endorse. I have called several times for compromise in these posts and yet you still responded with "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," to which I responded "I don't recall having endorsed this abstinence only education." You then asked - inappropriately I might add - if I wanted "the kids across the street to be taught" they could catch HIV from my daughter's sweat or if they comfort her, to which I gave you another chance to get my point - I don't support the curriculum you're condemning.

You've been able to take a joke or friendly ribbing before - obviously that has been lost today. I'll remember that and leave you out of any post I make unless I am replying to you.

Jillian, when I see my name in bold in a post to someone else on a topic I'm passionate about following the line "a curriculum (which I don't support) full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," after being told I "have a knack for taking things out of context!" that was "a low blow and it was pathetic" - don't be surprised if I pull the virtual verbal trigger - I'm not the one that made this personal. Nevertheless, my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding.

We're going in circles here, all of us.

Actually, I have agreed now several times that an inaccurate abstinence curriculum is unacceptable and 'excon the sex mon' and I reached a compromise, so we aren't all going in circles. I'm willing to compromise, are you?

Steve

ETWolverine

Dec 27, 2007, 09:41 AM

Hello Elliot:

Dude! How can you continue to ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room called the BIRTH CONTROL PILL? Well, I'm not gonna letcha.

excon

Its all part and parcel of the same issue... giving the kids a "way out".

But I ignore birth control pills because until very recently, they were not available to kids without adult consent. NOW they are, but the problem of teen-pregnancy predates BC pills being available to teens. However, the timing jives perfectly with the introduction of sex-ed in schools. BC pills weren't a factor in creating this problem, they are merely a perpetuation of it. The problem itself, IMO, has its roots in the nature of sex ed and its mixed messages.

Elliot

jillianleab

Dec 27, 2007, 12:15 PM

Jillian, it's hard to move on while you continue to publicly make false and insulting claims about me. Not only have I allegedly posted something out of context "to make the program look worse than it is," now I'm backpedaling and covering up. Insulting someone is an odd way to expect that someone to move on. It just escapes me how someone can be accused of taking virtually an entire webpage, with links, out of context - that's more than just a disagreement.

It is my opinion you posted the list of questions to make it look like the program was asking kids to consider if they are gay. That is not the point of the questions. It is my opinion you intentionally left out key information from the lesson plan to make it look worse than it is. Posting the link, which requires clicking the link then another link to arrive at the actual lesson plan and intent, does not mean you have posted the information within context. That is my opinion. You have explained the reasons behind you actions and justified what you have done, but it is still my opinion your post was out of context.

It's especially interesting when you consider the House report you cited itself provides less context than I furnished. It's even more telling that I agreed we should not teach our children such false information, while I continue to get pummeled over presenting the other side of things in full context with links. Is that how we move on, I shut up and allow your arguments and accusations to stand? Is that what I deserve for agreeing with you on abstinence education, presenting the other side in what I said may or may not be in some of our schools and calling for compromise? If so, I want no part of that world - I'm not going to give ground if the other side refuses to move also.

The link I posted has footnotes. If I had access to (without having to pay for) the pamphlets used, I'd gladly check to see if they are in context or not. But, I don't, so I'm trusting that a document prepared for a Rep is correct. You are free to accept or reject that as you see fit. I will note this, the Why kNOW program site (referenced in my link) says "In terms of how condoms are typically used nationwide, 14-15% of couples using condoms still become pregnant" which fails to mention that's true only over the course of one year. Just a little lie. WhykNOw Abstinence Education: Teen Pregnancy Info (http://whyknow.org/www/docs/172.1174/teen-pregnancy-information.html)

Jillian, you're missing the point. In more than one post now you and several others have been arguing against a curriculum I never supported in the first place. I have only argued against contraception in schools and the type of "comprehensive" sex ed that Planned Parenthood and others endorse. I have called several times for compromise in these posts and yet you still responded with "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," to which I responded "I don't recall having endorsed this abstinence only education." You then asked - inappropriately I might add - if I wanted "the kids across the street to be taught" they could catch HIV from my daughter's sweat or if they comfort her, to which I gave you another chance to get my point - I don't support the curriculum you're condemning.

I'm not missing the point, I never said you supported the abstinence only program. You agreed it is bad to lie to teens about sex; you've agreed about that on other threads. You have missed the point about my comment about the kids across the street. I was using that as an example to why it is noble to point out the inaccuracies in the program; not to "prove" to you it's noble, but as an example of why it IS noble; because the spread of such information is bad for society. Don't you agree? That was my point; giving an example of something we both agree is bad information and is damaging to have spread. I'm sorry if you felt this comment was inappropriate, but since you have several times posted about your daughter's health and the circumstances surrounding it, I didn't think it was off-limits. I didn't mean to offend you or make you uncomfortable. If I did, I'm really sorry, please know that was not my intent.

Jillian, when I see my name in bold in a post to someone else on a topic I'm passionate about following the line "a curriculum (which I don't support) full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," after being told I "have a knack for taking things out of context!" that was "a low blow and it was pathetic" - don't be surprised if I pull the virtual verbal trigger - I'm not the one that made this personal. Nevertheless, my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding.

When I posted "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer" (post #35) I was not addressing you, nor was I referring to you. I began a reference to you at the start of the following sentence, where your name appears. It, by the way, appears in bold because I put ALL names in bold. It's a habit left over from another site I belong to. And I didn't post "low blow and pathetic" until post #50. Thank you for your apology; misunderstandings happen, no big deal. :)

Actually, I have agreed now several times that an inaccurate abstinence curriculum is unacceptable and 'excon the sex mon' and I reached a compromise, so we aren't all going in circles. I'm willing to compromise, are you?

Steve

As far as I'm concerned the only thing we are feuding about is the in context/out of context thing. We disagree about what the content of sex ed should be, and that's OK. We agree it should be medically accurate, so at least that's something to build on - dare I say... a COMPROMISE?? :D

Are we friends again? :)

jillianleab

Dec 27, 2007, 12:18 PM

In any case, I think that, based on teen preganancy numbers, STD statistics, abortion rates, etc., we can both agree that what we are doing now just isn't working. Where we disagree is not with whether or not there is a problem. There clearly is. Where we disagree is with regard to the solution.

Elliot

I agree. The current system has loads of room for improvement. We just disagree on how to go about doing that.

I seem to remember we came to the same conclusion on another issue in another thread... :)

Dark_crow

Dec 27, 2007, 12:29 PM

Elliot

Hoc is the fallacy committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which occur simultaneously. In order to avoid this fallacy, one needs to rule out other possible explanations for the correlation: A third event—or type of event—is the cause of the correlation.

Suppose that statistics show a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, namely, the higher number of guns owned, the higher the rate of violent crime. It would be tempting to jump to the conclusion that gun ownership causes violent crime.

ETWolverine

Dec 27, 2007, 01:08 PM

Suppose that statistics show a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, namely, the higher number of guns owned, the higher the rate of violent crime. It would be tempting to jump to the conclusion that gun ownership causes violent crime.

Yes, especially since the statistics show the exact opposite. :)

But I don't think I made this error in this case. As I mentioned above to excon, the only thing that has changed is the mixed message kids are receiving... from sex-ed, from the media... which leads one to conclude that there is no other cause.

Excon tried to state that the invention of birth control pills is a causal factor, but I discussed that as well... birth control was not available to children when this problem took hold. The availability of birth control to kids is a subsequent event. Ergo, I go back to the conclusion that the primary causal factor is the mixed message, and that the mixed message began with sex-ed in schools and continued with the sexualization of mass media.

Can you name any other possible causal factors besides the "mixed-message" that correlate with the increase in teen preganancies, rise in STDs, and teen abortion rates in the 60s? I've been trying very hard to some up with some other cause, but I can't find one.

Elliot

speechlesstx

Dec 27, 2007, 02:01 PM

It is my opinion you posted the list of questions to make it look like the program was asking kids to consider if they are gay...

Jillian, and I'm telling you the point of my posting the questionnaire - regardless of the lesson's point - is it's inappropriate for public schools. Why do we need that kind of "in your face" sex ed in public schools? Why do we need to intentionally make middle and high school students uncomfortable without regard to the student's and his or her family's values? Why should we have sexual orientation role playing games for students to expose and defeat the "heterosexist bias in our culture?" I thought the purpose of sex ed - repeated over and over and over - was "medically accurate, age appropriate sex education," not diversity, tolerance and ethics from a biased point of view. Isn't that the complaint about the current abstinence education? Why should it be any different for the other side?

The link I posted has footnotes.

OK, here's the footnote:

* Created by Martin Rochlin, Ph.D. January 1977, and adapted for use here.

Now you can't say it's "out of context," LOL.

I'm not missing the point, I never said you supported the abstinence only program. You agreed it is bad to lie to teens about sex; you've agreed about that on other threads. You have missed the point about my comment about the kids across the street. I was using that as an example to why it is noble to point out the inaccuracies in the program; not to "prove" to you it's noble, but as an example of why it IS noble; because the spread of such information is bad for society. Don't you agree?

Yes, I have and do agree that bad information is bad for society - we just don't seem to agree on all that is bad for society.

I didn't mean to offend you or make you uncomfortable. If I did, I'm really sorry, please know that was not my intent.

No sweat :)

When I posted "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer" (post #35) I was not addressing you, nor was I referring to you. I began a reference to you at the start of the following sentence, where your name appears. It, by the way, appears in bold because I put ALL names in bold. It's a habit left over from another site I belong to. And I didn't post "low blow and pathetic" until post #50. Thank you for your apology; misunderstandings happen, no big deal.

Well, I had just read post #50, the latest post at the time, hence the noticeable amount of steam coming out of my ears before reading post #35. :)

As far as I'm concerned the only thing we are feuding about is the in context/out of context thing. We disagree about what the content of sex ed should be, and that's OK. We agree it should be medically accurate, so at least that's something to build on - dare I say... a COMPROMISE??

Jillian, don't mistake persistence and passion for "feuding." We can certainly disagree over what sex ed should be and that's fine, but I do go to great lengths to not only avoid posting controversial material out of context - I go to great lengths to find the context that's missing in other posts. I can compromise over the issues, I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I won't compromise in admitting to what I didn't do.

Are we friends again? :)

You mean we weren't before? :D

nicespringgirl

Dec 27, 2007, 02:05 PM

That's what I have been taught when I was back in my country. YOU should have done that earlier!

NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE! You get kicked out if you were a pregnant, and the one who made you pregnant gets kicked out too! (I know you Americans think it is curel!)

P.S. It has nothing to do with GOD, it's basic moral! VERY BASIC!!

I truly hope the Americans can focus more on providing more leadership experience, gaining higher academic achievement and developing healthier interpersonal/social skills at school.

jillianleab

Dec 27, 2007, 03:05 PM

Jillian, and I'm telling you the point of my posting the questionnaire - regardless of the lesson's point - is it's inappropriate for public schools. Why do we need that kind of "in your face" sex ed in public schools? Why do we need to intentionally make middle and high school students uncomfortable without regard to the student's and his or her family's values? Why should we have sexual orientation role playing games for students to expose and defeat the "heterosexist bias in our culture?" I thought the purpose of sex ed - repeated over and over and over - was "medically accurate, age appropriate sex education," not diversity, tolerance and ethics from a biased point of view. Isn't that the complaint about the current abstinence education? Why should it be any different for the other side?

It's there because it's part of a comprehensive plan, which I pointed out in another post. Comprehensive sex education isn't supposed to be just about sex, medical info, pregnancy and STDs; it is supposed to incorporate the entire culture surrounding sex; that there are different people and just because they are different doesn't make them wrong. From the Advocates for Youth site:

Comprehensive sex ed stresses abstinence and includes age-appropriate, medically accurate information about contraception. Comprehensive sex ed is also developmentally appropriate, introducing information on relationships, decision-making, assertiveness, and skill building to resist social/peer pressure, depending on grade-level.

I think that sort of "in your face" sex ed belongs in public schools because at middle and high school ages we still have the opportunity to inform kids and prevent racism, intolerance and hatred. Posing those questions to a heterosexual person forces them to think about how they can possibly answer them - it puts them in the position of homosexual kids and allows them to empathazise with them. Yes, it might go against family values, which is why, as always, parents can opt their kids out. SOMETHING in ANY program is going to go against SOMEONE'S values - there is no perfect lesson plan. I just happen to like this one more than the current ones. I suppose the only bias is if you think homosexuality is something that can be controlled (I have no idea your opinion on this) instead of something that occurs in people naturally. Likewise, if you are Catholic and oppose birth control, any teaching of birth control as a moral method for preventing pregnancy goes against your values. My complaint with the current abstinence program is that it doesn't educate - so if you prevent teens from having sex, they become uneducated adults having sex. I don't count that as a "win". My complaint with the other current programs is they appear to be inconsistent, and from what I remember about sex ed when I was in school, it was far too short and way under-informed. It also came 'round too late for many students (you know, like the pregnant girls in my class... ).

Well, I had just read post #50, the latest post at the time, hence the noticeable amount of steam coming out of my ears before reading post #35. :)

I get it, no problem. :)

Jillian, don't mistake persistence and passion for "feuding." We can certainly disagree over what sex ed should be and that's fine, but I do go to great lengths to not only avoid posting controversial material out of context - I go to great lengths to find the context that's missing in other posts. I can compromise over the issues, I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I won't compromise in admitting to what I didn't do.

I used "feuding" because I've been around my grandmother a little too much lately (don't be shocked if I say "yonder" at some point); I didn't think this was anything other than typical debate. I know you go to great lengths to cite your sources and provide links, but that particular post had the appearance (in my opinion) of being taken out of context given there were no qualifiers and given the subject matter. You say your intent was otherwise, so that's fine; no need to admit to something you didn't do. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but (to me) it was the result. I guess other readers of this thread can decide for themselves based upon that post and the subsequent posts (of our "feud").

Dark_crow

Dec 27, 2007, 03:05 PM

Elliot
Well yes…….. once parents of bastard children were considered sinners and often faced harsh punishment for their transgressions. It’s partly in the language and Categories…how often do we hear the word “Bastard” or “Sinner” today? Later, after the “Sinner” aspect the focus went to the economic burden imposed by bastardy; and Bastard went out of popularity and was replaced by “fatherless”.

The legalization of abortion added to the problem- pregnancy did not necessarily result in a birth. All of this combined led to the “postmodern” families; that is, those without their biological mother and father. If we are going to narrow the problem down to one factor, I would select “Post modernistic Philosophy. Or perhaps the legalization of abortion might be considered the “one” factor. But I’m inclined to believe it is due to a number of factors and not just one.

speechlesstx

Dec 27, 2007, 03:48 PM

[QUOTE]I think that sort of "in your face" sex ed belongs in public schools because at middle and high school ages we still have the opportunity to inform kids and prevent racism, intolerance and hatred. Posing those questions to a heterosexual person forces them to think about how they can possibly answer them - it puts them in the position of homosexual kids and allows them to empathazise with them. Yes, it might go against family values, which is why, as always, parents can opt their kids out.

Jillian, what it all boils down to is this, the crusaders against abstinence only education object more than anything to the bias. Well, I object to their bias. The only solution that could possibly make sense is neutrality, but they won't budge. Their core belief is that we are sexual beings from birth to death and everyone, including 12-year olds, has the right to sexual expression, access to contraceptives - including prescription EC - and abortion, preferably with (they say), but if not - without parental consent.

It's the same double standard in other areas of liberal/progressive thought. We must have tolerance for everyone - unless you disagree with us. We must defend free speech at all cost - as long as you adhere to our speech code. We must champion diversity - unless you're a white, male conservative. We have to share the wealth - as long as it isn't mine. And on and on and on. If they are going to demand sex education free from bias they need to remove it from their own curriculum. It's as simple as that Jillian. I don't trust Planned Parenthood or Advocates for Youth in our schools any more than they would trust James Dobson in them.

My complaint with the current abstinence program is that it doesn't educate - so if you prevent teens from having sex, they become uneducated adults having sex. I don't count that as a "win".

You know, I think it was Elliot that pointed out the rise in teen pregnancy, STD's and such has gotten worse since we offered sex education in our schools. How on earth did we ever get by without it? Like I said many times before it's the culture that's the problem, and the "comprehensive" brand perpetuates the culture. If people expect to be taken seriously about wanting to prevent teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion they need to have the guts to stand up and say you need to wait instead of encouraging and enabling the behavior. Comprehensive sex ed in its desired form is about like laying a pork chop down in front of Cujo and telling him he might choke on a bone if he eats it.

My complaint with the other current programs is they appear to be inconsistent, and from what I remember about sex ed when I was in school, it was far too short and way under-informed. It also came 'round too late for many students (you know, like the pregnant girls in my class... ).

Well, as nicespringgirl pointed out, there are a lot of things in our schools that could use some work. And by the way, I am a Texan and "yonder" is a part of our every day vocabulary, right up there with "fixin' to" and "y'all" :)

jillianleab

Dec 27, 2007, 04:53 PM

Jillian, what it all boils down to is this, the crusaders against abstinence only education object more than anything to the bias. Well, I object to their bias. The only solution that could possibly make sense is neutrality, but they won't budge. Their core belief is that we are sexual beings from birth to death and everyone, including 12-year olds, has the right to sexual expression, access to contraceptives - including prescription EC - and abortion, preferably with (they say), but if not - without parental consent.

I'm glad I'm not a crusader, just some schmuck on the intertubes! :) You're right though, there is a double standard - from both sides. But how do you get to neutrality? Seriously - how do you do that? There will always be people who think if you talk about sex at all it's advocating it. As I said before, you can't mention birth control, that's offensive to Catholics. I remember in 3rd grade two girls from my class were opted out of our "sex ed" which consisted of telling about the female menstral cycle (nothing about boys, just periods, pads and tampons); what's offensive about that?? Say you stick to nothing but biological facts; well, can't do that because biologically life doesn't begin at conception, a "fetus" isn't a "baby". So really, there's no way to make both sides happy, because NEITHER side wants to budge.

I don't agree with infringing on parental rights (providing the pill without parental consent) but there's comes a point where the child has rights of his/her own. I referenced this in another thread, about informed medical consent age (never did call my brother... ). If a 16-year-old can refuse medical treatment for a disease, why does she not have the right to decide (with her doctor) if she should be on the pill, or have an abortion? If she does have that right, and you object to it, why take it up with the facilitators, why not take it up with the lawmakers? If you change the law, the facilitators have to change. If they don't, THEN you go after them. This is, of course, all assuming the consent age is 16...

You know, I think it was Elliot that pointed out the rise in teen pregnancy, STD's and such has gotten worse since we offered sex education in our schools. How on earth did we ever get by without it? Like I said many times before it's the culture that's the problem, and the "comprehensive" brand perpetuates the culture. If people expect to be taken seriously about wanting to prevent teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion they need to have the guts to stand up and say you need to wait instead of encouraging and enabling the behavior. Comprehensive sex ed in its desired form is about like laying a pork chop down in front of Cujo and telling him he might choke on a bone if he eats it.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The world is a different place now than it was in the 50s, no? Is the ONLY difference the introduction of sex ed? Of course not. I don't think one can pin the blame solely on sex ed. According to the CDC, sex ed DOES delay teen sex: Sex Ed Does Delay Teen Sex: CDC - MSN Health & Fitness - Mental Health (http://health.msn.com/health-topics/mental-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100185265). Now, you might read the article and scoff that it only delays it past 15, but it's a start, right? It shows there's room for improvement (none of us are disputing that), but it also shows SOMETHING is better than NOTHING. And according to this article: Birds, Bees and Lab Coats - Page 1 - MSN Health & Fitness - Birth Control (http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/birth-control/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100183137) either program (abstinence only or comprehensive) BOTH work. Apparently the key is a well-designed program. Gee... who's a thunk THAT?

I disagree that comprehensive sex ed encourages sex, or makes it seem OK (this is even without the above article). I think informing kids about sex, pregnancy, STDs and prevention methods educates them, it doesn't give them the green light. But, I suppose that depends on how the wording is given; if the instructor says, "Don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" that's confusing the intended message. Saying "Don't have sex" and later saying "When you are an adult in an adult relationship and you decide to engage in sexual activity, use a condom" is very different. Will some kids make the leap? Sure they will, but with the diversity in home environments, personal values, etc, you aren't going to get 100% results (which is why the Orthodox Jew community is a good example on a small scale, but I question it's effectiveness on a large scale).

I also don't think providing condoms gives the green light to have sex. Teens can get condoms anywhere (I know ETW thinks they should be age restricted), and for those teens who DO fall through the cracks I think they SHOULD be able to have safe sex. Handing out condoms each day in class? That's a bad idea. But making them available through the scholl nurse, where if someone comes in for one she (the nurse) can talk to them about their decision? Not such a bad idea. Of course I realize kids are much less likely to go to the nurse for condoms if they have to talk to her, but some will, and maybe some will change their minds. Beyond that, if you make it so kids have to go face-to-face with SOMEONE (in a store or at school) to get condoms maybe it will discourage them to have sex because they are embarrassed. This, of course, only applies if they fully comprehend the dangers of having sex without one.

And by the way, I am a Texan and "yonder" is a part of our every day vocabulary, right up there with "fixin' to" and "y'all" :)

I was on vacation last week and heard a girl on the beach say, "Hey y'all! I'm fixin' ta go over yonder and get mahself a bottla water!" I had to look and make sure it wasn't Britney Spears... :rolleyes:

speechlesstx

Dec 27, 2007, 05:36 PM

But how do you get to neutrality? Seriously - how do you do that?

I thought ex's plan was a good start. :)

I don't agree with infringing on parental rights (providing the pill without parental consent) but there's comes a point where the child has rights of his/her own.

Understood and agreed, just not the way the activists I mention envision things.

Apparently the key is a well-designed program. Gee... who's a thunk THAT?

OK, fine, sure. Which takes us back to square one, lol.

I disagree that comprehensive sex ed encourages sex, or makes it seem OK (this is even without the above article).

And again we can disagree, but I have read the agenda, which is exactly as I said - which again takes us back to square one :)

I also don't think providing condoms gives the green light to have sex. Teens can get condoms anywhere (I know ETW thinks they should be age restricted), and for those teens who DO fall through the cracks I think they SHOULD be able to have safe sex.

I go back to my Cujo analogy...

Beyond that, if you make it so kids have to go face-to-face with SOMEONE (in a store or at school) to get condoms maybe it will discourage them to have sex

Not just face to face with SOMEONE, though. Parents should never be out of the loop unless they choose to be, or are themselves too irresponsible or incapable of exercising good parental judgment. That's the thing, we have to stop sidestepping the parents.

I was on vacation last week and heard a girl on the beach say, "Hey y'all! I'm fixin' ta go over yonder and get mahself a bottla water!" I had to look and make sure it wasn't Britney Spears...

Had to be an Okie :D

jillianleab

Dec 27, 2007, 06:02 PM

Not just face to face with SOMEONE, though. Parents should never be out of the loop unless they choose to be, or are themselves too irresponsible or incapable of exercising good parental judgment. That's the thing, we have to stop sidestepping the parents.

Should I take that to imply you think condoms should be age restricted?

Had to be an Okie :D

Actually I think they were there for some college basketball thing hosted by our hotel; could have been from Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee... I'm guessing Louisiana!

speechlesstx

Dec 28, 2007, 08:04 AM

Should I take that to imply you think condoms should be age restricted?

Actually I hadn't given it much thought. I'm generally against restricting things that have been available over the counter for so long, (maybe you should be sitting for this), and I would rather kids use them than not because I concede there will be those that have sex regardless of what we do.

My point was in regard to the whole sex ed/school clinic/Planned Parenthood thing. The push is to take parents out of the loop and give children the power to make whatever decisions they want. In spite of any rhetoric that PP uses - and PP is who drives the agenda - regarding parental involvement, they make clear they believe the wishes and "needs" of the child outweigh parental involvement. Same with Advocates for Youth. I already posted the lesson plan that tells kids how to get prescription EC online from virtual doctors. I posted in the discussion forum that PP is fighting states with parental consent laws to be able to designate aunts, uncles, siblings, grandparents or clergy to fill in for the parent. That is the crux of my objections, the continuing erosion of parental rights.

I've also granted that some parents can't be counted on. As PP says not every family is an ideal family, I understand that, but most kids that I've been around are not mature enough to handle such decisions. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them when it comes to being honest when getting themselves in a predicament. That's just how kids are Jillian, and groups like PP are all too eager to take their side over the parents. And I hesitate to use the slippery slope argument but the situation does warrant considerable caution.

Actually I think they were there for some college basketball thing hosted by our hotel; could have been from Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee... I'm guessing Louisiana!

I didn't know anyone from Tennessee knew where the beach was :D

jillianleab

Dec 28, 2007, 10:00 AM

Actually I hadn't given it much thought. I'm generally against restricting things that have been available over the counter for so long, (maybe you should be sitting for this), and I would rather kids use them than not because I concede there will be those that have sex regardless of what we do.

That doesn't surprise me, actually. I think it's quite rational - you're never going to reach 100% of the teens, but if you reach 99%, the 1% who CAN'T get condoms are worse off. Look! Another thing we agree on! :)

My point was in regard to the whole sex ed/school clinic/Planned Parenthood thing. The push is to take parents out of the loop and give children the power to make whatever decisions they want. In spite of any rhetoric that PP uses - and PP is who drives the agenda - regarding parental involvement, they make clear they believe the wishes and "needs" of the child outweigh parental involvement. Same with Advocates for Youth. I already posted the lesson plan that tells kids how to get prescription EC online from virtual doctors. I posted in the discussion forum that PP is fighting states with parental consent laws to be able to designate aunts, uncles, siblings, grandparents or clergy to fill in for the parent. That is the crux of my objections, the continuing erosion of parental rights.

I've also granted that some parents can't be counted on. As PP says not every family is an ideal family, I understand that, but most kids that I've been around are not mature enough to handle such decisions. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them when it comes to being honest when getting themselves in a predicament. That's just how kids are Jillian, and groups like PP are all too eager to take their side over the parents. And I hesitate to use the slippery slope argument but the situation does warrant considerable caution.

Overall I agree with the idea of PP, but I think they sometimes fail in execution. In the situation where a young girl is pregnant it IS important to focus on the needs on the girl; it's her body, her life; her decisions outweigh her parents. This is not to say the parents shouldn't be involved, but as you said, some parents can't be counted on. Some parents won't understand (though many teens will THINK they won't understand when they in fact would), which is why I agree with the aunt/uncle thing. It depends on how that plays out in the real world, however; so I should say I agree with the idea, but again, it might end up failing in execution. At the very least, though, if an Aunt/Uncle is present and helping the teen making decisions, there is an adult who (you would think) knows the values of the parents and can help guide the teen in the right direction. The adult can also prompt the teen to later confide in her parents, or be someone to confide in if things get tough. It's better to have someone than no one, and where the parent is BEST, an Aunt/Uncle, to me, is an acceptable substitute (I remember you mentioning at some point "best friend's parents", which I don't agree with except in EXTREME situations). I'm probably a little biased on that though; my cousin got pregnant very young and confided in my mom, who helped her make her decisions.

I also agree that most kids are not mature enough to handle the decisions they are making (especially those of abortion) on their own, which is why I think PP needs no spend considerable time counseling the girls who come in (alone, with a parent, or with a relative). Council those asking for the pill or condoms too, especially if they are very young (a 17 year old asking for condoms is different in my mind than a 12 year old asking for condoms). We'll never have the same opinion on PP, and maybe it's just a case of me being optimistic of naïve, but I'd rather they be there for girls and women to access than not.

I didn't know anyone from Tennessee knew where the beach was :D

It's college, silly, they are there to learn!