 |
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
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
I don't know where or if this is happening, but here is a recommended lesson plan from Advocates for Youth I find disturbing:Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
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 from a virtual doctor, and incredibly, a "heterosexual questionnaire."Quote:
How to Be a Super Activist and/or Ally*
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.
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?Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
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.Quote:
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
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
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.Quote:
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?
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)
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?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
http://charactercounts.org/pdf/about/QuickLook-1005.pdf
Teaching morals and values is teaching religion? CC says no.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Taking something out of context is when "a passage is removed from its surrounding matter 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.Quote:
And the hetreosexual questionnaire? I swear to god, you have a knack for taking things out of context!
Yeah, I get the point. What is the point of helping our children "understand the heterosexist bias in our culture?" Hmmm?Quote:
THIS: is the point of the hetersexual questionnaire:
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.Quote:
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.
Boys are trustworthy when they are with girls = virginityQuote:
excon agrees: Boy, did THEY screw up! They forgot 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Nonsense, let kids be kids again.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.Quote:
Taking something out of context is when "a passage is removed from its surrounding matter 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.
So we can put a stop to intolerance, discrimination and murder based on sexual orientation. Charles Howard: Gay Hate Crime VictimQuote:
Yeah, I get the point. What is the point of helping our children "understand the heterosexist bias in our culture?" Hmmm?
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.Quote:
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.
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"?Quote:
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.
Jillian,
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.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.
Elliot
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
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.Quote:
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?
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" that finishes with this:Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
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 stand on my first previous, in context, postings. Public schools are not places to mold little GLBTQ activists.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Jillian dear, please point out one instance where I've supported that curriculum.Quote:
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?
I think you really need to get a grasp on what "out of context" means. This would be out of context:Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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"?
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?
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.Quote:
Jillian dear, please point out one instance where I've supported that curriculum.
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.Quote:
Therefore, either way your "heart attack" comment was unnecessary.
All of which was during a different time and different culture. Things change and adaptation must take place. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
We're going in circles here, all of us.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
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.Quote:
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.
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
Hello Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
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, 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.Quote:
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, 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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
We're going in circles here, all of us.
Steve
Its all part and parcel of the same issue... giving the kids a "way out".Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 InfoQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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. :)Quote:
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.
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?? :DQuote:
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
Are we friends again? :)
I agree. The current system has loads of room for improvement. We just disagree on how to go about doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I seem to remember we came to the same conclusion on another issue in another thread... :)
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.
Yes, especially since the statistics show the exact opposite. :)Quote:
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.
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
OK, here's the footnote:Quote:
The link I posted has footnotes.
Now you can't say it's "out of context," LOL.Quote:
* Created by Martin Rochlin, Ph.D. January 1977, and adapted for use here.
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.Quote:
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?
No sweat :)Quote:
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.
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. :)Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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??
You mean we weren't before? :DQuote:
Are we friends again? :)
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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... ).
I get it, no problem. :)Quote:
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 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").Quote:
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.
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.
[QUOTE=jillianleab]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.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.
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.
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.Quote:
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".
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" :)Quote:
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... ).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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...
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. 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 either program (abstinence only or comprehensive) BOTH work. Apparently the key is a well-designed program. Gee... who's a thunk THAT?Quote:
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.
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.
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:Quote:
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 thought ex's plan was a good start. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Understood and agreed, just not the way the activists I mention envision things.Quote:
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.
OK, fine, sure. Which takes us back to square one, lol.Quote:
Apparently the key is a well-designed program. Gee... who's a thunk THAT?
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 :)Quote:
I disagree that comprehensive sex ed encourages sex, or makes it seem OK (this is even without the above article).
I go back to my Cujo analogy...Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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
Had to be an Okie :DQuote:
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...
Should I take that to imply you think condoms should be age restricted?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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!Quote:
Had to be an Okie :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
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.
I didn't know anyone from Tennessee knew where the beach was :DQuote:
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!
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! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.Quote:
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.
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.
It's college, silly, they are there to learn!Quote:
I didn't know anyone from Tennessee knew where the beach was :D
My goodness, there are some here that would be shocked to think I can be rational :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:14 AM. |