 |
Hello:
Today, my state turned down $800,000 of federal money to fund Bush's abstinence only sex education program. My state wanted to add medically correct information to the presentations, but the feds wouldn't agree.
Are the people in my state served better with abstinence only sex education, or are we better off without it?
excon
I have never heard of such a hair brained scheme. Are you kidding ? I can see it being helpful if it was medically based, but to promote abstinence is ludricous. Sex is a big part of a person's existence. Although it isn't actually mentioned in Maslow's theory, it's there non the less as part of a need to make a person whole and complete.
To answer your question, they are better off without abstinence only sex education.
Considering the program contains basic biological errors (things we don't debate about, like the number of chromosomes), they are better off without it. Let's not forget the twisting of facts and rephrasing of "information" the program also uses to scare kids.
You can read more here:
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...2153-50247.pdf
They're MUCH better off without it.
Ex,
Here's a little publicized fact, Bill Clinton in one of the things he actually deserves some credit for - the guy who wanted to "end welfare as we know it," who in 1993 "made a series of remarkable public statements about the links between social problems, welfare dependency and unwed childbearing" - signed the legislation in 1996 that began providing federal funds for exclusive abstinence based education. Yeah it was a GOP congress, but he still signed the bill.
Here's another fact, the money your state turned down was matching funds specifically for abstinence education, if they can't follow the rules for the match they don't get the funds. States can still teach what they want, they just don't get those matching federal funds. Here's a little perspective, the proposed budget for the school district in our little town of 175,000 is $212.5 million this school year. I'm sure $800,000 is a drop in the bucket for your state if they want to fund their brand of sex-ed.
More facts, the Democratic controlled congress overwhelmingly passed a $27.8 million increase in abstinence education funds in the $310.9 million appropriation for Title X family planning funding. That's $5,933,372,000 of taxpayer money in 36 years of funding "medically accurate sex-ed" and "reproductive health care."
I guess all taxpayer money should fund Planned Parenthood's vision of sex-ed, eh?
Well, Bush did OK an increase in Title X funding so we have reason to whine, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What "medically correct" information did your state want to include? I'd think that turning down almost $1 million of federal grant money would be hard to justify under any circumstances.
excon,
1) Define medically correct information.
2) Why is it that the Orthodox Jewish community has no problem with teen pregnancy or STDs? Could it have something to do with their abstinence-only education? And if it works for us, why wouldn't it work for anyone else? The fact is that it hasn't been tried since the 60s, when "free love" became the norm. But if we went back to that standard from the 1950s and earlier, STDs and teen preganancy would decrease significantly.
I don't think the people in your state are better served through sex-ed as it stands today. But let me know if the system you have in place decreases teen-preganancies and occurrence of STDs to pre-1960 levels. If it does, I'll be happy to endorse it.
Elliot
I couldn't give you a greenie,but I do agree with you... abstinence solves more problems wherever it is practised.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It may work for some, such small groups as orthodox jews, but in a nationwide setting, I don't believe that abstinence only sex ed will work.
I grew up in a strict christian family, went to a private christian school, and lived in a relatively christian neighborhood, that taught "wait until you're married"... but most kids had sex by the time they were 20. Granted, they were smart about it, they used condoms, no pregnancies, no stds (that I knew of)... but I just don't think an abstinence only sex ed would work on a grand scale.
There IS a way to make abstinence-only work.
Pay each person $$ for every month he/she refrains from sex of any kind. This will help the economy and will fund college for many students. Of course, there will have to be a monitoring system put into place, but in this day and age that should be easy. Where will the money come from? Hmmmmm...
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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?))
What are they thinking? Do they realize where abstinence only programs are getting them now? A bunch of teenage girls who are knocked up, and aren't ready to be parents and a bunch of teenage boys who don't know what responisbilty is. The gov. is spending billions of dollars a year for medical aid to pregnant teens. Most teenage girls who get pregnant don't finish high school, nor do they even get a GED. And That's just getting the basics on the pregnancy subject, not even touching base on STD's.
A lot of the time, teenagers don't have access to, protection, or if they do manage to get it, have no idea about proper use, or anything like that.
So you tell me, do you think abstinece only is the best idea? Yeah its good to teach that too, but its better to not wait until its too late to teach them about contraceptives too.
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
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...
Why should government have its hand in the matter? Keep government out of it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISneezeFunny
(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!
Sorry, I laughed out loud when I read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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?
I wrote it hoping it would give you a chuckle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISneezeFunny
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.
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.Quote:
if sex is "done right"... monogamous in a relationship... two young healthy people who love one another... using protection... is it still wrong?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISneezeFunny
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISneezeFunny
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.
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
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...
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
Jillian,Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
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
Hello El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
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
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......"
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What does this exercise have to do with preventing pregnancy and STD's? Nothing.Quote:
Drawing Conclusions: 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?
I didn't send my kids to school to learn how to market contraceptives to teens.Quote:
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 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.
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.Quote:
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 visit "www.virtualmedicalgroup.com."
Maybe it's just me, but I find this exercise a little intrusive.Quote:
Ask participants to take five to 10 minutes to write down their family's values 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
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.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?
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.
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.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Like I said, if only it were that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.Quote:
Second, according to many (if not most) religions, life does begin at conception.
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).Quote:
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?
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Sorry, but where is this happening? This is not something I'd ever heard of. Do you have a link?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.Quote:
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.
Is that because you are being simple-minded? :rolleyes:Quote:
Seems simple to me.
EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY PRIOR POSTS!!Quote:
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.
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
I hear many stories from parents of kids on the radio happening in many different places
Homosexual Lifestyle Exposed
Gay News From 365Gay.com
Schools Official Assails 'Gay Lifestyle' (washingtonpost.com)
Court Rules Schools Can Teach Homosexuality Without Parents Consent or Choice to Opt Out
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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 ? LolQuote:
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:52 PM. |