Forums | MacLife

Two quick things and then I'm going to go have a fight in another thread for a little bit:

My position is simply this: If a school is going to teach sex education, then I believe they are obligated to teach every aspect of it (at least as regards pregnancy and STDs). Definitely teach kids that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, but also talk about the effectiveness of condoms (and how to use them) and other contraceptives. Most kids in sex ed are 17-18 and will be legal adults very soon. Give them ALL of the information they need to live up to the responsibility that we demand they take. This is one of the areas where I think the political right is most screwed up. These kids get disesases or pregnant and the right says it's their own damn fault, and then the right turns around and establishes educational programs that help ensure these kids will get pregnant and diseases. I think the saying about having and eating cake applies here.

Second: When we look back today on the era of prohibition, we often point out how prohibition had to end because it was unrealistic. Why is prohibition of teenage sex any different? These days we let people have alcohol, and we do our best to make sure they drink responsibly. We have commercials for it and everything. A similar approach to sex education would be a good idea.

What type of idiot would blame the government?

Ahhh.... the sweet sound of troll satire. Good work troll.

What type of idiot would blame the government?

Ahhh.... the sweet sound of troll satire. Good work troll.

What I said earlier goes for you too.

But I don't think that this is the duty of a Public School, and I think it's unfair to blame society's ills on this policy of the public school. This is a parental issue. Parents have dropped the ball, not high schools.

So you blame the public rather than the public.

I don't know anyone who has a problem with emphasizing abstinence. It's just not pointing out the ways to minimize the risk from sex that bothers me.

I think there's a lot of things you can justifiably say are parents responsibility, but this is a public health issue that affects everyone. It's just irreresponsible to not give students full and complete information.

Abstinence only programs aren't education, they're propaganda. Even if it could be shown that they were effective, I'd still be against them, because I don't beleive in any program that has deliberate ignorance as part of its basic tenets, no matter how useful.

But I don't think that this is the duty of a Public School, and I think it's unfair to blame society's ills on this policy of the public school. This is a parental issue. Parents have dropped the ball, not high schools.

So you blame the public rather than the public.

No blame the parents rather than the public, but you knew that already.

The public are parents, but you knew that already.

But I don't think that this is the duty of a Public School, and I think it's unfair to blame society's ills on this policy of the public school. This is a parental issue. Parents have dropped the ball, not high schools.

So you blame the public rather than the public.

No blame the parents rather than the public, but you knew that already.

The public are parents, but you knew that already.

Please.  Quit trolling.  You knew what he meant.

But I don't think that this is the duty of a Public School, and I think it's unfair to blame society's ills on this policy of the public school. This is a parental issue. Parents have dropped the ball, not high schools.

So you blame the public rather than the public.

No blame the parents rather than the public, but you knew that already.

The public are parents, but you knew that already.

Please.  Quit trolling.  You knew what he meant.

I knew what he meant or he new what he meant?

Abstinence, Sex Ed, either way one tells you to not have sex, another one tells you how to have sex...don't you think we are sending mixed messages here?

Cyberpawz

No, for two reasons:

1. Abstinence is part of any comprehensive sex ed course.

2. Sex ed gives you facts and expects you to learn from them. Abstinence only courses don't provide all the facts. They just tell you what not to do.

Problems I see wth the "abstinence only" approach:

You have some authority figure telling a kid that if they abstain, they will not get pregant and not get STDs.  This is 100% true.  However, the kids will still have sex.  Teaching abstinence does not guarantee compliance.  Given a choice between the arguements from an authority figure and the siren song of their hormones, the vast majority of kids listen to their hormones.  Sex on TV and movies and in music is not what makes them do it, either.  Their bodies make them want to do it.  So it has been since the beginning of the human species.  We start wanting sex before we ever know what it is or really how it feels.  We are hard-wired that way.  A puritanical insistence on abstinence will not change that.  A comprehensive programs that covers all the bases is without doubt the best approach.  These kids will decide for themselves, and if we want them to make good decisions, they have to have all the options.  teaching abstinence only is just as foolish as teaching birth control only.

Kids are not really mature enough to be take true responsibilty.  As children, we do not fully understand the consequences of our actions.  You try to tell a teenager, in any era, what the consequences of their actions will be, and they will usually tune you out.  This is the reason we want parents to take repsonsibilty for raising their children properly and educating them.  And they should do so.  But there is one problem there, and that becoming a parent does not autmatically make a responsible person.  And when the parents are worthless bums and do not lok after their children, what do we do?  Are we really willing to punish those kids for the failings of their parents?  That is the real problem with those who cry about parental responsibilty, is that they seem willing to ignore the facts of the situation, and also perfectly willing to let kids suffer becasue their parents were irresponsible smurfs.

First of all, my parents never sat me down and talked about sex. I learned everything about condoms from my sex ed class in 6th or 7th grade. The message was "don't have sex, cause bad things can happen, but if you do, here's how to be safe." (And the girls were all scared sh*tless from watching a woman screaming through childbirth.)

To date, I know of none of the people in my class since middle school that had children before 18, and none that had any debilitating sexual diseases. People who missed out on this class, i.e. came to my school later, had a higher number of pregnancies. Most of them came from Catholic schools.

The point? Abstinence only education is a nice idea, but doesn't work. Like communism, it would take a fundamental change in the way people percieve themselves, society and the world.

As for whether or not they teach condoms or not, I don't care.  I think that if they emphasize that abstinance (which judging from jondariseses' link) works best we might see ultimately better results.  We don't know if we've hit the mark or will ever hit the mark, unless time is allowed to pass.  Perhaps the abstinance plan will be slower getting there, but will ultimately yield a lower rate of STD's.  I don't know.  No one knows.

I cannot fathom why anyone would think that teaching abstinence in place of protection would ever produce better results.

Probably for the same reason others can't fathom why teaching protection in place of abstinence would ever produce better results.