Forums | MacLife

The kids got the whole package:  A little abstinence education, a little condom on the banana, etc. I always made a point of asking the kids what they thought of the classes at the end. EVERY LAST ONE said, "Cool, they just showed us how to have sex". In the midst of these mixed messages, the abstinence message simply didn't stick, and the "Have Sex" message prevailed. Even if the message was supposed to be "Have SAFE Sex" (whatever that means), the "SAFE" part was easily forgotten by the targets of this message.

No offense, but I think you're full of smurf.

No offense, but I think you're full of poop.

In what sense do you mean "full of poop"?

Full of sh*t, if you turn off the censoring.

The statement that "every single kid" made a comment about being "taught how to have sex" seems disingenuous and highly unlikely.  Every single one?

Ahh, full of smurf, like, "lying". Well, I may not have been clear. Every single student I asked (it was always several per session) said that. Others in the class might have reached a different conclusion, but in my sample, everyone did indeed say that or something like it.

You mentioned "high school."  These were high school students that didn't know "how" to have sex?

I can think of few things more staggeringly bone-headed and anachronistic than an abstinence-only education policy. What are they going to do next, introduce a 'crime is bad' education policy and abolish the police force?

My point was that you can tell kids as many times as you want that they should be abstaining from sexual activity, but they're not going to listen to you. I'd rather they understand how to do things safely and sensibly than do something stupid.

Teaching safe sexual practices isn't telling people to go screw. It's showing them how to go about it in a safe manner if they choose to do so.

Bush should give up on sexual abstinence policies.

My opinion is that the original purpose of school is a place for students to build up  a knowledge base they can use in the  future.  Teaching sex education only clouds that picture and takes the emphasis off a proper education.

Ok, so there can be one session per day of health education where the virtues of abstinence can be teached, as long as there is abolutely no religious correllation to it.  Religion has no place in a public school.

No offense, but I think you're full of poop.

In what sense do you mean "full of poop"?

He thinks his personal opinion on the matter prevails over your personal experience.

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

And that is somehow different from people espousing an opposite viewpoint of his?  Oh, that's right, they aren't citing any evidence; just personal opinions.

And that is somehow different from people espousing an opposite viewpoint of his?  Oh, that's right, they aren't citing any evidence; just personal opinions.

Earlier in this thread, I linked to statistics showing that in Texas, where abstinence is taught, teen pregnancy has fallen at a slower rate than the rest of the nation, and STDs have skyrocketed,

So there's your evidence.

And that invalidates his experience in what way?  I'm not trying to argue here.  He stated that this was his personal experience.

Every single student I asked (it was always several per session) said that. Others in the class might have reached a different conclusion, but in my sample, everyone did indeed say that or something like it.

So, he offered a sampling, and you offered a sampling.  I don't see what the problem is here.  He is just stating that the message about having "safe sex" wasn't getting through in his experiences any better than the "abstinence" theory.  Everyone wants the same result.   

So, he offered a sampling, and you offered a sampling.  I don't see what the problem is here.  He is just stating that the message about having "safe sex" wasn't getting through in his experiences any better than the "abstinence" theory.  Everyone wants the same result.   

I get it.  Because safe sex isn't getting through any better than abstinence it should be dropped.

Did I say that?  Please post the words I used to relate that message.  I'll be patiently waiting. 

Don't put words in my mouth.  For the record, a good mixture of both is probably best, but I'm not an expert on the subject, and I suspect that you aren't either.

I'm not an expert on the subject, and I suspect that you aren't either.

I was under the impression that everyone on this BB is an expert in everything.   

Now, thanks to the Internet, we all can be!

The reason the kids don't hear the abstenance part of a "complete" sex education program is that they see that the teachers don't believe it.

"Abstenance is the only 100% sure way to avoid STD's and pregnancy. But since we know that doesn't work here's a condom."

The kids ignore the only sure way because they see that the teachers themselves don't even believe it. We are sending them mixed messages.  I don't know if I have an answer. Maybe we just have to accept that kids will never really learn about abstenance from schools.

That's ok. I learned it from my parents. I am happily married with two kids and enjoy a wonderful, monogamous sex life with my wife. We were both virgins when we married. I believe that promiscuity early in life takes away from intamacy in marriage. It turns sex into an act instead of the emotionaly and spiritually binding experience it was designed to be. Unfortunately, society doesn't care about the best that life can offer, so todays kids are stuck with living a less-than-satisfying sex life in the future. They will all have sex now, but they will never experience what sex was meant to be. Their loss.

I'm glad my parents cared enough for me to teach me what was right so that I could live the most rewarding life possible.

What's being said here is that if schools teach anything more than abstinence, then kids get confused and miss the point and think they've just learned "how to have sex," which is allegedly not what Sex Ed classes are for. Why would the same message from parents be any different then? Does it really matter that much who the message comes from?

My problem with the mixed messages argument is that it basically says that the only possible way to teach kids anything is to teach them abstinence only and that includes anything the parents might want their kids to know. Therefore, when these kids become legal adults (probably within 2 years max of their sex ed classes) there's no way for them to learn things like how to use condoms. They'll be too confused.

I'd say that what's being overlooked here is why the message casuses confusion. It's not the content, it's the delivery.

Don't send kids to a "sex education" class, send them to a "disease and pregnancy prevention" class. Package the message so that it reflects the actual education being provided. Kids walk out of a sex ed class saying that the class just taught them to have sex because to them that's what they think they're supposed to be learning in a class called sex ed. Kids should walk out of a disease prevention class saying that they just learned how to prevent getting diseases.

Even when hormones are involved, kids are not so stupid they can't learn these things. All of the kids who do manage to practice abstinence, and who do manage to practice safe sex are proof of this. If we, the adults, learn how to teach them, then they will learn.