Full Version: Sex Education in Schools
Sex-Education in schools. A hot topic.
In my school we got the absolute minimalist approach to sex-education: this is where babies come from, don't have sex or you will get pregnant or an STD. This information, I found, was useless in my sex life. There is a growing concern over the spread of potentially lethal STDs such as AIDS, yet at the same time there is a debate over what type of sex-ed should be taught in schools. There is a push from the conservatives for abstinence only education while liberals, on the other hand, are pushing for so-called "comprehensive" sex-education programs.
Opponents of abstinence only programs claim that the curriculum does not take into account already sexually active teens or properly teach that wearing a condom is better than not wearing anything (if you're having sex). Abstinence tends to be defined differently in different programs, wether it be abstinence from intercourse or abstinence from all sexual activity. It has also been criticized for not properly explain all the non-intercourse disease vectors leading some to believe that oral sex is safe.
On the other hand comprehensive sex education programs have been accused of encouraging sexual intercourse among teens. Critics complain that by not emphasizing abstinence that these programs send out the message that sex is OK so long as you use a condom and have some form of birth control. They also claim that the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship are not clearly discussed.
I have a laundry list of questions to ask you, but I'll try to keep it short:
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
2. If so, what should they cover?
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
In my school we got the absolute minimalist approach to sex-education: this is where babies come from, don't have sex or you will get pregnant or an STD. This information, I found, was useless in my sex life. There is a growing concern over the spread of potentially lethal STDs such as AIDS, yet at the same time there is a debate over what type of sex-ed should be taught in schools. There is a push from the conservatives for abstinence only education while liberals, on the other hand, are pushing for so-called "comprehensive" sex-education programs.
Opponents of abstinence only programs claim that the curriculum does not take into account already sexually active teens or properly teach that wearing a condom is better than not wearing anything (if you're having sex). Abstinence tends to be defined differently in different programs, wether it be abstinence from intercourse or abstinence from all sexual activity. It has also been criticized for not properly explain all the non-intercourse disease vectors leading some to believe that oral sex is safe.
On the other hand comprehensive sex education programs have been accused of encouraging sexual intercourse among teens. Critics complain that by not emphasizing abstinence that these programs send out the message that sex is OK so long as you use a condom and have some form of birth control. They also claim that the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship are not clearly discussed.
I have a laundry list of questions to ask you, but I'll try to keep it short:
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
2. If so, what should they cover?
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Definetly, sexuality is an important sphere of human experience that activates sometime within the time period that children are within school. I could not imagine anyone actually arguing that we shouldnt teach about sex at all. Exactly what and how much is the real question.
2. If so, what should they cover?
Ahh the real debate. This subject is of course not black and white as the partisan arguers try and make it. In pre-teens and teens I think its a truism that it is bad to openly encourage sex, as well as to only teach abstinence from all sexual activity. I think the best way to do anything, or teach anything is with absolute honesty. Teens should leave middle school with a good understanding of the function of the changes they are going through. The more myths dispelled, the better chances that kids will make good decisions based on real information. I think kids should within the first two years of high school understand everything about sex, good and bad. Careful consideration must be paid to cirriculum. Cirriculum should not encourage sex, but shouldn't demonize it either. And drop the whole purity until marriage crud... save it for private school kids, maybe you can scare them with hellfire and brimstone enough to listen. I have grown up in a big city in public schools. Most teens I know are in some way sexually active, but not all of them know what they are doing. That is the problem that must be corrected.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My mother did everything she could to raise me as a good christian child, including scaring the bajeezus out of me witht he sex talk. The entire discussion can be summed up as: Sex is bad, don't do it until your married, end of discussion. And so, I took the first opportunity possible to engage in sexual activity because my mom is the same person who told me there was an easter bunny. It's a carefully or uncarefully constructed lie meant to achieve the intended results with little effort. The easter Bunny doesn't exist and I discovered through sexual activity everything I ever needed to know. I didnt get AIDS, or any STD's, I always wore a condom and so no one ever got pregnant and best of all I learned a lot about myself in the process. Had I not learned what I knew about sex prevously from good sex-ed classes I may not have made near as responsible decisions.
Definetly, sexuality is an important sphere of human experience that activates sometime within the time period that children are within school. I could not imagine anyone actually arguing that we shouldnt teach about sex at all. Exactly what and how much is the real question.
2. If so, what should they cover?
Ahh the real debate. This subject is of course not black and white as the partisan arguers try and make it. In pre-teens and teens I think its a truism that it is bad to openly encourage sex, as well as to only teach abstinence from all sexual activity. I think the best way to do anything, or teach anything is with absolute honesty. Teens should leave middle school with a good understanding of the function of the changes they are going through. The more myths dispelled, the better chances that kids will make good decisions based on real information. I think kids should within the first two years of high school understand everything about sex, good and bad. Careful consideration must be paid to cirriculum. Cirriculum should not encourage sex, but shouldn't demonize it either. And drop the whole purity until marriage crud... save it for private school kids, maybe you can scare them with hellfire and brimstone enough to listen. I have grown up in a big city in public schools. Most teens I know are in some way sexually active, but not all of them know what they are doing. That is the problem that must be corrected.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My mother did everything she could to raise me as a good christian child, including scaring the bajeezus out of me witht he sex talk. The entire discussion can be summed up as: Sex is bad, don't do it until your married, end of discussion. And so, I took the first opportunity possible to engage in sexual activity because my mom is the same person who told me there was an easter bunny. It's a carefully or uncarefully constructed lie meant to achieve the intended results with little effort. The easter Bunny doesn't exist and I discovered through sexual activity everything I ever needed to know. I didnt get AIDS, or any STD's, I always wore a condom and so no one ever got pregnant and best of all I learned a lot about myself in the process. Had I not learned what I knew about sex prevously from good sex-ed classes I may not have made near as responsible decisions.
QUOTE
2. If so, what should they cover?
Ahh the real debate. This subject is of course not black and white as the partisan arguers try and make it. In pre-teens and teens I think its a truism that it is bad to openly encourage sex, as well as to only teach abstinence from all sexual activity. I think the best way to do anything, or teach anything is with absolute honesty. Teens should leave middle school with a good understanding of the function of the changes they are going through. The more myths dispelled, the better chances that kids will make good decisions based on real information.
Ahh the real debate. This subject is of course not black and white as the partisan arguers try and make it. In pre-teens and teens I think its a truism that it is bad to openly encourage sex, as well as to only teach abstinence from all sexual activity. I think the best way to do anything, or teach anything is with absolute honesty. Teens should leave middle school with a good understanding of the function of the changes they are going through. The more myths dispelled, the better chances that kids will make good decisions based on real information.
Yup
The major problem today, though, is that the most dangerous myth is the Myth of Monogamy and "Wisdom Narrative." Since HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns highlighted monogamous relationships as a way to avoid the disease, women who have no source of self-esteem outside of their mates (which, unfortunately, constitutes most women under 30) don't use condoms -- so when their significant others cheat, they get sick. E. J. Sobo's ethnographic descriptions of this trend is the medical anthropology equivalent of a Philip K. Dick novel.
QUOTE
Had I not learned what I knew about sex prevously from good sex-ed classes I may not have made near as responsible decisions.
What's frightening is that there's less and less of a correlation between HIV/AIDS knowledge and safer sex practices. Those of us who saw AIDS up close and personal in the 1980s are the only subgroup that this rule does not apply to.
Terra
I think Hero sums up the argument quite eloquently, and I agree with the ideas of honest education. I would go a step further as sex is a significant act in human development, and bring in professionals to talk about sex. Get all angles, then let the kids decide. If they choose to have sex, sobeit, but hopefully it will be safely. Teen pregnancy is already high enough, and I don't think abstinence is helping. Why not have a look at the practices of other country's sex education?
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Parents often find the subject taboo, and I wouldn't leave the idiot box to teach it to them. So I guess it would be a school's responsibility.
2. If so, what should they cover?
As much as possible. But definitely make sure it isn't skewed against sex. (I for one wouldn't care if it made off like sex was a great thing, because it can be). Just let people know the consequences. Bring in a screaming baby. I can't remember where I found it, but I have a commercial with this kid being a terror because his dad refuses to buy him candy at the grocery store, thus the kid throws a tantrum. The commercial ends with the line: Use condoms. Let people know what it's like. STDs are serious, but having to take care of another life I feel is more serious. Especially since I feel that you should have to have a parenting license.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
Not much. My parents' defense has always been, "Well, we were going to tell you about it all when you got a serious girlfriend, blah blah blah," and I never found the logic in that. My mom is an RN and I've gotten plenty of information on the downsides of sex such as the STDs, the pregnancy (well, I can't get pregnant, but you know what I mean) and other problems, but I never got the positives. I had to go find those out for myself. Luckily I wasn't stupid so I never got anything.
And while I don't have any children now, when I do, I plan on being completely open and honest with them. No need to hide anything, as what reason is there to hide the information about sex? It happens naturally all the time in other animals, why must humans be different? Besides, plenty of kids seem to stay fairly current on sex topics, as I know I did in school. My 5th-grader nephew may or may not know what to do in the realm of sex, but I do know that he knows there is the realm of sex.
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Parents often find the subject taboo, and I wouldn't leave the idiot box to teach it to them. So I guess it would be a school's responsibility.
2. If so, what should they cover?
As much as possible. But definitely make sure it isn't skewed against sex. (I for one wouldn't care if it made off like sex was a great thing, because it can be). Just let people know the consequences. Bring in a screaming baby. I can't remember where I found it, but I have a commercial with this kid being a terror because his dad refuses to buy him candy at the grocery store, thus the kid throws a tantrum. The commercial ends with the line: Use condoms. Let people know what it's like. STDs are serious, but having to take care of another life I feel is more serious. Especially since I feel that you should have to have a parenting license.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
Not much. My parents' defense has always been, "Well, we were going to tell you about it all when you got a serious girlfriend, blah blah blah," and I never found the logic in that. My mom is an RN and I've gotten plenty of information on the downsides of sex such as the STDs, the pregnancy (well, I can't get pregnant, but you know what I mean) and other problems, but I never got the positives. I had to go find those out for myself. Luckily I wasn't stupid so I never got anything.
And while I don't have any children now, when I do, I plan on being completely open and honest with them. No need to hide anything, as what reason is there to hide the information about sex? It happens naturally all the time in other animals, why must humans be different? Besides, plenty of kids seem to stay fairly current on sex topics, as I know I did in school. My 5th-grader nephew may or may not know what to do in the realm of sex, but I do know that he knows there is the realm of sex.
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Yes. Human sexuality is a huge part of life. It's best to know as much as possible about one of our most basic drives, since it can get someone into lots of trouble if there is a lot of ignorance.
2. If so, what should they cover?
I'd like to see all points of view covered. Bring in a health professional to cover all the technical and health related issues, including how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Bring in someone who has good arguments for "abstinence only". Bring in someone who can speak on human sexuality as a natural part of being human, that doesn't believe in sexual activity as being evil. Bring in a teenage mom to talk about the challenges to raising a child while still a child.
I'd like my daughters to have as much information as possible to help them make the best decisions. It's good to hear many sides to an issue to spark critical thinking.
Yes. Human sexuality is a huge part of life. It's best to know as much as possible about one of our most basic drives, since it can get someone into lots of trouble if there is a lot of ignorance.
2. If so, what should they cover?
I'd like to see all points of view covered. Bring in a health professional to cover all the technical and health related issues, including how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Bring in someone who has good arguments for "abstinence only". Bring in someone who can speak on human sexuality as a natural part of being human, that doesn't believe in sexual activity as being evil. Bring in a teenage mom to talk about the challenges to raising a child while still a child.
I'd like my daughters to have as much information as possible to help them make the best decisions. It's good to hear many sides to an issue to spark critical thinking.
QUOTE
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Partially. In an ideal world, parents would teach their children about sex. Unfortunately, in this overly religious, repressed country, we have a weird double standard going on; the majority of people think sex is naughty, dirty and/or private, but on the other hand there’s the whole “sex sells” idea that panders to the salacious enjoyment of “forbidden fruits” (Biblical allegory used intentionally). To wit, all the hoopla over Janice Jackson’s boob. So, most parents don’t want to discuss the uncomfortable topic, and leave it up to the schools to deal with it…then those same parents get PO’d that schools actually teach about sex! Ow, it makes my head hurt.
QUOTE
2. If so, what should they cover?
I don’t see why a comprehensive course on sex, safe sex and sexuality can’t be taught. Two maxims I truly believe in:
QUOTE
Knowledge is power. -Sir Francis Bacon
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. -Socrates
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. -Socrates
QUOTE
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My parents told me nuthin’, nada, zero, zip. I was quite possibly the most naïve 15-year old on the planet. I learned about sex from Bill Cosby’s proverbial “13-year old on the street corner”; that is, from my friends. I don’t have kids, but if I did, I would discuss sex with them frankly and openly. Children are sexual from infancy – we start the shame game when we discourage their own curiosity about their genitals (don’t DO that – that’s nasty!).
Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality? If so, what should they cover? What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
I already mentioned this is another thread. My mother's idea of sex education was a wagging finger and these words of wisdom: "You can't have sex. If you get pregnant you can't have an abortion. If you give birth you can't raise my grandchild under my roof." A moment later she told my brothers to wear condoms.
Although I went to church as often as three times a week because I wanted to I knew I was not going to wait until marriage. It was around this time that my family's protection of my "father's honor" almost led me to believe getting knocked up just to spite them would be worth nourishing a womb booger for 9 months. A few years later I had my high school sex ed teacher to thank for leaving a lasting neutral impression.
Sex ed should be comprehensive and include discussions of self-respect, abstinence, masturbation, gender issues, contraceptives, fertility, AIDS, STDs, pregnancy, drugs, date-rape, help centers, etc. If parents don't want their children to receive sex ed they can sign a waiver. The controversy surrounding sex ed is not just about whether it encourages promiscuity. If you can't make the neighborhood kids go to church the next best thing is boycotting their education.
Bush advocated abstinence since elected as governor in '94. I'm not impressed with the results--nor the rhetoric.
Statistics (note: Pro-Choice and Pro-Life organizations use The Alan Guttmacher Institute for statistical information):
Rhetoric:
I already mentioned this is another thread. My mother's idea of sex education was a wagging finger and these words of wisdom: "You can't have sex. If you get pregnant you can't have an abortion. If you give birth you can't raise my grandchild under my roof." A moment later she told my brothers to wear condoms.
Although I went to church as often as three times a week because I wanted to I knew I was not going to wait until marriage. It was around this time that my family's protection of my "father's honor" almost led me to believe getting knocked up just to spite them would be worth nourishing a womb booger for 9 months. A few years later I had my high school sex ed teacher to thank for leaving a lasting neutral impression.
Sex ed should be comprehensive and include discussions of self-respect, abstinence, masturbation, gender issues, contraceptives, fertility, AIDS, STDs, pregnancy, drugs, date-rape, help centers, etc. If parents don't want their children to receive sex ed they can sign a waiver. The controversy surrounding sex ed is not just about whether it encourages promiscuity. If you can't make the neighborhood kids go to church the next best thing is boycotting their education.
Bush advocated abstinence since elected as governor in '94. I'm not impressed with the results--nor the rhetoric.
Statistics (note: Pro-Choice and Pro-Life organizations use The Alan Guttmacher Institute for statistical information):
QUOTE
• nearly one-third of all teen pregnancies occur in California, Texas and New York;
-- AGI, 1997 publication, Texas rates as 8th highest state for teen pregnancy in 1992
-- AGI, 1997 publication, Texas rates as 8th highest state for teen pregnancy in 1992
QUOTE
By 2000, [teenage pregnancy rates] were lower than the 1998 rates in all states except Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas.
...
In general, states with the largest numbers of teenagers also had the greatest number of teenage pregnancies. California reported the highest number of adolescent pregnancies (113,000), followed by Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois (with about 37,000–80,000 each).
-- AGI, 2000 publication, Texas ranks 5th
...
In general, states with the largest numbers of teenagers also had the greatest number of teenage pregnancies. California reported the highest number of adolescent pregnancies (113,000), followed by Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois (with about 37,000–80,000 each).
-- AGI, 2000 publication, Texas ranks 5th
QUOTE
• Texas's teenage pregnancy rate ranks 5th nationally (Nevada has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation and ranks 1st).
-- AGI, 2002 publication
-- AGI, 2002 publication
Rhetoric:
QUOTE
The Effectiveness of Abstinence-Only Education
Over the past three years, Congress has appropriated over $100 million in grants to organizations that sponsor abstinence-only education. In November 2000, under the Clinton Administration, HHS developed meaningful, scientifically sound outcome measures to assess whether these programs achieved their intended purposes, including the “proportion of program participants who have engaged in sexual intercourse” and the birth rate of female program participants.[4]
In late 2001, however, the Bush Administration dropped these measures and replaced them with a set of standards that does not include any real outcomes. Rather than tracking pregnancy or sexual activity, these measures assess attendance and the attitudes of teens at the end of the education program, including the “proportion of participants who indicate understanding of the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from premarital sexual activity.”[5]
Such standards are not scientifically valid. A 2001 review of scientific evidence concluded that “adolescents’ sexual beliefs, attitudes, and even intentions are . . . weak proxies for actual behaviors.”[6] That is, even if teens pledge to remain abstinent, they may not actually do so. According to a major HHS-funded report, two “hallmarks of good evaluation” in programs designed to reduce teen pregnancy rates are evaluations that “[m]easure behaviors, not just attitudes and beliefs” and “[c]onduct long-term follow-up (of at least one year).”[7] However, the Bush Administration’s standards for measuring the success of abstinence-only programs contain no reports or assessments of actual behavior or health outcomes and do not require any minimum followup period.
The result is that the performance measures appear constructed to produce the appearance that scientific evidence supports abstinence-only programs when, in fact, the best evidence does not.
Appointment to CDC Committee
[M]any of the items in [Dr. McIlhaney’s] presentation [on sexually transmitted diseases] are misleading and are quoted incompletely . . . . The only data which was reported in the presentation are those which supported his bias on the topics he addressed. Intellectual honesty demands that he present all the data.[11]
As recently as April 2002, Dr. McIlhaney asserted in congressional testimony that “there is precious little evidence” that comprehensive sexual education programs are “successful at all.”[12] This assertion, however, is inaccurate. A 2001 review found that comprehensive sex education programs that both encourage abstinence and provide information on contraception have been shown in scientific studies to delay the onset of sexual activity and can result in greater use of potentially life-saving condoms and other contraceptives.[13]
-- Politics and Science
Over the past three years, Congress has appropriated over $100 million in grants to organizations that sponsor abstinence-only education. In November 2000, under the Clinton Administration, HHS developed meaningful, scientifically sound outcome measures to assess whether these programs achieved their intended purposes, including the “proportion of program participants who have engaged in sexual intercourse” and the birth rate of female program participants.[4]
In late 2001, however, the Bush Administration dropped these measures and replaced them with a set of standards that does not include any real outcomes. Rather than tracking pregnancy or sexual activity, these measures assess attendance and the attitudes of teens at the end of the education program, including the “proportion of participants who indicate understanding of the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from premarital sexual activity.”[5]
Such standards are not scientifically valid. A 2001 review of scientific evidence concluded that “adolescents’ sexual beliefs, attitudes, and even intentions are . . . weak proxies for actual behaviors.”[6] That is, even if teens pledge to remain abstinent, they may not actually do so. According to a major HHS-funded report, two “hallmarks of good evaluation” in programs designed to reduce teen pregnancy rates are evaluations that “[m]easure behaviors, not just attitudes and beliefs” and “[c]onduct long-term follow-up (of at least one year).”[7] However, the Bush Administration’s standards for measuring the success of abstinence-only programs contain no reports or assessments of actual behavior or health outcomes and do not require any minimum followup period.
The result is that the performance measures appear constructed to produce the appearance that scientific evidence supports abstinence-only programs when, in fact, the best evidence does not.
Appointment to CDC Committee
[M]any of the items in [Dr. McIlhaney’s] presentation [on sexually transmitted diseases] are misleading and are quoted incompletely . . . . The only data which was reported in the presentation are those which supported his bias on the topics he addressed. Intellectual honesty demands that he present all the data.[11]
As recently as April 2002, Dr. McIlhaney asserted in congressional testimony that “there is precious little evidence” that comprehensive sexual education programs are “successful at all.”[12] This assertion, however, is inaccurate. A 2001 review found that comprehensive sex education programs that both encourage abstinence and provide information on contraception have been shown in scientific studies to delay the onset of sexual activity and can result in greater use of potentially life-saving condoms and other contraceptives.[13]
-- Politics and Science
QUOTE
Ironically, last year Human Rights Watch, a national organization, studied Texas' abstinence-only education, and found that while the state sanctions these programs, it also ranks among the highest rates of teen birth, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the U.S. In Bexar County, most school districts teach abstinence-only programs, yet there is no hard data that excluding contraception from the curriculum significantly lowers teen pregnancy rates or the incidence of sexually transmitted disease. The numbers bear out the consequences of these shortsighted programs: The county can boast among the highest teen pregnancy and birth rates in the state. And for the young mothers, fathers, or those infected with HIV or AIDS, it wasn't sound social policy, but Bush's moral righteousness that robbed them of the comprehensive sex education they needed - and deserved - in public school.
-- Abstinence-only programs function as an information blackout (2003)
-- Abstinence-only programs function as an information blackout (2003)
QUOTE
It often falls to Claude Allen to explain Bush's philosophy. As deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, Allen is the administration's point man on abstinence. Allen sees sex as just one more risky teen behavior to curb and argues that abstinence is the only way to reduce a teen's risk to zero. "Condoms may be effective in preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS and, in some cases, transmission of gonorrhea in men, but beyond that they do not protect adequately against other sexually transmitted diseases," he says. A 2001 report from the National Institutes of Health agrees with Allen about HIV and gonorrhea, but says there's insufficient evidence to say whether condoms protect against other STDs. Lately, Allen has fought off criticism that politics prompted the CDC to delete a condom fact sheet from its official government Web site. He says the site is being revised to reflect the most recent research.
That's little comfort to the comprehensive camp. When Human Rights Watch researcher Rebecca Schleifer studied abstinence programs in Texas, she found that they actually posed a threat to adolescent health. "They're getting the message out that condoms don't work," Schleifer says. She concluded that the programs jolt kids with worst-case scenarios--like the gory slide show--but don't prepare them to deal with their emerging sexuality. "It doesn't really help you. It's just trying to scare you," says Hughes's student Carol Lujan, 14.
-- The Battle Over Abstinence (2002)
That's little comfort to the comprehensive camp. When Human Rights Watch researcher Rebecca Schleifer studied abstinence programs in Texas, she found that they actually posed a threat to adolescent health. "They're getting the message out that condoms don't work," Schleifer says. She concluded that the programs jolt kids with worst-case scenarios--like the gory slide show--but don't prepare them to deal with their emerging sexuality. "It doesn't really help you. It's just trying to scare you," says Hughes's student Carol Lujan, 14.
-- The Battle Over Abstinence (2002)
QUOTE
One such program currently used in 31 Texas school districts teaches middle school students that a teenage girl's cervix is "more vulnerable" to certain STDs than the cervix of an adult woman and that there is "little evidence" to support the theory that condoms protect against any STD other than HIV. The [Houston] Chronicle reports that the programs are proving "just as controversial" as religion-based abstinence classes, largely because they do not discuss abortion or provide information on how students can use or obtain contraceptives.
-- Daily Reproductive Health Report
-- Daily Reproductive Health Report
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
In an ideal world, sex education is a parent's responsibility. However, since we don't live in that world and kids are most often raised by everyone but their parents, I believe the schools have a duty to teach comprehensive sexual education.
2. If so, what should they cover?
Schools should cover the following:
- anatomy of the male/female body
- discussion of known STDs, methods of contraction, symptoms, relatively curability
- discussion of the importance of safe sex (i.e. condoms, asking your partner about their history, abstinence, masterbation)
- discussion of birth control methods (condoms, birth control pills, etc) including proper use through demonstration on household objects or dolls. Condoms are only effective if you use them correctly, and who else is going to teach you?
- distribution of condoms, etc (no questions asked) to avoid those situations where kids avoid them due to embarrassment at the drug store.
- discussion of family planning and resources available if you get pregnant or get an STD or something (i.e. Planned Parenthood, abortion, clinics, etc)
- discussion of the cycle of life (pregnancy stages, importance of prenatal care, etc)
- discussion of responsibilities and burdens of sex (i.e. emotional investment, family, etc). This would have to be done in a way that wasn't lecturing morals to kids I think, but it could be done.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My parents never had the sex discussion with me because they had the same kind of puritanical mindset about it that the majority of conservatives do. Since I went to school in Texas, our education there was limited to anatomy and a glossary type overview of STDs, that was about it. We spent about 3 days of 1 school year in health class discussing it.
Instead I got the majority of my sex education from pornography tapes I stole from my dad, friends and TV and later through experience. I did my share of risky things due to ignorance and I got lucky because nothing ever happened.
When I have kids, if the school isn't teaching all of the things I listed above, my wife and I will be teaching them. Even if the school is teaching them the aforementioned things, we'll be reinforcing them.
Leaving kids ignorant about sex or preaching abstinence (and thinking for a second your morals will overcome hormones) is not only ignorant, but rather like sending them in to a game of Russian Roulette with the way the sex scene is today.
edited for spelling
In an ideal world, sex education is a parent's responsibility. However, since we don't live in that world and kids are most often raised by everyone but their parents, I believe the schools have a duty to teach comprehensive sexual education.
2. If so, what should they cover?
Schools should cover the following:
- anatomy of the male/female body
- discussion of known STDs, methods of contraction, symptoms, relatively curability
- discussion of the importance of safe sex (i.e. condoms, asking your partner about their history, abstinence, masterbation)
- discussion of birth control methods (condoms, birth control pills, etc) including proper use through demonstration on household objects or dolls. Condoms are only effective if you use them correctly, and who else is going to teach you?
- distribution of condoms, etc (no questions asked) to avoid those situations where kids avoid them due to embarrassment at the drug store.
- discussion of family planning and resources available if you get pregnant or get an STD or something (i.e. Planned Parenthood, abortion, clinics, etc)
- discussion of the cycle of life (pregnancy stages, importance of prenatal care, etc)
- discussion of responsibilities and burdens of sex (i.e. emotional investment, family, etc). This would have to be done in a way that wasn't lecturing morals to kids I think, but it could be done.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My parents never had the sex discussion with me because they had the same kind of puritanical mindset about it that the majority of conservatives do. Since I went to school in Texas, our education there was limited to anatomy and a glossary type overview of STDs, that was about it. We spent about 3 days of 1 school year in health class discussing it.
Instead I got the majority of my sex education from pornography tapes I stole from my dad, friends and TV and later through experience. I did my share of risky things due to ignorance and I got lucky because nothing ever happened.
When I have kids, if the school isn't teaching all of the things I listed above, my wife and I will be teaching them. Even if the school is teaching them the aforementioned things, we'll be reinforcing them.
Leaving kids ignorant about sex or preaching abstinence (and thinking for a second your morals will overcome hormones) is not only ignorant, but rather like sending them in to a game of Russian Roulette with the way the sex scene is today.
edited for spelling
Yes, the schools should be responsible for teaching sex education. Education is more than math and science. It's also about learning how to be successful out in the real world-hence why schools have consumer science classes, vocational education courses, as well as things like consumer math. I know that many schools have permission forms and such for those who disagree with a given school's policy for whatever reason.
What should be covered?-Everything, and it shouldn't be a "If you have sex, you will die or suffer from a deadly disease forever" type of orientation. Not every pre-marital sexual experience is such.
As for question #3-I don't remember having the birds and the bees conversation with mom or dad, but they did give me a pop-up book that explained the sciecne of it to a "t" I did have a sex education course in a Lutheran elementary school. I would like to believe that I've turned out o.k. and know generally how kids are produced, especially since I have a one year old and another one that is due in July.
Here's a great resource on this issue: www.siecus.org
What should be covered?-Everything, and it shouldn't be a "If you have sex, you will die or suffer from a deadly disease forever" type of orientation. Not every pre-marital sexual experience is such.
As for question #3-I don't remember having the birds and the bees conversation with mom or dad, but they did give me a pop-up book that explained the sciecne of it to a "t" I did have a sex education course in a Lutheran elementary school. I would like to believe that I've turned out o.k. and know generally how kids are produced, especially since I have a one year old and another one that is due in July.
Here's a great resource on this issue: www.siecus.org
Teaching the technical aspects of sex is likely necessary. It discourages unwanted pregnancies, advocates safety issues, and dispels myths.
But, human beings are not made of plastic. Human beings do not usually enact motions 1, 2, and 3 robotically from inside a scientific laboratory.
Teaching the technical aspects of sex only is akin to explaining how to prepare a recipe without explaining which ingrediants to use.
An element of romance ought to be taught alongside the technicalities - to emphasize the human feelings involved and to emphasize the value of sex as it is a human experience.
Christianity has carried out a century-long campaign against sex - designated it as a "evil and corruptive" force. Sex education - as it is taught today - furthers this goal by emphasizing the negatives (unwanted pregnancies, diseases etc...) and by approaching the subject as if it is an unpleasant necessity. Here, we are desensitized, and sex is devalued.
What happened to love anyway?
Peace out, man.
jjirout
But, human beings are not made of plastic. Human beings do not usually enact motions 1, 2, and 3 robotically from inside a scientific laboratory.
Teaching the technical aspects of sex only is akin to explaining how to prepare a recipe without explaining which ingrediants to use.
An element of romance ought to be taught alongside the technicalities - to emphasize the human feelings involved and to emphasize the value of sex as it is a human experience.
Christianity has carried out a century-long campaign against sex - designated it as a "evil and corruptive" force. Sex education - as it is taught today - furthers this goal by emphasizing the negatives (unwanted pregnancies, diseases etc...) and by approaching the subject as if it is an unpleasant necessity. Here, we are desensitized, and sex is devalued.
What happened to love anyway?
Peace out, man.
jjirout
QUOTE(lethe @ May 3 2004, 01:30 AM)
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Yes. Many parents are not comfortable telling their kids about sex so it's up to our teachers to do it. Also, teachers go into more detail so the kid can understand what they are trying to warn them about whereas a parent would leave many things out.
QUOTE
2. If so, what should they cover?
The lethal effects AIDS and other STDs has on society. Also, what the physical damage some STD's leave behind. I remember sex ed very well. Some of the pictures that were shown from different STDs were disgusting. How will pictures of physical damage help? Well, kids (especially the girls) will be so grossed out, they will say "i don't want that on me" and *poof*, they are paying attention and they will be more cautious when they have sex.
Yes, sex education should definitely be taught in school. Not only that, but throughout the course of school. At least once a year, students should be given refresher courses, perhaps in a health course.
I'm very much an advocate of sex ed in schools, and I think promoting abstinence, while admirable, has not worked at all.
Here's a question I'd like to pose: as a gay man, sex education did little to inform me of anything. I was at serious risk when I first began sexual experiences. I was only told about unwanted pregnancy, and figuring two men can't get pregnant, thought nothing of unprotected sex.
How should sex education programs handle same-sex education?
I'm curious to see the responses. Maybe this could help curb rampant promiscuity within the gay communities?
I'm very much an advocate of sex ed in schools, and I think promoting abstinence, while admirable, has not worked at all.
Here's a question I'd like to pose: as a gay man, sex education did little to inform me of anything. I was at serious risk when I first began sexual experiences. I was only told about unwanted pregnancy, and figuring two men can't get pregnant, thought nothing of unprotected sex.
How should sex education programs handle same-sex education?
I'm curious to see the responses. Maybe this could help curb rampant promiscuity within the gay communities?
QUOTE(FargoUT @ May 4 2004, 11:31 PM)
Yes, sex education should definitely be taught in school. Not only that, but throughout the course of school. At least once a year, students should be given refresher courses, perhaps in a health course.
I'm very much an advocate of sex ed in schools, and I think promoting abstinence, while admirable, has not worked at all.
Here's a question I'd like to pose: as a gay man, sex education did little to inform me of anything. I was at serious risk when I first began sexual experiences. I was only told about unwanted pregnancy, and figuring two men can't get pregnant, thought nothing of unprotected sex.
How should sex education programs handle same-sex education?
I'm curious to see the responses. Maybe this could help curb rampant promiscuity within the gay communities?
I'm very much an advocate of sex ed in schools, and I think promoting abstinence, while admirable, has not worked at all.
Here's a question I'd like to pose: as a gay man, sex education did little to inform me of anything. I was at serious risk when I first began sexual experiences. I was only told about unwanted pregnancy, and figuring two men can't get pregnant, thought nothing of unprotected sex.
How should sex education programs handle same-sex education?
I'm curious to see the responses. Maybe this could help curb rampant promiscuity within the gay communities?
Well Fargo, any and all education against promiscuity is certainly desirable. Whether or not a person is straight or gay, it is in everyone's interest to know what promiscuity could have in store for them in terms of health and physical/mental well-being. I'm not certain that gays are any more promiscuous than straights, but if we follow that line of reasoning then............by refusing to allow gays to marry, the President, the House and Senate GOP, as well as state GOP leaders are encouraging promiscuity!
I guess my point deals with the second question for debate. A comprehensive plan that tells kids that it's o.k. to not be straight is what should be taught. I don't have stats in front of me, but the rate of suicide attempts by non-straights is pretty high. The schools should be concerned with everyone in their buildings, and not just the ones who are straight.
I think that there should be much more sex ed in high school. The ladies that I know are just horrible at it.............j/k
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Should they be responsible???? That's a tough word.
Parents should ultimately bare the responsibility, but Sex ed is taught at an age where peer pressure is paramount in the learning process. I am sure most of us have seen it in one way or another. A child rolling his eyes as dad mentions the "birds and the bees". At that age, I didn't want to hear about sex from my parents, and now matter how hard they tried to educate me, most of there comments fell on deaf ears, as I was a "Know it all" when it came to anything my parents said. I think that kids attitudes change when they are in a group setting and someone other than their mom or dad discusses sex with them. It promotes discussion, which few have with their parents, and therefore increase the retention rate of what is being taught.
2. If so, what should they cover?
The truth about sex. Why we get sexually excited, and the consequences of acting on those feelings. Most importantly, protection.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
As stated above, I rolled my eyes as my dad discussed the "penis" and "vagina" as he was the guy that taught me how to throw a baseball, and this conversation was out of his league. I am not sure who was more uncomfortable, him or me. I was fortunate, I guess, to have a very well structured sex ed program at my VA high school. We were taught to have save sex, and the safest, but not as fun, sex was abstinence.
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
Should they be responsible???? That's a tough word.
Parents should ultimately bare the responsibility, but Sex ed is taught at an age where peer pressure is paramount in the learning process. I am sure most of us have seen it in one way or another. A child rolling his eyes as dad mentions the "birds and the bees". At that age, I didn't want to hear about sex from my parents, and now matter how hard they tried to educate me, most of there comments fell on deaf ears, as I was a "Know it all" when it came to anything my parents said. I think that kids attitudes change when they are in a group setting and someone other than their mom or dad discusses sex with them. It promotes discussion, which few have with their parents, and therefore increase the retention rate of what is being taught.
2. If so, what should they cover?
The truth about sex. Why we get sexually excited, and the consequences of acting on those feelings. Most importantly, protection.
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
As stated above, I rolled my eyes as my dad discussed the "penis" and "vagina" as he was the guy that taught me how to throw a baseball, and this conversation was out of his league. I am not sure who was more uncomfortable, him or me. I was fortunate, I guess, to have a very well structured sex ed program at my VA high school. We were taught to have save sex, and the safest, but not as fun, sex was abstinence.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 7 2004, 05:29 PM)
Well Fargo, any and all education against promiscuity is certainly desirable. Whether or not a person is straight or gay, it is in everyone's interest to know what promiscuity could have in store for them in terms of health and physical/mental well-being.
I'm not so sure. I've met a few people for whom promiscuity genuinely improved their self-image.
Terra
It is obvious that our schools are being asked to be parents- so what are the parents supposed to do? 
Perhaps it is time for the parents to go to school and learn how to be parents?
School should be used as a place of learning- sex ed should be about physiology only- leave the rest of it to the parents.
Perhaps it is time for the parents to go to school and learn how to be parents?
School should be used as a place of learning- sex ed should be about physiology only- leave the rest of it to the parents.
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
NO!!! That is a parents job. School is for teaching kids the basics reading, writing, and arithmetic. Not SEX. If parents don't want to teach their children about sex then they shouldn't of had children. Talking to your kids about sex is part of a parental responsibility. I plan to send my daughters to private school, so I can keep them away from the NEA's brainwashing agendas such as sex ed. I'll tell them the truth, and I will tell them that children that have sex are bad kids! They will know about STDs, Pregnancy, and emotions that come with having sex. I'll tell them how precious it is to save yourself for the man you plan to marry. Teaching my kids about sex is my job!!!!
2. If so, what should they cover? NA/A
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My Mom told me about STDs, and pregnancy. From my Mothers information, I made the decision not to have sex until I was an adult. I went to high school in the 80's and the word for girls that were having sex was "slut". That was a word my mom used a lot for girls having sex in high school. I plan to use that word with my daughters too, because kids having sex is negative and a good negative word needs to be applied to the activity. Kids having sex isn't okay, and all it causes is kids getting pregnant and having a kid! Not Cool at all!!!!
NO!!! That is a parents job. School is for teaching kids the basics reading, writing, and arithmetic. Not SEX. If parents don't want to teach their children about sex then they shouldn't of had children. Talking to your kids about sex is part of a parental responsibility. I plan to send my daughters to private school, so I can keep them away from the NEA's brainwashing agendas such as sex ed. I'll tell them the truth, and I will tell them that children that have sex are bad kids! They will know about STDs, Pregnancy, and emotions that come with having sex. I'll tell them how precious it is to save yourself for the man you plan to marry. Teaching my kids about sex is my job!!!!
2. If so, what should they cover? NA/A
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My Mom told me about STDs, and pregnancy. From my Mothers information, I made the decision not to have sex until I was an adult. I went to high school in the 80's and the word for girls that were having sex was "slut". That was a word my mom used a lot for girls having sex in high school. I plan to use that word with my daughters too, because kids having sex is negative and a good negative word needs to be applied to the activity. Kids having sex isn't okay, and all it causes is kids getting pregnant and having a kid! Not Cool at all!!!!
QUOTE(crazyinbama @ May 8 2004, 04:19 PM)
1. Should the schools be responsible for educating children about sex, safe-sex, and/or sexuality?
NO!!! That is a parents job. School is for teaching kids the basics reading, writing, and arithmetic. Not SEX. If parents don't want to teach their children about sex then they shouldn't of had children. Talking to your kids about sex is part of a parental responsibility. I plan to send my daughters to private school, so I can keep them away from the NEA's brainwashing agendas such as sex ed. I'll tell them the truth, and I will tell them that children that have sex are bad kids! They will know about STDs, Pregnancy, and emotions that come with having sex. I'll tell them how precious it is to save yourself for the man you plan to marry. Teaching my kids about sex is my job!!!!
NO!!! That is a parents job. School is for teaching kids the basics reading, writing, and arithmetic. Not SEX. If parents don't want to teach their children about sex then they shouldn't of had children. Talking to your kids about sex is part of a parental responsibility. I plan to send my daughters to private school, so I can keep them away from the NEA's brainwashing agendas such as sex ed. I'll tell them the truth, and I will tell them that children that have sex are bad kids! They will know about STDs, Pregnancy, and emotions that come with having sex. I'll tell them how precious it is to save yourself for the man you plan to marry. Teaching my kids about sex is my job!!!!
Unless, of course, they turn out gay or lesbian. At which point you'll have to explain to them why they can't get married, and in turn, shouldn't have sex. Just posing a hypothetical.
Telling them that children who have sex are bad kids is only going to backfire--believe me. I come from a very conservative home where I was told sex was to be strictly a marital condition. Of course, my parents lied to me about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. All of a sudden, NOW I'm supposed to believe what they say?
Why not just tell them sex is a very mature responsibility which contains extremely difficult emotions and implications? Telling them that sex is bad will be detrimental to their psychological welfare--of which I am a perfect case.
Then again, what makes teaching sex to children a parent's job and not reading, writing, or arithmetic? Considering that children attend school during this phase of their lives, it would seem sensible for schools to teach children. Furthermore, if you teach your children about sex education, why should you care if the school teaches it? Wouldn't that merely increase the possibility that the child would at least listen to one person? Better to have several adults tell them--the child can't simply dismiss it as "they don't know what they are talking about" if more than one adult explains it.
QUOTE(crazyinbama @ May 8 2004, 04:19 PM)
3. What did your parents tell you about sex, and/or... what did you tell your children about sex?
My Mom told me about STDs, and pregnancy. From my Mothers information, I made the decision not to have sex until I was an adult. I went to high school in the 80's and the word for girls that were having sex was "slut". That was a word my mom used a lot for girls having sex in high school. I plan to use that word with my daughters too, because kids having sex is negative and a good negative word needs to be applied to the activity. Kids having sex isn't okay, and all it causes is kids getting pregnant and having a kid! Not Cool at all!!!!
My Mom told me about STDs, and pregnancy. From my Mothers information, I made the decision not to have sex until I was an adult. I went to high school in the 80's and the word for girls that were having sex was "slut". That was a word my mom used a lot for girls having sex in high school. I plan to use that word with my daughters too, because kids having sex is negative and a good negative word needs to be applied to the activity. Kids having sex isn't okay, and all it causes is kids getting pregnant and having a kid! Not Cool at all!!!!
No mean to offend, but I'm glad I'm not your kid. My parents taught me sex was bad, but at least they still respected other people's decisions, whatever they may be. That's like teaching your children it's okay to say "faggot".
QUOTE
Unless, of course, they turn out gay or lesbian. At which point you'll have to explain to them why they can't get married, and in turn, shouldn't have sex. Just posing a hypothetical.
Thank you for pointing out what so many others are willing to ignore.
The schools need to teach sex because .... parents do not have the resources or (in most cases) the inclination to stay on top of all the developments in science regarding STDs, transmission rates, facts & figures, etc. Nor do some parents EVER want to teach a kid how to have safe sex. The parent should realize that no matter how much they say "Don't have sex" the decision is ultimately out of their hands. The school is there to provide true and factual information to children about sex. Not some mangled, possible factually incorrect version that parents supply. I believe the schools course on sex should extend to teaching safe homosexual sex. Because CERTAINLY the children who do experiment with or become homosexual will not have ANY information on how to protect themselves from their conservative parents. Some of whom end up disowning their children for their "decision" to become gay.
I'm studying to become PhD in physics yet I hesitate at my own ability to teach certain subjects to my children because I'm not qualified. I would not expect myself to be up to date on STDs and preventative measures by the time I have kids. I expect the schools to provide such education. But believe me, it will be supplemented by my own involvment in my child's life.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.