This is great, please keep in mind while you're reading this that texas has the highest rate of teen pregnancy of any state in the union.

No condoms discussed in Health Textbooks

AUSTIN - Watchdog groups are calling for four textbook publishers to add a description of condoms to health books submitted for adoption by the State Board of Education.
>snip<
The state's required curriculum, known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, requires that health books "analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods."
The groups, which have joined to form the "Protect Our Kids Campaign," argue that three of the submitted books do not mention latex condoms and therefore do not adhere to the TEKS requirement. One of the books, published by Thomson Learning, includes a brief description of condoms.
>snip<
The decision could affect dozens of states because books sold in Texas, the nation's second-largest buyer of textbooks, are often marketed elsewhere. Texas, California and Florida account for more than 30 percent of the nation's $4 billion public school book market. Three dozen publishers invest millions of dollars in Texas.
END

I don't see how you could have a sex ed class and ommit all mention of condoms, like they don't exist or something. Condoms are pretty much the protection if you are having sex. Ah, texas, it's all black and white.


Questions:

Should a course presenting sexual education materials at least mention the existence of condoms?

Should a course presenting sexual education materials at least mention the existence of condoms?

Absolutely, condoms are the only method to have sex safely and to not cover them in sex education class is completely irresponsible. Condoms are not exactly self-explanatory either, most of the problems with unexpected pregnancies are because the condom was used incorrectly, not because the condom failed.

Regretably I have to say that Condoms were never discussed when I went to school in Texas many years ago either. In fact there was no such thing as sex education, we had health class which covered some basic biology, the stages of pregnancy and maybe paragraph long descriptions of the various STD's. Sex education in Texas is laughable largely due to ridiculous puritanical attitudes about sex, and the fact they have the highest teen pregnancy rate does not surprise me one bit.

Yeah, otherwise, what would be the point. I'm a big fan of abstinence, but if you're going to have a sex ed. class with a group of kids [at least a few of which will have sex] its imperative to mention condoms.

CP

Should a course presenting sexual education materials at least mention the existence of condoms?

Absolutely; anything less is being reckless with the kids' lives. Let's face it, kids are going to be having sex. They should at least bother to tell kids about the existence of condoms because they obviously aren't preventing teenage sex. Perhaps if they could prove that they were seeing a steady decrease in teen pregnancies and STD cases due to not mentioning condoms, a case could be made not to. But, alas, they can't. Abstinence-only education isn't some sort of teen-sex panacea; kids should be informed of condoms and other contraceptive methods.

It seems I've misquoted:
Texas has the 5th highest teenage pregnancy rate in the nation. Only 1 out of 10 girls age 15-19 get pregnant (annually?).
Stats

They have the 2nd highest birthrate: 69 per 1000 girls have a child between the ages of 15-19.

The national averages: preganancy 84 per 1000 girls, births 48 per 1000 girls. 1/3 of all teen pregnancies are terminated through abortion.


Isn't it just a litttle disturbing that while more than 1 in 20 girls are having babies texas continues to stress "abstinence?"

You can't legislate morality, whackos.

(it seems i've mispelled "omission" in my title, pity)

Being from Texas, and Austin more specifically, I find this interesting. I've lived here all my life and so I went though the education system. As far as I can remember the sex ed. was pretty short and cursory...or I just didn't pay attention. Although I do specifically going over contraceptives in a few classes and condoms were always the first thing to be mentioned; the no-briner. Although it is possible that my school had a different education program than the usual state required one.

I suppose the system needs to be re-evaluated and the level of coverage addressed. I don't understand how something like condoms could've been left out of sex ed. That's like leaving gravity out of a physics class.

Yes...but this isn't a sex education class, it is a health class. A supplimental detailed handbook with sex ed information was provided to be used at the discretion of the district, if they wished to include sexual education information as a part of the class. I see no problem with that. Obviously, a sex education class should include information about condoms, and all other forms of birth control.

"Health" class contain a sex ed section. Usually about a week long.

Apparently not always. They can call it 'sex ed' for a week, or whatever, but if they aren't teaching about birth control it isn't sex ed. It's more like a family photo album.

Your analysis of the data is incomplete. You tied abstinence only education to high rates in teen pregnancy, which is false. Nowhere in your links is there data to support this fallacy. In fact, the data from the Guttmacher study kills your hypothesis as California is ranked just two spots behind Texas in 7th place, and I know California does not teach abstinence only.

Here are a few facts which give better perspective on this issue.

1. Teen pregnancies are down in every state in the Union, as this reports demonstrates. That means that Texas has seen a reduction in teen pregnancies. Maybe their abstinence only programs are working?

2. Latino teens are almost three times more likely to become pregnant than whites, as this report by the Child Welfare League of America demonstrates. Obviously it is not a race problem, but rather an income problem. So if you look closer at the Guttmacher study you will find that the top seven states in teen pregnancies are Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and California. These are states that either border Mexico or have high latino populations. Maybe this better explains the elevated rates in teen pregnancy?

3. The Heritage Foundation has a piece which points to ten different studies around the United States which all demonstrate how abstinence only education significantly reduces teen pregnancies. It is possible that they cherry picked these studies, are there any studies which say otherwise? If so, maybe we can come to a closer approximation of the truth.

DeerJerkyDave, your statistics were from 1991 to 1996, the second from 1997. The Guttmacher Institute's statistics were updated February 19, 2004. I honestly don't know why you're trying to bring race and income into this anyway. I happen to know for a fact that teenagers have sex across all income levels and races Besides, it's plain common sense to realize that teenagers are going to have sex regardless of their sexual education - sex is one of the strongest instincts known to man. It is common sense to educate everyone, not to just say "don't have sex," use scare tactics, and then hope and pray that they don't have sex anyway - because if they did, they'd be screwed (not knowing how to protect themselves). Comprehensive sexual education just makes more sense. You teach that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, and also teach those who are sexually active how to protect themselves. Everybody wins.

This thread is not about what race has how many pregnancies. It's about the folly of abstinence-only education.

As for your last link, it really doesn't get any more biased than that.



Those who promote comprehensive sex ed promote teen sex? Even though abstinence is a part of it?! And then the whole "non-marital sexual activity" line just screams out "religious intolerance" - what about those who can't get married? And why is marriage the end-all cure-all for sexually related issues? It's not. The "save yourself until marriage" line makes no sense - are married virgins who has sex with each other at 25 less safe than unmarried virgins who have sex with each other at 25???
On beliefnet.com, I further address the whole "save yourself before marriage" spiel. You might want to check it out: Is Sex Before Marriage Safest?

SuzySteamBoat, I actually agree with you mostly that comprehensive sex education is important. My personal opinion is that abstinence should be stressed, but that protection should be also encouraged for those who choose not to be abstinent.

I understand that the Heritage foundation has strong opinions on the matter which may taint their objectivity. I mostly was directing my information at the studies in the link which were not performed by the Heritage foundation, and I think they have some validity.

I took the side of the abstinence only crowd when lethe called them "whackos." You can't provide disjoint logic, call it truth, and then name call. It was a cheap shot.

I see no need to mention condoms. Encouraging good old abstinence should work just fine. And if that doesn't work then perhaps drafting youth who get youth pregnant would work.

-sigh-
sorry fluteplayer, I had a reallly rough night. Just got word you were being sarcastic... I think...

post self-deleted.