|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,676 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Like I've also said in this thread, you can't really make a point with teaching abstinence if you hand out condoms at the end of the lesson, can you?
They never handed out condoms when they taught us. I was able to skip high school health by taking a test so I dunno what they did in my school. But the first sex ed was in like 6th grade or perhaps in 7th/8th, I can't remember. When they taught us there was hardly going to be anyone having sex, we simply weren't interested in sex, it was more who like who and that kind of stuff. If they teach "don't have sex, your in like flint, have sex with condoms, they work but do you want to chance it, and unprotected sex is like sticking it in the grave, there is no point" then I would be happy. In fact that is what they did in 7th grade or whenever. I really think this is a state and local politics issue and I don't see the secular point in Bush handing out funding; how bad is the current system working? But Davo I can see what you mean, I just think once an issue like this has large social implications as well as....I guess logistical ones as well. We have a problem of Teen pregnancy and STDs, there is a social aspect in that parents want to dictate when their kids learn about sex. The other aspect is that kids/teens are having sex regardless of what their parents say/do. If we ensure that everyone at the age of lets say 13-15 has the same sex-ed then don't we ensure that atleast all teens who become sexually active have the correct information? Really what it comes down to is this: does teaching Sex-ed in schools really cause teens to have sex or do teens have the impulse to have sex anyway regardless of the meathod of education?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,367
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,367 |
And people wonder why pre-marital sex is outlawed in some religions - especially Islam.
Not such a bad idea when I think about it.
Sal Khan
00 SVT - Not pretty
00 Aprilia RSV Mille - Also Loved.
http://www.thelunchjournals.com
"I just want someone I can stand once her mouth is free of obstruction."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Davo:
I must have answered this question a half-dozen times or so already. Could it be he supports abstinence because it's the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs?? I don't see anything religious or moral about that.
Wonderful theory - now take the next step and explain what kind of success you expect to see from such a plan, when we're talking about the most powerful instinct there is.
It goes beyond naive or arrogant to think that just because abstinence it the only way to absolutely prevent pregnancy or STDs, that teaching only abstinence will significantly reduce the same.
It never did during some of the most repressive times in human history when church and government exercised a lot more control over people than they do today, and it certainly won't work in a (relatively) enlightened 21st century western society.
It makes me wonder if the objective really is to reduce teenage pregnancy or STDs, or perhaps, to try to impose a religious-based morality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Wonderful theory - now take the next step and explain what kind of success you expect to see from such a plan, when we're talking about the most powerful instinct there is.
I don't expect any success to come from sex education in schools. There is no success in public sex education. You can only hope that you do not damage them too much.
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
It makes me wonder if the objective really is to reduce teenage pregnancy or STDs, or perhaps, to try to impose a religious-based morality.
Right, and giving 6th graders condoms makes me wonder if the objective is really to impose some secular immorality on our kids.
Last edited by Davo; 12/03/04 08:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 41
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 41 |
yet the fact remains that since SOME schools began teaching sex education teen pregnancy and std among TEENS is down nationaly. They could always teach it the way I did my son. Explain the 'machanics'; explain the methods of prevention and the virtues of abstinance; say don't do drugs and wear a condom every time he walks out of the door. If he asks why: no drugs or alchohol until you reach your full height (physically & mentally) or it will stunt your growth. and from the 'Rosanne school of parenting': there's nothing like a screaming infant to kill the mood. 
Keep on rockin in the free world
my politics are simple...mean people suck
if they refuse to evolve: thin the herd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by wolfsong:
and wear a condom every time he walks out of the door.
that might get uncomfortable after a while. 
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone? 
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by PlatoSVT:
I'm trying to support Bush, although I didn't vote for him, but to me, this "abstinence only" education (and an INCREDIBLY pricey one at that) is just absurd. Kids aren't going to not have sex based on facts and fear. If Bush wants kids to follow his morals, he better start teaching them morals, judgement skills, and to think for themselves. They are going about this in an entirely wrong direction, IMHO, of course.
Actually, the Nov 2004 CDC data suggest we may be going in the right direction http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r041115.htm with the lowest teen pregnancy rate in recent history. Not saying the new emphasis on abstainence is soley responsible (as trends started in early 90s but continue today) but looks like it is not hurting. I really do not think that Bush's initiative eliminates the teaching of so called safe sex but basically shifts the primary focus. Frankly, I think alot of kids were mislead in the other direction..that condoms, etc were better than they were and oral sex (a pretty reasonable way to avoid pregnancy but pretty useful at spreading HIV and other STDs) was played up...certainly Bill Clinton's timely "I did not not regard that as sex" was widely quoted by smart ass kids.
Other points..the YEARLY condom failure rate (per CDC) is 15%..which leads by 4 years to a 48% chance of pregnancy with average (whatever that is) frequency. These are not great odds of avoiding pregnancy and similar risks (though lower overall) apply to HIV transmission. Recently released data on HIV transmission in gay men is sobering as well. Despite INTENSIVE, 100's of millions of dollars in safe sex education/programs/etc (NOT ABSTAINENCE education..virtually nil), the (per capita) rate of NEW HIV infections in this target population increased by 11% from 2000 to 2004. Cited was a "fatigue" in condom use (basically got tired of it) along with increased "over-confidence" in our ability to treat the disease. So while a focus on abstainence was not studied, we can say a focus on safe sex largely FAILED in this population..much to the utter disbelief/chagrin of some key thought leaders in the field.
I certainly think safe sex education has a place but a renewed emphasis on abstainence (as opposed to saying as an afterthought "BTW, not having sex is best") IMO seems a reasonable thing to try. Sounds like some facts being taught were incorrect but that is fixable.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,143 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Right, and giving 6th graders condoms makes me wonder if the objective is really to impose some secular immorality on our kids.
I am not sure where you come up with this idea, I know lots of schools might have them available, but giving them out? I'd like to hear of a school where the teacher passes them out to everyone on your way out the door. 
Perhaps we should see what the (Western) Europeans do, their teen pregnency rates are MUCH lower and I believe their STD transmission rates as well, and sex is all over the place in some of those countries. 
The more you push abstainence the more kids will not want to do it, look at drugs and alcohol, how many kids do that because they aren't supposed to?
"Bros before Hoes" <-- More men need this mentality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,155
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,155 |
All I needed were two phrases my dad (rip) always said: 1.)Always ask yourself "Will I hurt myself, or anyone else, if I _______________________" 2.) Do not bring shame to the family name. That was it. I feel schools need to stay neutral and teach all ideas equally, and for the most part they do that. I have sex and yes it's fun, better when you love someone, but most importantly I take the responsibility of a kid beforehand. Everyone's arguing "Abstinence". They argue this because they do not want an std or a pregnency. I respect that, so respect my choice to take the responsibility. No personal strikes made, so please none at me 
|
|
|
|
|
